Scientists Create Simple Synthetic Cell That Grows and Divides Normally (nist.gov) 65
Five years ago, scientists created a single-celled synthetic organism that, with only 473 genes, was the simplest living cell ever known. However, this bacteria-like organism behaved strangely when growing and dividing, producing cells with wildly different shapes and sizes. Now, scientists have identified seven genes that can be added to tame the cells' unruly nature, causing them to neatly divide into uniform orbs. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reports: Scientists at JCVI constructed the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010. They didn't build that cell completely from scratch. Instead, they started with cells from a very simple type of bacteria called a mycoplasma. They destroyed the DNA in those cells and replaced it with DNA that was designed on a computer and synthesized in a lab. This was the first organism in the history of life on Earth to have an entirely synthetic genome. They called it JCVI-syn1.0.
Since then, scientists have been working to strip that organism down to its minimum genetic components. The super-simple cell they created five years ago, dubbed JCVI-syn3.0, was perhaps too minimalist. The researchers have now added 19 genes back to this cell, including the seven needed for normal cell division, to create the new variant, JCVI-syn3A. This variant has fewer than 500 genes. To put that number in perspective, the E. coli bacteria that live in your gut have about 4,000 genes. A human cell has around 30,000.
NIST's role was to measure the resulting changes under a microscope. [...] The result was stop-motion video that showed the synthetic cells growing and dividing. This video shows JCVI-syn3.0 cells -- the ones created five years ago -- dividing into different shapes and sizes. Some of the cells form filaments. Others appear to not fully separate and line up like beads on a string. Despite the variety, all these cells are genetically identical. These videos and others like them allowed the researchers to observe how their genetic manipulations affected the cell growth and division. If removing a gene disrupted the normal process, they'd put it back and try another. Of the seven genes added to this organism for normal cell division, scientists know what only two of them do. The findings have been published in the journal Cell.
Since then, scientists have been working to strip that organism down to its minimum genetic components. The super-simple cell they created five years ago, dubbed JCVI-syn3.0, was perhaps too minimalist. The researchers have now added 19 genes back to this cell, including the seven needed for normal cell division, to create the new variant, JCVI-syn3A. This variant has fewer than 500 genes. To put that number in perspective, the E. coli bacteria that live in your gut have about 4,000 genes. A human cell has around 30,000.
NIST's role was to measure the resulting changes under a microscope. [...] The result was stop-motion video that showed the synthetic cells growing and dividing. This video shows JCVI-syn3.0 cells -- the ones created five years ago -- dividing into different shapes and sizes. Some of the cells form filaments. Others appear to not fully separate and line up like beads on a string. Despite the variety, all these cells are genetically identical. These videos and others like them allowed the researchers to observe how their genetic manipulations affected the cell growth and division. If removing a gene disrupted the normal process, they'd put it back and try another. Of the seven genes added to this organism for normal cell division, scientists know what only two of them do. The findings have been published in the journal Cell.
.gif){kind=link}
Dumb Pothead Editor (Score:1)
However, this bacteria-like organism
SHOULD READ
However, this bacterium -like orgasm
FTFY.
A warning (Score:4, Funny)
Are they grey? (Score:2)
Do you want Blobs? Because that's how you get Blobs!
Are they grey? And gooey?
Re: (Score:1)
They are not JUST blobs, they are reproducing blobs. The first life-forms were probably rather irregular also, as they didn't have competition: they could be slow and cavalier. (No jokes about government workers, please.)
I wonder if they are subject to radiation for a while if any interesting mutations would appear.
Is it an organism? (Score:3)
Is it synthetic? (Score:2)
The description sounds more like...
that is what I'll call a synthetic gene. When an organism is made up of entirely synthetic genes, then that is a synthetic organism. What they are doing now is just frankensplicing stuff together.
They don't even well understand what most of the genes and their resultant proteins actually DO. They got the list of 500 by basically taking the lowest common denominator of DNA gene sequences from all the most primitive cells on earth. Well, if those 500 are what they all have in common, let's cut them out an
Re: (Score:1)
Misfire on that one., sorry. Real post follows:
The description sounds more like...
...taking a cotton fiber, a linen fiber, a silk fiber, and a hemp fiber and weaving them together into a strand and calling that synthetic. That's not synthetic. I don't think that word means what they think it means.
