Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First DNA Molecule Constructed from Mostly Synthetic Components

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the add-another-helix dept.

ScienceDaily is reporting that Japanese chemists have created the world's first DNA molecule comprised of almost entirely artificial components. The breakthrough could lead to advances in both medicine and technology, possibly utilizing the massive storage capacity of DNA. "In the new study, Masahiko Inouye and colleagues point out that scientists have tried for years to develop artificial versions of DNA in order to extend its amazing information storage capabilities. As the genetic blueprint of all life forms, DNA uses the same set of four basic building blocks, known as bases, to code for a variety of proteins used in cell functioning and development. Until now, scientists have only been able to craft DNA molecules with one or a few artificial parts, including certain bases."

14 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. Whoopee! by clonan · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So in other words we can synthesize a variety of sugars.

    We can then take these sugars and string them together.

    Just for reference, custom oligo DNA chains have been available for purchase for the last 20 years. This is what makes PCR (DNA fingerprinting for example) work.

    I call "pointless" on this demonstration.

    1. Re:Whoopee! by clonan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ummm...that alternate nucleotides were possible was proven 30 years ago. Synthetic DNA was only created 20 years ago.

      While the 4 bases used do have some advantages in sysntesis, stability and other effects, tehre is no compelling reason that requiers thoes 4 bases.

      I have no idea how this got published...The reason a similar article hadn't been published earlier is because every reputable scientist in the field agrees with you:

      Now, I don't really see any immediately obvious applications for this new molecule

      This article did nothing to expand our knowledge. It didn't prove anything. All it showed is that the machine they ALREADY had in the lab could do everything the manual they got with it said it could.

      BTW, I don't see any responses modded down like you suggested...

    2. Re:Whoopee! by clonan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, I made a living for a number of years doing research with PCR.

      I sited DNA fingerprinting because it is a process that most people have heard of that uses PCR. Notice I said it was an example. My post was intended for those people WITHOUT advanced degrees in Biology/Chemistry. If you would like to talk about annealing temperatures, extension times, point mutations, hair-pin turns or anything else let me know.

      You are also right, DNA is not just sugar. It also includes the base and the phosphate group. However my snide remark is still valid. You are not talking about unusual chemistry. I am willing to bet good money that every component was readily available already.

      This team did nothing novel. As you pointed out, there are automated processes to manufacture short chain nucleotide chains. These machines are already capable of including single point mutations of non-typical nucleotides. All they did is fill up the machine with there off the shelf chemicals and hit go. They then re-ran the program but in reverse. When they mixed the two batches together....DNA molecules!

    3. Re:Whoopee! by pesho · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Dude, _read_ _the_ _fucking_ _article_! Their bases are not the stuff you can buy from the store. Look at the structures, they are not even going to pair with the regular bases. Their iG:iC pair uses DDA (donor, donor, acceptor) sequence of hydrogen bonds instead of ADD in the normal G:C pairs. I'll be surprised if you used similar 'alternate nucleotides' for the 'past 20 years' to 'create random mutations'. There is a practical use for these and is not for making 'random mutations'. Having alternative to DNA and RNA is one of the prerequisites in creating synthetic organisms with different genetics and biochemistry. Imagine starting the the evolution from scratch, or creating microbes for industry that can't exchange genetic information with the rest of the living organisms on earth.

    4. Re:Whoopee! by clonan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I work in pharmaceuticals. I am constantly shocked by what random chemicals someone has in stock just sitting there.

      Just because you can't buy them from a drug store doesn't mean it isn't readily availible (for the right price)

    5. Re:Whoopee! by clonan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First: C-Nucleosides are nothing new and are readily availible in catalogues

      Second: Life already uses a wide variety of non-coding nucleotides typically created through post synthesis modification. One example of post synthesis modification used to control coding is methylation.

      Unfortunetly, Slashdot lack of imagination and narrowmindedness when it comes to anything has lead to an automatic acceptance of everything as "neat." This is an example of wasted research money that did not creat new information and has not lead to any new insights into nature.

    6. Re:Whoopee! by yooy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > because every reputable scientist in the field agrees with you: > Now, I don't really see any immediately obvious applications for this new molecule Such a "scientist" would be very dumb. But feel free to give names. BTW, it was published in JACS, this should give you a hint about the importance. > This article did nothing to expand our knowledge. It created knowledge new nucleotides. As far as I know similiar stuff already exists. > It didn't prove anything. Big surprise. While we have heard about prove in mathematics, it is new in science to me. Concerning the applications, start browsing here: http://seemanlab4.chem.nyu.edu/

  2. Re:Entertaining Theological question... by the_brobdingnagian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does this organism have a soul?

    Do you (or anyone else) have a soul? Why would a "synthetic" human be any different?

  3. Re:For info storage? Nice idea in theory but... by mikael · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There was article some time where the scientists demonstrated how it was possible to solve the "Travelling salesman problem". Different strands of DNA were constructed to represent the different route segments that were possible and replicated. These were all mixed up together in a container and stirred together. As they were mixed together different strands would join up.

    The solution to the problem was the shortest strand that had the starting point and ending point, along with each and every route destination.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  4. Re:Entertaining Theological question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Just wait for Smallpox GPL.

  5. Re:Stress on base pairs by comm2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The current 4 bases allow 64 combinations (codons). Yet they're only 20 (actually 1 or 2 more) amino acids coded by them (- stop). Introducing new bases does not overcome this limit - the limit is in the tRNAs which are complementary to more than 1 codon. You would also have to create tRNAs complementary to your new codons and for that to be efficient you would need compatible enzymes loading these tRNAs with your new amino acid.
    The latter part is actually far more work then creating this type of 'artificial' DNA I think.

  6. The mystery of "life" by ortholattice · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There is a long, long way to go before a self-reproducing organism results from a random combination of DNA, artificial or not.

    It is possible for a very simple "lifeform" with only 54 base pairs to be self-reproducing, but only if it is parasitic. Such "lifeforms" exploit the complex and sophisticated DNA machinery of the host to accomplish reproduction.

    I found it amazing that the simplest known lifeform that can reproduce independently is the Mycoplasma genitalium bacteria, with 582970 base pairs! This probably isn't the simplest one that can theoretically exist - it is hard to imagine the right combination out of 4^582970 appearing at random in the pre-life organic soup - but whatever simpler thing existed before it is a mystery, as well as why none of the simpler forms still exist today (if that is the case).

    This has been bugging me for some time, and as far as I can tell no one has a good answer.

  7. Re:Can they use silicon in place of Carbon? by clonan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes...I am still convinced that carbon would rule the roost.

    In order for silicon to even remotely compete, Silicon dioxide would have to be gaseous. At the several hundred degree higher temp, large and complex molecules become unstable.

    In addition silicon is a larger atom which creates a greater limit on structures than carbon.

    Carbon would still be used with Ammonia. Using methane absolutely requires carbon (methane being a hydrocarbon).

    There is no known condition in which silicon would be preferable while still allowing for large complex molecules.

    I get annoyed when people ignore basic physics and chemistry for their own pet beliefs.

  8. Re:the SAME building blocks?! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd surmised the same, but haven't seen any research on this... could you steer me to some good reading on the topic?

    Thanks.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai