Slashdot Mirror


New Letters Added To the Genetic Alphabet

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Quanta Magazine: [A]fter decades of work, [organic chemist Steven] Benner's team has synthesized artificially enhanced DNA that functions much like ordinary DNA, if not better. In two papers published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society last month, the researchers have shown that two synthetic nucleotides called P and Z fit seamlessly into DNA's helical structure, maintaining the natural shape of DNA. Moreover, DNA sequences incorporating these letters can evolve just like traditional DNA, a first for an expanded genetic alphabet. In fact, the article continues, these new nucleotides can actually outperform their natural counterparts: "When challenged to evolve a segment that selectively binds to cancer cells, DNA sequences using P and Z did better than those without."

6 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. P-Z viruses as a tool? by Chikungunya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is not clear how the new nucleotides act when transcribing proteins but assuming its at least as efficient as the 4 letter code it could be a very interesting option for artificial viruses. A virus engineered to be totally dependent on the new nucleotides could be used much more safely even inside humans where there is no supply of them, they could infect the cells, produce proteins and a huge immune response but not a single copy of their genetic material could be produced. Also in a controlled environment they would thrive (cheap production?) but without P-Z no danger of new virus production so safety would not need to be as strict.

    Applications on real organisms probably will take much longer time, but the simplicity of virus would make it a natural first step.

    1. Re:P-Z viruses as a tool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's far, far away at this point. In cells, DNA is first "transcribed" to an RNA copy of the same information, then "translated" by building a protein based on that information. Neither of those steps will work correctly here. Transcription enzymes won't handle the new DNA letters, and there's no defined meaning for them in the standard translation code: at best they'll be misinterpreted as a different letter, and it's more likely that translation will simply fail. And unless you can make at least a handful of proteins, you can't make a virus.

  2. Outperform - less stable by crow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They say the new DNA outperforms the standard DNA in evolving to meet the researcher's criteria. That means it changes more easily. In other words, it's less stable.

    In most situations, what we want is stability. Nature needs some ability to mutate and evolve, but considering that the wrong mutations result in cancer and death, too high of a mutation rate leads to failure. I suspect this is particularly true in long-lived larger organisms.

    1. Re:Outperform - less stable by Megane · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The article I read also said "IT HAS 216 COMBINATIONS!!1!!@@!! REGULAR DNA ONLY HAS 20!!!@!". Which is stupid because they're counting two different ways. 6^3 is indeed 216, but 4^3 is 64, and 20 is 31% utilization of 64 possibilities.

      The reason is that some combinations are reserved for start and stop codons, and most amino acids have 2 or 4 redundant codings. This both reduces the effect of random mutations, and also makes multi-frame coding work better by being less strict. The bits that match the codes to amino acids when building proteins probably use some kind of wildcards, reducing the number of them needed when you have to basically have a unique small chemical around to match each valid combination. It would be more realistic to say that the new base pairs would allow 45-50 or so new protein codings, still more than tripling the potential number of amino acids.

      That being said, a new set of base pairs is really cool. There have been experiments to create alternate DNA codings by re-purposing some of the redundant codings, but there is a backward compatibility kind of problem when doing that. This not only allows a lot of new codes, but the new base pairs themselves have interesting properties. One even has a bond out to the side that you can connect things too. And the twisty folding stuff that RNA likes to do can become a lot more complicated.

      And why does Earth life use only 4 base pairs? Probably because the extra complexity just isn't all that useful. CGAT has been around for a couple of billion years, so it's got more installed base behind it than QWERWTY vs DVORAK could ever have. Except this is more like adding a new row or three to QWERTY for more roman-letter characters, such as a bunch of letters with diacritical marks on them, like how the French went nuts romanizing Vietnamese.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  3. Wondering why it did not occur naturally by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The article talks about the potential benefits and drawbacks of the six letter system. If there were advantages nature would have stumbled on it eons ago. Why did it not happen?

    Of course we did not evolve wheels neither. Almost all animals above worms are torii topologically. (The digestive tract is the hole in the ring). There is one bacteria that has a free spinning flagellum. So nature started on that kind of disjoint topology, but could not scale it beyond bacteria. Two symbiotic animals one providing a wheel with shaft and another providing the bearing, together could have formed a wheeled animal. But that never happened, there is no path in the fitness landscape to achieve that configuration. Is it something fundamental like this that prevented six letter DNA

    Or, more prosaically, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. After all computers use binary not tertiary numbers. The four letter DNA is technically a binary system. Two pairs. So even if this thing escapes the laboratory it won't thrive in the wild and wipe out all the present forms of life Comforting if it is so.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  4. part of a broader effort by Goldsmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is part of a broader DARPA driven effort to expand what biology is capable of.

    The end goal is to be able to create new materials (better fuels, medicines, building materials, etc) using biology. This requires expanding the "toolkit" biology uses to incorporate biologically incompatible elements, chemicals and processes.

    So, starting from the end: We want a better biofuel. To do that, we want proteins that can better incorporate inorganic catalysts and work at higher energies than existing biology. To do that, we need different amino acids and protein construction machinery. To do that, we want to expand DNA to code for these new amino acids.

    This is a "good" DARPA project in that we're not able to do all of this yet. What this means is that technology is pushed forward significantly, and we're able to clearly identify the real challenges.