Slashdot Mirror


How Biologists Are Creating Life-like Cells From Scratch (nature.com)

Built from the bottom up, synthetic cells and other creations are starting to come together and could soon test the boundaries of life. From a report: Researchers have been trying to create artificial cells for more than 20 years -- piecing together biomolecules in just the right context to approximate different aspects of life. Although there are many such aspects, they generally fall into three categories: compartmentalization, or the separation of biomolecules in space; metabolism, the biochemistry that sustains life; and informational control, the storage and management of cellular instructions.

The pace of work has been accelerating, thanks in part to recent advances in microfluidic technologies, which allow scientists to coordinate the movements of minuscule cellular components. Research groups have already determined ways of sculpting cell-like blobs into desired shapes; of creating rudimentary versions of cellular metabolism; and of transplanting hand-crafted genomes into living cells. But bringing all these elements together remains a challenge.

[...] Research groups have made big strides recreating several aspects of cell-like life, especially in mimicking the membranes that surround cells and compartmentalize internal components. That's because organizing molecules is key to getting them to work together at the right time and place. Although you can open up a billion bacteria and pour the contents into a test tube, for example, the biological processes would not continue for long. Some components need to be kept apart, and others brought together. "To me, it's about the sociology of molecules," says Cees Dekker, a biophysicist also at Delft University of Technology. For the most part, this means organizing biomolecules on or within lipid membranes. Schwille and her team are expert membrane-wranglers.

Starting about a decade ago, the team started adding Min proteins, which direct a bacterial cell's division machinery, to sheets of artificial membrane made of lipids. The Mins, the researchers found, would pop on and off the membranes and make them wave and swirl1. But when they added the Mins to 3D spheres of lipids, the structures burst like soap bubbles, says Schwille. Her group and others have overcome this problem using microfluidic techniques to construct cell-sized membrane containers, or liposomes, that can tolerate multiple insertions of proteins -- either into the membranes themselves or into the interior.

42 comments

  1. membrane-wranglers by nospam007 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Sorry, that's my porn name.

    1. Re:membrane-wranglers by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I dunno why you got modded off-topic; at least you have the scale right! That's better than most manager around here.

  2. Not even close! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Cell mechanics is much more than just spurting some lipids in a cell-like looking blob.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_tYrnv_o6A

    1. Re:Not even close! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us are sensitive clods, you insensitive clod!

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Fake cells now too, eh Trumpies? Fitting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they generally fall into three categories: Dies in a week, can't reproduce, and endangers the entire food chain.

  5. Whatever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Replicants are just around the corner!

  6. Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

    In the article it mentions their definition of life includes "must be able to evolve". But is that true, and do we really want this synthetic 'life' to evolve? If we can keep it from changing, then we run less risk of releasing something into the wild that's potentially dangerous.

    1. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then it's not life, right? It would be some kind of machine by that definition, made of biological cells. Life must be self-sustaining which inherently involves evolution. This is the grand experiment, the terminology is less important.

    2. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct, it's not life. It's a machine. And when we build machines that look and act just like humans, using this technology, they won't be alive either, so it will be ok to kill them.

      We would need to draw some sharp linguistic distinctions to avoid confusion. Destroying one of these things would not be called "killing," but "retirement."

      And we wouldn't call them "people." Probably something very neutral, like, in dunno, "replicant...."

    3. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by hAckz0r · · Score: 3, Informative

      If we can keep it from changing,

      You can not. If the cell reproduces via any form of DNA replication/duplication, then there is no possible way that it could not evolve. Once you have self-replication, it ether dies or evolves to suit the environment that it exists in. Every DNA copy operation contains a statistical probability of getting an error in the new sequence, and that error could be better for survival, or not. Most likely not, if you are starting from a very short and simple genome, but only the good errors persist into the future generations where these errors eventually accumulate to make larger changes in function.

    4. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by es330td · · Score: 1

      We just make them all male. That worked in Jurassic Park, right?

    5. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so if I destroy a human before it is mature, it is not capable of sustaining its species or having children which might evolve. Therefore, it was never really alive, and is not murder. Choose your definitions carefully.

    6. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's making a Blade Runner reference

    7. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We only have very imperfect check systems because the ones with very good check systems couldn't adapt quickly enough. If the goal is to do one single thing or perish, you can just dial things up to 11 by taking a ~256 bit hash of the genome during replication, compare it to a reference, and if it doesn't match then self destruct.