When a scientist fires up PepCAD and designs a protein, peptide by peptide, compiles that out to a DNA sequence, generates the DNA and inserts it as a gene into a living cell, that is what I'll call a synthetic gene. When an organism is made up
Re:Is it synthetic? (Score:5, Informative)
They got the list of 500 by basically taking the lowest common denominator of DNA gene sequences from all the most primitive cells on earth. Well, if those 500 are what they all have in common, let's cut them out and try it.
They did not physically cut them out at all (except perhaps as part of sequencing them in the first place). They assembled the gene sequences they wanted on a computer, and then constructed them from scratch in the lab. That is what is meant be synthesis. It work just as well with completely artifical sequences that do not appear in nature at all, except of course we are not clever enought do that and get a working organism.
Re: Is it synthetic? (Score:2)
Re: Is it synthetic? (Score:2)
I get baby steps first, but they are the ones calling their baby an Olympic sprinter. That wasn't me. I'm just the one saying whoa there partner, let's not go overboard on the claims.
There are actual organisms that contain the same 500 genes. You can take a currently living, nature produced cell and do selective laser inactivation of the genes not in that group of 500 and get the same result. Is that synthetic?
This is scientific hype of an admittedly interesting (what genes are essential for self replica
More like baby rolling on stomache (Score:2)
There ain't know way that the first living cells had 500 odd genes that magically came together to produce life.
More like none, or a very, very, few.
So this is a long way from abiogensis.
Synthesizing DNA is amazing, but they could just about do that for a whole human already, by just recreating the same sequence without knowing what most of it does.
It is interesting that after all these years we are still a long, long way from producing a primeval cell. But then again, I suppose there is no money in it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're the first person to bring that up.
Nobody with the slightest understanding of chemistry or biology would be running a study into abiogenesis without starting at a very low oxygen activity, and keeping the whole system buffered down to that redox state - which would be a large part of the experimental difficulty.
We don't know the exact redox state of the Earth was during the era of abiogenesis, but we do know that life was very well established when the t
Re: (Score:2)
First, not impressed? Seriously? In your attempt to complain about their terminology, did you perhaps go a bit too far in your attempt to express disapproval for their language?
If you actually are not impressed, have you thought that your standards might be a little bit high? If they did as you say, and took the "lowest common denominator of DNA gene sequences from all the most primitive cells on earth" have you thought that perhaps there is a very good reason those cells have all kept this in common? For a
Re: (Score:2)
They don't even well understand what most of the genes and their resultant proteins actually DO.
As of five years ago, there were 91 of 493 of the synthetic genome that we "didn't know the function of"
https://elifesciences.org/arti... [elifesciences.org]
However, that 93 is misleading since most of those were 'generic' genes - ones of similar structure and function known genes.
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Also - with 5 years time almost certainly all or nearly all of those genes have been examined for their function - authors just don't bother to update using databases that describe functions, and instead just quote th
Excellent! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just the sort research we need to start making cellular factories. Thus far we have relied on modifying existing organisms to do what we want but if we can catalog a wide range of behavioral sequences (e.g. eat chemical XYZ) that can be quickly inserted into a highly optimized organism then we will be on our way to cleaning up large chemical messes. Sure, it might be idea that's 70 years off but it's still exciting.
It would be very interesting if we could get to the point where asteroid mining just meant shooting a blob of synthetic cells and scraping up the remains a month later.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a reasonable expectation. Biology most likely simply can't work in space no matter what changes you make. This effort is part of an effort to learn from the simplest possible cell.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure where you see and objection.
The sun pushes out a lot of energy that can be harvested by organisms.
Besides this we have organisms that can live without light using only chemical processes.
Why is it unlikely that we could synthesize such capabilities and create an organism that could process asteroids?
Re: (Score:2)
Make a sufficiently large and radiation resistant blob and i see no problem.
We're not talking about the results of natural earth evolution anymore. We're talking about engineered lifeforms.
Re: (Score:2)
You can convert that asteroid, but there's no scraping up the remains. And since you can't make that mass disappear, your asteroid shit had better be both non-toxic to the bacteria, as well as highly transparent, otherwise they'll never penetrate deep enough to matter.
