Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech

Researchers Design DNA With New Shapes and Structures 47

Jason Koebler writes: The shape of DNA is a double helix, right? That's what we are taught. Well, now the answer is "not always." Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have discovered how to program DNA to be shaped like a bowl, or a spiral, or a ring, or other shapes that aren't found in nature.

It's the latest in a string of discoveries about the underlying structure of life and the building blocks by which it's made. Recently, scientists created new nucleotides that do not exist in nature and inserted them into a living organism. And now, this: DNA can look like just about anything and can be assembled into many shapes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Researchers Design DNA With New Shapes and Structures

Comments Filter:
  • Multipass (Score:5, Funny)

    by RivenAleem ( 1590553 ) on Friday December 05, 2014 @11:09AM (#48530985)

    Me fifth element - supreme being. Me protect you.

  • The next step should be to figure out how to create DNA "tools" to help assemble molecular scale machines!
  • Humor (Score:4, Funny)

    by justsomecomputerguy ( 545196 ) on Friday December 05, 2014 @11:15AM (#48531041) Homepage
    What do you make of it Johnny?! Well, you can make a hat, a broach, a pterodacty!....
  • by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Friday December 05, 2014 @11:26AM (#48531153)

    This should be a given, this is how the body makes proteins. The "recipe" is stored in the DNA, the transcriber runs along the DNA making a copy and then it folds into the protein when the copy is complete. A small mistake in the transcription and it doesn't fold into the right protein or doesn't fold at all. This is why protein research is so hard right now, they don't fully understand what governs how the proteins fold.

    This research may give them a leg up on understanding that, very cool that they figured out some of the rules.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      They're folding DNA itself, not proteins.

      In life, DNA gets translated into RNA, RNA is then grabbed by a ribosome which attaches the correct amino acids. Then the amino acids magically fold into a working protein (hopefully).

    • by kebes ( 861706 ) on Friday December 05, 2014 @01:40PM (#48532513) Journal
      The base-pair sequence of DNA determines its biological function. As you say, this sequence determines what kinds of proteins get made, including their exact shape (and more broadly how they behave).

      But TFA is talking about the conformation (shape) of the DNA strand itself, not the protein structures that the DNA strand is used to make.

      In living organisms, the long DNA molecule always forms a double-helix, irrespective of the base-pair sequence within the DNA. DNA double helices do actually twist and wrap into larger-scale structures: specifically by wrapping around histones [wikipedia.org], and then twisting into larger helices that eventually form chromosomes [wikipedia.org]. There are hints that the DNA sequence itself is actually important in controlling how this twisting/packing happens (with ongoing research about how (innapropriately-named) "junk DNA [wikipedia.org]" plays a crucial role). However, despite this influence between sequence and super-structure, DNA strands essentially are just forming double-helices at the lowest level: i.e. two complementary DNA strands are pairing up to make a really-long double-helix.

      What TFA is talking about is a field called "DNA nanotechnology", where researchers synthesize non-natural DNA sequences. If cleverly designed, these sequences will, when they do their usual base-pairing, form a structure more complex than the traditional "really-long double-helix". The structures that are designed do not occur naturally. People have created some really complex structures, made entirely using DNA. Again, these are structures made out of DNA (not structures that DNA generates). You can see some examples by searching for "DNA origami [wikipedia.org]". E.g. one of the famous structures was to create a nano-sized smiley face [caltech.edu]; others have 3D geometric shapes [dana-farber.org], nano-boxes [medgadget.com] and bottles [katiephd.com], gear-like [nature.com] constructs, and all kinds of other things.

      The 'trick' is to violate the assumptions of DNA base-pairing that occur in nature. In living cells, DNA sequences are created as two long complementary strands, which pair up with each other. The idea in DNA nanotechnology is to create an assortment of strands. None of the strands are perfectly complementary to each other, but 'sub-regions' of some strands are complementary to 'sub-regions' on other strands. As they start pairing-up with each other, this creates cross-connections between all the various strands. The end result (if your design is done correctly) is that the strands spontaneously form a ver well-defined 3D structure, with nanoscale precision. The advantage of this "self-assembly [wikipedia.org]" is that you get billions of copies of the intended structure forming spontaneously and rapidly. Very cool stuff.

