Slashdot Mirror
Triple Helix — Designing a New Molecule of Life
Anti-Globalism sends in this quote from Scientific American about attempts to synthesize molecules that function as well or better than the natural building blocks of life:
"A molecule that some researchers study in pursuit of this vision is peptide nucleic acid (PNA), which mimics the information-storing features of DNA and RNA but is built on a proteinlike backbone that is simpler and sturdier than their sugar-phosphate backbones. ... Many studies have demonstrated PNA's suitability for modifying gene expression, mostly in molecular test-tube experiments and in cell cultures. Studies in animals have begun, as has research on ways to transform PNA into drugs that can readily enter a person's cells from the bloodstream. ... Some scientists have suggested that PNAs or a very similar molecule may have formed the basis of an early kind of life at a time before proteins, DNA and RNA had evolved. Perhaps rather than creating novel life, artificial-life researchers will be re-creating our earliest ancestors."
Soon we will have the "quatro helix DNA" and then 5 helixes and so on.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
If PNA functions "as well or better", then what exactly was the reason that RNA and DNA evolved in the first place?
What could possibly go wrong?
My whole being exists in a formless void.
I don't care if people build bio-"machines" out of components that are similar to ours. My objection, though, is if they *DO* use the same components as what we are made of. We have no idea how these "parts" would interact with our own physiology, so best that we aim for systems that use as little as possible from our own systems. Using something that is similar but is based in a different manner is good!
This will be how science finally gets us to 6-asses. I am pre-ordering my 6-assed monkey right now.
But will this really be an improvement? I don't even want to think about how many razor blades will be needed to shave all those asses. They'll probably have to come out with a 12-bladed disposable razor or something...
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Several years ago, I worked as a chemist for a small biochemical company in the UK, making modified olignucleotides and PNA.
IIRC, PNA had one outstanding feature: It binds to a complementary DNA strand much stronger than DNA itself (due in part to the lack of repulsion in the protein backbone. DNA's phosphate backbone is negatively charged).
Sadly, this means that two stands of PNA will bind extremely strongly to each other, and the forces required to unpair (part of the replication process) them would require different, "stronger" enzymes - so no chance of cell division, and no chance of life. (Still sounds cool though!)
Perhaps PNA is too stable, so that life forms based on it couldn't evolve through mutations quickly enough to adapt to changes.
This is a neat way of evolving. And some of you thought we were finished.
In the beginning of The Fifth Element, Leeloo was created from triple-helix-structured nucleic acids. So does this mean the scientists are just trying to create a punk-haired girl? Typical.
As all science-accepting persons knew, when you accept Evolution by Natural Selection as the means of development of intelligent life, it up until now has required some faith because of the impression of 500,000 monkeys pounding away on typewriters, writing:
"To be or not to be, that is the ka;lija;kja"
As believers in the accumulation of complexity, we knew we were missing something. Recently, that missing piece became apparent in a behavior of certain cancers that would attack a human and then, almost miraculously, work themselves out and end the mutation while healthy tissue grew around it. A self-healing tumor, nearly.
In my view, that innate ability to auto-correct destructive mutations is a critical and fundamental requirement for the accumulation of beneficial mutations as must have occurred for intelligent life to exist on earth--excluding Hoboken, of course.
kinda reminds me of the writings from this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_watts
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
nt
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
First we had dual core, then some went for three and now the quad-core is the norm.
So what's 'better' about PNR? Well, what immediately springs to mind is that it'd be similar to amino acids. And for life, amino acids and proteins are necessary. PNR could be considered 'more primitive' in the sense that it'd be more minimal - it could reuse a lot of the chemical pathways that would need to exist for amino acids.
What's 'worse' about it? I don't know. One likely reason that comes to mind is that it may not be stable enough for long chains, and hence, more complex life. That's the case for RNA. And the RNA-to-DNA transition in nature wasn't an easy one for sure: It's an very energy-demanding reaction that requires radical-formation. (in fact, chemists didn't even think radical reactions occured in biological systems until a decade or two ago)
The big if in your statement is "If PND had existed" perhaps it never expressed in any species and so was never around to compete.
proteinlike backbone
So they're using Wendy's Hamburgers for this? Sounds delicious
Have you watched any "reality TV?"
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
This deserves a "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag. They will end up developing some horrible new superbug that will kill us all or create some other horrible disease, or mess something up. When dealing with these sorts of things there are unintended consequences and the results can be disasterous. Manipulating genetics is far too dangerous in my opinion, especially since organisms self reproduce. We could end up contaminating our food supply or unleashing mutants that invade the world. It has already been shown that some genetically altered organisms cause kidney and liver damage and cancer, since these genes can escape into the environment reversing this damage can be nearly impossible. It has been shown that genetic engineering leads to totally unexpected, and often deadly results yeilding toxic foods and highly deformed organisms. This is due to the sheer complexity of the genetic system that we will never be able to understand, and that humans have evolved and developed to be able to process and utililize certain naturally occuring chemicals proteins, genetic engineering creates proteins which have never been consumed before and are well outside the normal limits of what would be produced by natural conception processes, as the food we have eaten for millions of years has been so, it is not surprising that these artificial synthetic foods are causing problems in peoples bodies. We are best staying with what our bodies are naturally adapted to handle over millions of years of evolution and away from risky frankenstienian experiments, and messing with or altering living things. Technology is great in your ipod, but i dont want it on my plate.
Even if it was just as good as DNA at some point, evolution is a historical science. An arbitrary 'choice' made in the past can steer the future of a system away from what would be a more fit state.
The choice between left- and right- handed amino acids was one such decision that was fixed by the system freezing into using one handedness over the other.
A slight difference in the proportion of DNA:PNA could have been amplified by feedback until only one survived.
or unleashing mutants that invade the world
..... in the test chamber
And if your speculation held true, then the same traits bad for evolution would be ideal for engineered organisms. I would imagine you would not want your engineered organisms to evolve to do something you hadn't intended.
How many helices are needed until we've created the 5th Element? :-) Sci-fi is so far ahead of actual science, it's almost scary.
Monitor bandwidth usage on IIS6 in real-time: http://www.waetech.com/services/iisbm/
Species 8472 called, they want their triple helix formations back. The borg weren't available for comment.
Note to the Darwinian zealots - these molecules are being designed.
Calling this "Triple Helix DNA" is a poor choice, considering that there already is something called Triple Helix DNA (or triple-stranded DNA), consisting of three nucleic acid base pair strands. DNA can also form Four-stranded structures as well.
... I'm sure anything developed will be designed with only a four-year life span - for safety.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
DNA's greatest advantage is its LACK of stability, which allows it to mutate and create all the diversity we have on the planet now. OK engineering a more stable form of genetic material may be cool, but that wouldn't necessarily make it a better/more successful life form. In fact, quite the opposite.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Just, roaches will never start a nuclear war in the first place.
There, you jinxed it.
I feel the need (on which I'll currently act) to point out that "whatcouldpossiblygowrong"=definitionofFUD.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
... seems like we're good on our way to our favorite universe ... they'll just add the fourth helix, make a virus that will "strenghten" our genome to make us mutation-proof and, lo and behold, we have FEV :]...
go Fallout!
I'm sitting here at my desk with tears in my eyes from laughing so hard. :D
Bah, now the rest of my day will be wasted away from trying to catch up on what The Onion has put out over the past year or two since I last visited them.
In the quantum realm the double helix is fundamental. All information is shaped by the fabric of space-time into a double helix. The inner core is the best part of the double helix. There is no better way to store quantum information than in the shape of a double helix. The triple helix is redundant. .