Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World-First Working Eukaryotic Cell Made From Plastic

Posted by samzenpus on from the I-prefer-real-cells dept.

Zothecula writes "Previously, chemists have managed to create artificial cell walls and developed synthetic DNA to produce self-replicating, synthetic bacterial cells. Now, for the first time, researchers have used polymers to produce an artificial eukaryotic cell capable of undertaking multiple chemical reactions through working organelles."

7 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. I am an artificial eukaryotic cell, too. by vikingpower · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am dressed in organic materials: membranes out wool, nylon, cotton that protect me from outside agressions. I have organelles that are clearly distinct from eachother: liver, spleen, heart, brains. I convert various sugars into chemical energy. And I have a function within the greater collection of my peers which we call a "society", instead of a "body". And hell yes, I produce waste: code.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:I am an artificial eukaryotic cell, too. by hummassa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're not a cancer, a cancer is a famous soccer player with 15 children, all rapidly procreating.

      --
      It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  2. Re:Not a cell by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Blame the university's press department, as always. There's quite a jump in hyperbole between the Ange and Nature Chem's comments, versus the press release. Why do journalists even read university press releases any more? You know they're going to be misleading.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  3. Re:Hmmm by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Every living thing contains DNA."

    That we know of.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  4. Re:Not a cell by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hey, I'm a very neat bag of water! Well, mostly water.

  5. Re:Hmmm by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fun fact: there is no clear definition of life that anyone can come up with. It's like Justice Potter's quote on porn: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."

    There are definitely RNA based viruses. It's debatable whether they qualify as "alive." Self-replicating RNA mollecules likely preceeded any DNA based life, whether you'd want to consider RNA replicating "life" is up to you.

    Personally I'd agree that RNA based viruses are living.

  6. Re:Hmmm by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mules can't reproduce*, yet are still clearly living. Meanwhile fire can reproduce but is clearly not living. That suggests that "able to reproduce" is not a strict requirement.

    (* Well okay, there have been some extremely rare instances of mules reproducing, but as a general rule they're infertile)