    8. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3

      If we can keep it from changing,

      You can not.
      If the cell reproduces via any form of DNA replication/duplication, then there is no possible way that it could not evolve.

      This is 100% false. We as humans would be filled with messed up copies of our DNA if it didn't encode a checking sequence that prevents bad copies from happening. When a bad copy occurs, the cell commits seppuku.

      Once you have self-replication, it ether dies or evolves to suit the environment that it exists in. Every DNA copy operation contains a statistical probability of getting an error in the new sequence, and that error could be better for survival, or not.

      Correct but when you have replication checking then you avoid this problem. We only get cancer because the cells lose this ability due to the recursive telomeres copy problem (which copies all but the last telomere every single time).

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    9. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      We only get cancer from cell replication over time because the cells lose this ability due to the recursive telomeres copy problem (which copies all but the last telomere every single time).

      fixed that for me.

      This only applied to cells replicating too many times. Your cells can incur DNA damage by exposure to certain molecules, especially hydrocarbons. Some DNA damage can invoke cellular suicide but much of the time, it's simply replaces part of the sequence and it's now part of your DNA. Sometimes this can disrupt the cellular suicide programming which means it's going to be cancer once the replication limiting DNA is also damaged.

      However, given the correct sequencing, you could effectively apply a CRC to a DNA sequence so that will radically reduce the chance of improper replication to just above zero.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    10. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      We just make them all male. That worked in Jurassic Park, right?

      I thought they made them all female?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    11. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robot Chicken agrees with this assessment. But unless it was easier to make them all female, doing so seems pretty stupid. One rogue male can inseminate many females. With only males, a rogue female would would not lead to as rapid a growth in the population. In crocodilians, sex is determined by temperature, not sure about dinosaurs.

    12. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >evolves to suit the environment

      Nope. There is random modifications and if it gives a reproductive advantage -- at the population level, not individual --, these modifications persist in the population.

      Jumping of a building, do not make you grow wings. The ones having wings survive and that, increase there chance of reproduction.

    13. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution is pretty much defined as "bad traits/mutations die off", so I'm not sure why you think your argument shows that these theoretical DNA-like synthetic cells could not evolve. Error checking reduces the likelihood of fatal errors making it through, but does not prevent it. No error checking scheme ever could; the error check itself can mutate.

      Basically, with evolution: if it is capable of changing, it eventually WILL change. Error correction just increases the amount of time required.

    14. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Biologist, here.

      >We as humans would be filled with messed up copies of our DNA

      We are.

      > We only get cancer because the cells lose this ability due to the recursive telomeres copy problem

      Do you mean end replication problem? "Recursive" and "copy" do not mean anything. Cancer is not even close to what you are saying. In fact, if it was that simple, then cancer would have been cured long time ago. Cancer is caused by genetic, epigenetic, ... changes causing an abnormal growth of the cells. Consequently, these modification are related to cell cycle, tissue growth. Cancerous cells maintaining the activity of telomerase is one aspect of cancer but far from the whole story.

    15. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by hAckz0r · · Score: 1

      If we can keep it from changing,

      You can not. If the cell reproduces via any form of DNA replication/duplication, then there is no possible way that it could not evolve.

      This is 100% false. We as humans would be filled with messed up copies of our DNA if it didn't encode a checking sequence that prevents bad copies from happening.

      We accumulate errors throughout our lives, and that accumulation of errors, and some estimate this to be well over 20 mutations in a single cell that is required before one actually gets cancer. But, you only need one cell to go bad.

      Get this, every case of cancer is unique because of the specific mix of mutations that the patient has acquired over their lifetime. Cancer requires many multiples of genes to be disabled and/or modified before it gets out of control. Your "Programmed Cell Death" (PCD) is one of those specific genes that has to have been knocked out, or the external white blood cells that recognize and/or trigger that PCD have had their signalling mechanism wiped out. This is a calamity of accumulated DNA errors that together, collectivly, make each individual cancer a unique case despite the fact that many categories of cancer are given the same blanket type name. They may be very similar when looking at the sick patient, but they all respond differently to various treatments because of the specific sets of genes that were affected.

      Once you have self-replication, it either dies or evolves to suit the environment that it exists in. Every DNA copy operation contains a statistical probability of getting an error in the new sequence, and that error could be better for survival, or not.

