Slashdot Mirror
Artificial Bases Added to DNA
holy_calamity writes "Researchers have successfully added two 'unnatural' DNA letters to the code of life. They created two artificial base pairs that are treated as normal by an enzyme that replicates and fixes DNA inside cells. This raises the prospect of engineering life forms with genetic code not possible within nature, allowing new kinds of genetic engineering."
All your artificial base are belong to these researchers.
Researchers from KFC (tm) ?
839*929
Why is it that every single article that references any scientific development in the fields of genetics or molecular biology gets the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag on Slashdot? What does this say about our society, since Slashdot members tend to represent the more educated and successful members to begin with? Have we really become such fat lazy luddites that we will reject anything we do not understand, on the basis of an infinitesmally-small risk to our (relatively) decadent and luxurious life?
Do we really only perceive biologists as madmen who want to do evil experients for the heck of it? I've seen this trend spiral out of control, and frankly, I am ASHAMED.
Sagtacy.
We don't even fully understand the genome, and we're going to complicate it further.
We know what happens with the 'natural' bases--they indicate which amino acids are selected to produce which proteins.
I'm curious as to whether this will result in new kinds of proteins, or whether new amino acids will be required to be built, or what other effects might crop up.
It's interesting, don't get me wrong--but how -practical- is it?
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
So they manage to build a pair of molecules that can be sucessfully copied when put in a DNA helix, that's something worth publishing in a biochemistery journal, but I don't see how those new molecules could be interpreted by the cell to build new man-designed proteins. Wouldn't it be easier to use man-designed regular DNA sequences that the cell know how to interpret?
Great, we're one step closer to furries, someone call Lowtax.
This could be really useful in the long-term: if we could substitute replacement codons that work with most of our existing DNA, it's one step to building really tough DNA. Right now, there are a lot of damage mechanisms like adjacent thymines linking resulting from exposure to chemicals or shortwave radiation, and replacement codons engineered to not be suseptible to these could make, say, protracted exposure to radiation outside the Earth's protective atmosphere more viable. Of course, then we'd have to engineer a whole set of enzymes to synthesize those new codons, which is an extremely hard project, but finding things that work as replacement base pairs, now, gives us time to study how they might fail and figure out what the best candidates are.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Even if its banned in the US, *other* countries will eventually start experimenting and create a super-race that works 80-hour-weeks without fatigue. Then other countries are going to have to follow to compete, or be left in the dust.
Table-ized A.I.
This is only 'not possible within nature' if you make some weird divide when defining nature between humans and everything else in the world. I realize that in the past this was a common thing to do, especially in many religions. But can someone explain what is 'not natural' about humans? Why are the structures we build in cities any 'less natural' than a bird building a nest?
U and S! Resulting in a viral spread of democracy throughout the world!
If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
We already have something like this. You know all those uptight restrictions against sex that the religious fundamentalists are always going on about? God put those in the Bible as a sort of DRM to control the copying of His DNA that He owns.
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
As I don't even understand WTF they've done, I'm gunna go ahead and suggest that this isn't the technology I've been waiting for.
Problem: it is now possible for people to take the DNA sequence for a nasty virus off the web and send it into a DNA synthesis company, pay the $20,000 and get vials and vials of the virus sent to them in under a month. And next year the price will drop to $10,000.. and the year after it will drop to $5,000.. and the year after it will drop to $2500.. and the year after it will drop to $1250, etc.
One Solution: tag each strand of DNA that is synthesized with an "batch number" by incorporating a pattern of artificial bases that will be replicated each time the DNA sequence is replicated. So if someone gets a nasty virus synthesized and puts it in the subway or something then you can read the batch number and trace who bought the DNA.
How we know is more important than what we know.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Yes what could possibly go wrong? I'm really wracking my brains and I'm having a job
Since these Bases are not synthesized in the wild there is no chance of the altered DNA getting propagated in somethings genome and since there (presumably) not recognized by tRNA they can't affect translation
...sounds like they're making some kind of social progress.
You're right. The intention here is not to create new proteins, but to tag DNA and possibly create new DNA nanostructures. At the end of the day, mRNAs that are translated to proteins still will only have access to the same set of tRNAs, and therefore, the same 20 amino-acids.
The article can be found here. [PDF download requires a subscription]
A more interesting discovery (in my opinion) -- from the Scripps Institute -- was made about ~10-15 years ago (IIRC) by Pete Schultz's group. They modified tRNAs so that specific codons (DNA/RNA triplets) could incorporate chemically-modified amino-acids into a protein. Some of this has led to interesting work on protein tagging, functional studies as well as the study of molecular evolution. All this is done with in vitro translation, as far as I know.
