Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Discover a New Way To Use DNA As a Storage Device (betanews.com)
Mark Wilson shares a report from BetaNews: Researchers from the Waterford Institute of Technology (WIT) in Ireland have developed a way to use bacteria to archive up to up to one zettabyte in one gram of DNA. The technique uses double-strained DNA molecules called plasmids to encode data which is stored in the Novablue strain of the E Coli bacteria. The Novablue bacteria has a fixed location, making it viable for storage, and the data can be transferred by releasing a mobile HB101 strain of E Coli which uses a process called conjugation to extract the data. The antibiotics tetracycline and streptomycin are used to control this process. The method is currently not only expensive, but also slow. Data retrieval takes up to three days at the moment, but researchers believe it should be possible to dramatically speed up this process. Equipment already exists that can be used to write to DNA in seconds. Stability and security are also an issue right now, but it is very early days for the technique, and these current downsides are not viewed as being significant enough to write it off. Potential uses for this method of data storage that have been suggested include the recording of medical records in human DNA, and increasing the traceability of the food chain.
Do you want the Resident Evil T-Virus? Because this is how you get the Resident Evil T-Virus.
At least we finally know how the human race goes extinct.
Might as well let MS-NSA have my DNA too.
Generating electricity Yes :) Whole specimens.... :P
[($)]
I recall Harvard guys doing data encoding with DNA a few years ago. Same cost/benefit in their technique (don't recall exact specifics beyond the four bases = quaternary number system in their encoding scheme): The information density is vast, but I/O slooow.
Their application ideas were interesting though; like tiny cameras with memory integrated into wall paint - it would archive history of the room. All kinds of stuff one would think of needing tape backup circa 1995 these guys were pretty sure could be future niche for DNA memory. Interesting observation was how tough DNA is; million year old examples abound throughout wide variety of earth environments.
1 zettabyte = 1e9 terabytes
3 days = 259200 seconds
1 zettabyte / 3 days = 3,858 terabytes per second
That sounds pretty quick to me, considering that the current Fiber Optic speed record is only 1,050 terrabits per second or about 131 terrabytes per second.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
"technique uses double-strained ", I think they mean double-stranded
doesn't seem too bad
For those wondering, there's been studies and research on maximum genome size, and beyond a certain point (a couple hundred picograms) the mechanisms don't work for copying/processing/maintaining DNA. The largest animal genome would be around 132 micrograms (marbled lungfish)
http://www.genomesize.com/stat...
A picogram is 1/1,000,000,000,000 of a gram, so yeah, getting up to a full gram of the stuff, you can store a LOT of raw data - but it's not something you're going to have survive on its own without a very specialized sort of engineered life/system, and likely secondary specialized critters to defend it against regular old microorganisms.
The other problem would be read/write speed - DNA replication isn't fast with current life processes... scale that up a few billion times, and you're definitely going to have to do something different than how life as is does things.
Ryan Fenton
still wont recommend this if its a seagate
Why would you store digital information in a medium that has a natural half life, and breaks down under mild heat, exposure to sunlight, x-rays, and other ambient radiation?
I can see burning information into glass, magnetic media, aluminum discs, carbon, etc. and other static media. But why bother with inherently decomposing forms?
"The antibiotics tetracycline and streptomycin are used to control this process"
What happens when generations of the bacteria develop resistance?
If the E.Coli breeds along with its data, who do you sue?
Much more important question than those of mere technical possibility.
When I drop crumbs in my keyboard while eating lunch at my desk, I always try to leave them there to let a culture form so I can increase my storage. But there's always someone in the office who comes along with alcohol wipes and deletes my files. Not reliable!
But that is not enough to justify a cut our funding? Please?
Or is the actual research better than the slashdot article?
Seems an incredibly stupid way to use antibiotics.
now that would have added a real wow-factor to this research.
If it takes 3 days for a bacteria to produce a datum, then surely 3 bacteria can produce the datum in a day. Add a million or so and you've got yourself a speedy little data retrieval device. It's nothing but an engineering problem.
whenever DNA is proposed as a data storage means, we find the following 3 rules apply
1 magnetic storage is cheaper and better then anything else
2 the proposed system is way more complex, and hasn't actually encoded much data
3 Slashdot fanboys will slaver over it
PS
this is the paper that describes, in very poor english, the method
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.04774.pdf
PPS
read the bottom of Page 4 in the pdf
you have to synthesize the DNA into plasmids
this is like a total non starter for commercial viability, but, hey, this is slashdot
Sorry boss, the data storage evolved so I couldn't complete those TPS reports you asked for. And I'm taking the rest of day off because the bacteria in my computer gave me a bad case of the Dreaded Lurgi.
Have 37.2 TB available.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
They'll have to be careful with the coding scheme.
Otherwise it would be possible to write an actual virus just by storing appropriate data into a file.
Note that both DNA and RNA can have enzymatic activity - including functions that would cut them out of the backbone and form them into a viral genome, along with the molecular machinery to package and deliver it.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
*ducks*
Can you RAID these things? What sort of error correction exists here? ECC DNA?
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Yes, we generally know this, tell us something new. Engineering principles haven't changed -> you can create logical circuits out of plumbing, electricity, optics, what-have-you...the same applies for data storage.
MS will build an OS that would consume all those spare zetabytes you have.
Remember those days when an OS would fit on a 3.5 inch floppy disk.
Even MS-DOS can run in a 5.25 inch diskette where you can then do spreadsheet, word processing and play games.
Now win10 wanted a USB flash drive with 15.0 GiB capacity just to build a recovery disc!
The obvious first application perhaps??
Nah, put a blockchain in it
Beastmarkcoin: now required to buy or sell
Honestly, I think you actually have a good point- this method does seem vulnerable to some manner of attacks, were it attached to some blind theoretical read/write device
In the old days, they had to hide their data in their cat's collar, now they can store it in the cat itself!
I know y'all are just responding to the gist of what you think the article is about. Not one of you stopped to notice what a horribly written article it is. Double strained? Fixed location? Clearly, the reporter understood the material less well than even all y'all.
1 zettabyte = 1 trillion gigabytes. That's a lot of data in a small space. If they can make this thing practical, it would really help out in technology sectors that require storage of insanely large quantities of data (like, say, YouTube, to name on example)
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
"archive up to up to one zettabyte in one gram of DNA....The method is currently not only expensive, but also slow. Data retrieval takes up to three days at the moment".
Maybe there's something wrong with my maths - but I get that to be around 4000 Gb/s
Johnny Mnemonic would be a much shittier story if E Coli were involved.
HIT ME!
So far all these attempts to write "data" to DNA have been nice and all but there are so many reasons not to do this. I'm sure someone will point out how every (now) famous technology started out like this.. being laughed out etc.
You don't write to DNA.. you write DNA, meaning you have to synthesise the sequence you want, afterwards you have it replicated etc. But to claim "within seconds" is complete nonsense as they don't say what amount it written (how many bases per second?). Any HDD from the last 20 years has higher write speeds than this.
But yeah this always makes for nice headlines.. and grant money.
That's a lotta porn, Tony.
E. coli has about 100 gigabytes of info
https://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/mark.guzdial/squeak/oopsla.html
How do they plan to prevent E. Coli to optimize out this useless DNA?