      Correct but when you have replication checking then you avoid this problem. We only get cancer because the cells lose this ability due to the recursive telomeres copy problem (which copies all but the last telomere every single time).

      This is where the cancer either turns on the tolemerase repair mechanism, or modifies the copy mechanism to ignore the telomeres length altogether. We have many fail-safe mechanisms, but when you do get cancer it because almost all of them have broken down due to these accumulated mutations.

      Why do cancers relapse? Because the mutations have not gone away. All you may need is one additional mutation to break some other cellular function, in one cell of your body, and the next thing you know is that it is our of control and the previous treatment no longer works. Every case is unique.

    16. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Our error-correcting mechanisms are not perfect. Thus there is still a chance of mutation that can be passed on to children and then grandchildren. It's small, but it's still present.

    17. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by hAckz0r · · Score: 1

      >evolves to suit the environment

      Nope. There is random modifications and if it gives a reproductive advantage -- at the population level, not individual --, these modifications persist in the population.

      Jumping of a building, do not make you grow wings. The ones having wings survive and that, increase there chance of reproduction.

      Correction accepted; as I did not mean to imply that an individual cell "evolves" in any way. The individual merely survives or not, and reproduces or not. It's always the aggregate population over many generations that evolves to suit the environment. Change that environment and it will, in turn, change the type of mutations that become beneficial to that population. That is all I was trying to say.

    18. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If we can keep it from changing,

      You can not.
      If the cell reproduces via any form of DNA replication/duplication, then there is no possible way that it could not evolve.

      This is 100% false. We as humans would be filled with messed up copies of our DNA if

      Your fallacy is that you added a false dichotomy between what we are, and what is "messed up." We are the messed up copies of what we were in the past. That's why it looks "100% false" to you; it contradicts your value judgement. But it is a neutral statement without values; nature has no preference.

    19. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      In the article it mentions their definition of life includes "must be able to evolve". But is that true, and do we really want this synthetic 'life' to evolve? If we can keep it from changing, then we run less risk of releasing something into the wild that's potentially dangerous.

      It isn't actually meaningful to the risk. They have to define "life" that way to exclude fire.

      Defining life is an area of complete failure in the sciences.

    20. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1
      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    21. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1
      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    22. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still not right. There is no "evolves to suit the environment" phenomenon. The environment does not direct the evolution. Evolution is : 1/ random mutation 2/ random phenotypes (characteristics) emerge from that 3/ environment exerts some selective pressure 4/ The one having some specific characteristics reproduces with high success under the current selective pressure

    23. Re:Do we have to evolve to be declared Life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We only get cancer because the cells lose this ability due to the recursive telomeres copy problem (which copies all but the last telomere every single time).

      Always with those damned off-by-one errors!

  7. Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we can craft some custom brain cells for our stable genius leader.

  8. Life-like HO train set by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I drip vegetable oil in water it makes very life-like cells too. Lame.

  9. A kind of nanotech that could do a lot by shoor · · Score: 1

    'Nanotech' is a word that was used a lot a couple of decades ago, not so much anymore. (Replaced by AI and quantum computing?) But who knows? They could end up crafting microbes to eat up the plastic in the oceans maybe, or make a contribution to fighting global warming. Here's hoping.

    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
    1. Re:A kind of nanotech that could do a lot by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Nanotech means technology that is reasonably measured in nanometers. For example, when you see things like "7nm process" or "10 nm process," that is the nanotech that you were hearing about in the past. At that time, the processes were larger; micro-scale.

      Quantum computing is also a real thing.

    2. Re:A kind of nanotech that could do a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Nanotech means technology that is reasonably measured in nanometers.

      Actually, the term 'nanotechnology' was specifically coined to describe building things atom-by-atom. As such, it doesn't really exist yet.

  10. Boundary of Slavery. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if I create a human from scratch with no mother or father is it a person or a biological robot?

    I built it so I own it right?

  11. Playing With Fire by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

    This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

    1. Re:Playing With Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My first thought reading this actually was "And that's how humanity ends." But i'm generally a pessimist.

  12. Direct means selective pressure by tepples · · Score: 1

    The environment does not direct the evolution. [...] 3/ environment exerts some selective pressure

    "Direct" is a metaphor for this selective pressure.