Biologists aren't evil per say, but they will do almost anything for a grant;) Also keep in mind Risks can only be know with a large sample base. We don't know what the effect any drug is going to be on humans until we test it on statistically large enough groups. The same applies with these type of experiments. The tag is, for me just a reminder that we need to make sure that the proper ethical guidelines are followed and enough experimentation has been done to ensure that we have not invented a new courage for humans or organisms that we care about.
To put it in terms more slashdotters will understand: you don't add new code to a production system with out figuring out ahead of time what could possibly go wrong.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
DNA is NOT protein! So we have an additional two letters to the genomic alphabet. BFD! The most likely scenario is that DNA would either be non-sensical or just be alternate codings for amino acids. You would need to engineer some "regular" DNA to code for proteins that can handle exotic amino acids (ie proteins to get them inside cells, tag them for use, and proteins that have recognition sites for these things). Then you'll have a protein no one has seen before. Of course, regular genetic engineering already has the capability to make weird proteins no one has seen before.
These two "new bases" are basically nucleoside analogues...which have existed for years. Usually they are used in anti-viral applications. What happens, is that they are similar enough to existing bases to be incorporated into a growing DNA strand, but are different enough to be unreadable. This works to put a monkey wrench in the viral machinery. The article is very vague, but what Im taking from it is that these two new bases are readable, and that with a proper supply, DNA containing these bases can be properly replicated. What I'm interested in knowing, is how the new codons containing these bases will be interpreted.
Basically the summary of the article can be boiled down to:
:)
Scientists: "Yay! We finally crammed a new pair of DNA molecules!"
Journalist: "What do they do?"
Scientists: "We don't know, but we're gonna study it! It was really hard to cram that thing in there, it's like hammering a piece of a jigsaw puzzle where it didn't belong. Now we're going to study how it will react and how the surroundings react to it."
Journalist: "So what will this do for the future?"
Scientists: "More generally, Romesberg notes that DNA and RNA are now being used for hundreds of purposes: for example, to build complex shapes, build complex nanostructures, silence disease genes, or even perform calculations. A new, unnatural, base pair could multiply and diversify these applications."
Journalist: "Cool"
Scientists: "Word! Oh and we're not sure of the tools we can do with it, I'm sure they'll be cool and awesome when we discover the tools we can make with this. It HAS to be cool, we used genetic engineering!"
And that's that.
Now go home and watch Resident Evil. I wonder if someone will start a business and call it "The Umbrella Corporation"
A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere. -- Groucho Marx
There is a place for fear, uncertainty, and doubt when it comes to new science and new technology. Let me rephrase that: There is a place for respect for and investigation of the unknown when it comes to new science and new technology.
Take nanotechnology for example. There is no place for sky-is-falling panic over "new asbestosis" and other possibilities, but researchers seriously should look into things like this to put a real, hard, risk assessment on these possibilities. Let's suppose that by 2015 there will be X amount of this or that nanotech in use. What can we predict about the rate of lung disease and how much, if any, of this will be attributable to nanotech? Is this amount acceptable? If not, what if anything can or should be done to reduce the risk?
Likewise, people doing research in genetic engineering, particularly with totally novel life forms, need to ask themselves "what could possibly go wrong," "what is the likelihood of that happening," "how can the risk be reduced or mitigated," and "should we go to the effort to reduce or mitigate the risk." In many cases, the risk is low, the consequences are minor, and/or the cost of mitigation or prevention is high and the logical choice is to accept the new technology and live with the acceptable risks.
In other cases, the risk is high, the consequences are dire, and/or the cost of mitigation or prevention is low and it makes sense to prevent or mitigate the risks.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Plus, let's face it -- there are articles where the tag is wonderfully appropriate as ironic snark, but this one isn't it. I mean, it's great for articles like this one about mass production of micro fission reactors or this one about the proposed future of military robots. Sometimes, it's funny when the very proposition of something going wrong is itself funny like with an article on a robot controlled by a monkey's brain.
However, dangers and recklessness involved in this project are next to nil. There's no irony and clever cynicism here. There's just the mindless misapplication of an overdone meme in a manner that makes Slashdot look like a bunch of technology fearing idiots. So yeah. While I don't think it's worth getting so worked up about, it is a stupidly applied tag and a failed attempt at humor.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
It's probably because you're in the "too active" segment of the Slashdot population. Do most of your browsing while logged out and let many of your comments stay anon and after a long enough "retirement" you'll probably slip into the mod pool like I eventually did.