      This kind of thing has been ongoing since 2006 at least. TFA erroneously implies that this most recent publication invented the field. Actually, this most recent publication is some nice work about how the design process can be made more robust (and software-automated). So, it's a fine paper, but certainly not the first demonstration of artificial 3D DNA nano-objects.
      • form a structure more complex than the traditional "really-long double-helix".

        I do think TFS is a little misleading, since all the structures are still made out of helices (with bends and junctions and so forth).

  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Friday December 05, 2014 @11:30AM (#48531189) Journal
    It is still double helix. It is the tertiary structure that is being played with, not the helix. Without the double helix, it would be to easy to have errors. In addition, nature enzymes are designed for double helix and the zipper effect.
    • Without the double helix, it would be to easy to have errors.

      Can you please elaborate on that? It sounds cool... is there something specific to the shape of the double helix that makes storage or transcription less error-prone?

  • DNA shaped like a spiral is the key [wikipedia.org].

  • http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2... [nature.com]
    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2... [nature.com]

    I gotta figger out how to make screensavers......

  • Cosmic DNA? (Score:4, Informative)

    by handy_vandal ( 606174 ) on Friday December 05, 2014 @11:42AM (#48531295) Homepage Journal

    Space dust may store information as a double helix.

    A new computer simulation shows that dust immersed in ionized gas (i.e., dusty plasmas) can organize itself into double helixes. The simulations suggested that under conditions commonly found in space, the dust particles first form a cylindrical structure that sometimes evolved into helical structures. Along some spirals, the radius of the helix was seen to change abruptly from one value to another and then back again, providing a mechanism for storing information in terms of the length and radius of a section of a spiral.

    Hessdalen light [wikipedia.org]

  • I so want to see them make Mobius DNA!
  • I think the title is misleading.

    It sure looks like they are using the double helix style of DNA and then weaving that into shapes or wound ribbons.

    Am I missing something here?

  • The primary structure for double-stranded DNA is most often a double helix. Single stranded will try to form similarly complementary structures to minimize unbalanced charges. However from the primary structure you can get into secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures that go well beyond that. One really good example is the structure of a chromosome which starts with double-stranded DNA (as a double helix) wrapping around histones to form chromatin. From there it condenses further, eventually reac
  • I will not be satisfied until they spell out METALLICA in DNA. (pre-black album metallica, you know)

  • " that do not exist in nature and inserted them into a living organism"

    GMO's aren't the problem, how we use them is.....now this ?
    There's a reason to believe in the complexity of Evolution's tests and trials.
    When we start mucking around with building blocks like this let's hope we remember that we don't
    really know how this lego set will act once it's built up....really interesting though I must admit.

    (GMOs belongs in Labs and Cures, not in crops or Livestock)
  • This isn't even remotely new. People have been doing DNA origami for years. This article isn't about building anything new, it's about software that can better predict how the DNA will fold given a certain construction method.

    DNA origami is mostly novelty, anyways. Most researchers have moved on to using DNA to build structures that actually do useful things, rather than just look pretty.
  • I think is still too early to celebrate the technique, this are mostly just computer predictions that have not yet been proven in the lab, there are a lot of things in biology that are supposed to happen based in computer simulations that simply don't in a flask. If you have a million compounds and dock them to a single active site in a protein you may get around a thousand that are predicted to work inhibiting that site, when you test them you are lucky if a couple really have some kind of significant inhi

    • Actually, the current roadblock isn't in silico->in vitro, it's in vitro->in vivo. There are plenty of really cool mechanical or "electronic" devices built with DNA/RNA/proteins in wetlabs. You are absolutely correct that the stochasticity makes the goal reaction(s) unreliable, but that's why they make extensive use of amplifiers to replicate desired outputs to the point that they will reliably continue the reaction or report the result. It takes a lot of redundancy and it's not fast (at least as c

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Working...