That's a completely backwards and retarded way of handing out mod points. Why should those that are active not be able to moderate? An active contributer is more likely to keep up with the discussions and care about the outcome of the site not those that are continuously not logged in (which I refuse to be because of the completely worthless "new discussion system" that doesn't work on my mobile device worth a fucking shit and looks like shit on any other browser IMHO).
If gene sequencing is like programming and intelligence design is real, is God somewhere trying to decipher this new DNA and muttering obscenities under his breath?
"since Slashdot members tend to represent the more educated and successful members to begin with?"
The above statement deserves a +1 funny
Stories sectioned Science.
Best Slashdot Co
There is an old saying not to fix what isn't broken.
/. crowd is all about adopting new technologies, they are also quick to rain derision upon useless and dangerous tech as well. Look at the stance on DRM for instance.
There are many subtleties to the natural world which we as humans don't understand. While we uncover more and more every day, we can never know enough to make me comfortable with the idea of significantly altering life on our planet (beyond basic low tech breeding of course).
For instance, long ago we considered exceedingly pure refined nutrients to be the best for us, but it turns out our bodies actually depend on certain "impurities" to properly absorb them.
While depression and pessimism are viewed by the majority to be counterproductive, eliminating them through genetic engineering in all likelihood would remove a necessary sobering influence on our society.
Overspecializing in physical strength, altering our neuro-structure, or adding new "features" may very well lead to overspecialization and extinction.
This is nothing to laugh about, and while the
Then again people rated your post funny. Maybe this post is the sound of a joke whooshing high above my head?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Clicking the triangle next to the tags magically drops down a box so you can add your own!
Who knew!
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
If you make a lot of comments, you probably are very opinionated and would take one side in an argument.
If you don't make a lot of comments, you probably have not shot your mouth off about a given topic (remember the duplicates and the topics that are similar). If you have not already committed yourself in writing then you are more likely to moderate on the substance of the discussion rather than your own feelings.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
You have conflated cross-breeding with the work being done by these scientists. They have not just moved around bits of DNA, they have concocted a means for introducing new components into the DNA code. This becomes essentially life that is alien to Earth biology.
Combine this with work going on to introduce organisms that use proteins and enzymes that are beyond the range of all of earth's current life forms, and you have the basis for creating life that is impervious to all known biological agents.
So, while few of us fear Angus beef or white-shelled eggs, many of us fear pandemics of viruses that will kill hundreds of millions, maybe billions, and if engineered with these new components, might be unstoppable.
Your reference to 'the moderators' as if they are some secret organisation with a nefarious agenda is clueless. Moderators are randomly selected readers acting independently who when posting comments or meta-moderating have managed to act objectively and with restraint, or at least have had the sense to post anonymously when trolling. The GPs attitude, even the fact that he is whining about not getting points, probably reflects the reason he doesn't get points.
The largest ramification I can think of is that using artifical base-pairs for DNA would lead to easier identification of engineered life in "the wild". This could be something as simple as a repeated "NOP" sequence that identifies the part and manufacturuer like a serial number, by way of frequency and sequence of these artifical protiens.
Things could even go as far as to impose government controls on engineered organisms, forcing such identification mechanisms for forensics purposes. This would be handy since you'd never mistake the engineered protiens for anything natural. It would also have serious patent control implications, as tracing the linage of a "pirated hybrid organism" would be possible.
Artifical base pairs could also help with more exotic DNA-based tools that only communicate in and amongst themselves, thereby side-stepping any natural DNA machinery about. This would be useful for medical purposes, or even to harden the engineered organism against swapping DNA with it's wild/natural ancestor types. For instance: any swap with a wild bacterium could be set to have a high likelyhood of killing both would-be hybrids.
Another set of possibilities is along the lines of bettering mother nature: to have a set of DNA-like building blocks that are more robust and capable than the natural ones. Better radiation endurance, for one, sticks out in my mind as a potentially useful attribute. I'm sure there's other tricks protiens can be taught.
As for side-effects: who knows. We might get another branch off the tree of life out of this, or sound the march towards post-humanism, or we might just get a bunch of really fragile microbes suitable for only the most niche of engineering and science tasks.
Your reference to 'the moderators' as if they are some secret organisation with a nefarious agenda is clueless.
Well done, boy. Our secret is safe again. You will be rewarded by our leadership. B-)
Don't worry about a lighter, just upgrade your DNA with these base pairs. You'll be able to shoot fire from your fingertips!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
You, for one, should welcome your nefarious moderating overlords. On /., I moderate you!