Re: (Score:2)
We could program the bacteria's to form specialized structures within their colony so that part of them can capture sunlight and feed the bacteria down below. Other systems could be moving the 'shit' out of the way. This 'sit' could even be a useful material so it could make sense to make it ready for pick-up just like all the other useful materials.
We would know what the constituent of the asteroid or whatnot is so we would engineer the bacteria to be able to deal with that material. Non-toxicity would be
Re: (Score:2)
So, structural proteins (several off - to form straight bits and bent bits, plus several control genes for switching them on and off) ; Adhesin-type proteins, several off to get cell to adhere unto cell, and unto the structural proteins (unless they're intracellular) ; plus around twice that number of control genes.
Then you've got to deal with interloper cells of a different genome "species" (and those quote marks are not iro
Re: (Score:2)
Then you've got to deal with interloper cells of a different genome "species" (and those quote marks are not ironic) - needing more genes. Which means you've got to recognise them. More genes. And do whatever you're going to do to discourage them (antibiotics in general).
I don't think there are hostile cells on asteroids that you need defending against. You can focus all your structure on just the logistics of mining the minerals.
There's a reason that bacteria and archaea don't get above the slime-forming stage - it requires a lot of structural and biochemical complexity. It probably took the thick end of a billion years - longer than it took for life to get started.
I agree that you need some complexity but nothing like what normal cells have to deal with on earth.
Also you don't need the massive baggage that evolution brings along.
Also also you can't really compare engineering to evolution. Evolution doesn't set a goal and then start working on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't dispute that. You can make a machine that can self replicate and work in space. But biology requires water, ph, pressure, and not too high a level of toxic compounds or it fails. And it may not even be feasible to make artificial cells that are hardened enough to work without these requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
Biology most likely simply can't work in space no matter what changes you make.
As long as there is energy (e.g. sunlight) then chemistry will do it's thing. I don't expect space-based organism to happen anytime soon because it seems like something hundreds of years off but I do know nothing in the laws of physics prevents it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't dispute that. You can make a machine that can self replicate and work in space. But biology requires water, ph, pressure, and not too high a level of toxic compounds or it fails. And it may not even be feasible to make artificial cells that are hardened enough to work without these requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
But geocentric biology requires water, ph, pressure, and not too high a level of toxic compounds or it fails.
FTFY.
I never said it would be biology as we know it on Earth or even based on carbon. Biology is merely sophisticated chemical machinary and there are an unfathomable number of ways to combine it to create what we would consider biological. But hey, maybe we'll shoot a blob with a specialized support system that keeps it alive and happy, who knows.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if it's even possible, we're years from such a ground up rewrite of the rules
Re: (Score:2)
Not years, centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
You can imagine replicating life in space if it carries its own layers of protection, but cells in space is too much of a challenge. Apart from that I agree this is fascinating research. The variation in how the cell acts is also not a mere flaw. A human cell has about 250 'modes' or cell times, each with the same origin but with its own expression and suppression of genes.
Re: (Score:2)
Much as the case with the Genesis torpedo, my inner Klingon already wants to weaponize this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be verging on the miraculous. Be more realistic and put your asteroid into a bag, glue the mouth shut, then pump in your bacteria and some water (depending on how much water there is in the asteroid itself. And you'll have something resembling a greenhouse, with the illumination level of it's existing orbit.
On Earth, with a wide ranging
Re: (Score:2)
On Earth, with a wide ranging biochemistry, turning rocky material into moderately digested soil proceeds at on the order of 1m per millennium.
I would argue that's not really true because humans are biochemical and we build machines and shred, filter and process rock in short time frames. I would also point out that biochemistry on Earth hasn't done neat tricks like being based on silicon rather than carbon. The production of brand new types of DNA base pairs finally happened in the last few decades which was a feat accomplished by the intelligent biological entities know as humans. The reason these things haven't happened before is because car
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Guess these folks are all Q?
So, NPR just reported that the director of WHO thinks this deserves further investigation, and that regarding the WHO's report, he does not believe the team's assessment of the lab leak possibility was extensive enough.
Then there's Jamie Metzl, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, has been an outspoken proponent of such an investigation.
A State Department fact sheet from mid-January highlights reports of sick lab researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the fall of 2
Re: (Score:1)
You're describing Donnie's hair.
Re: (Score:2)
Expectations... (Score:4, Funny)
I was expecting the video to spell out "APRIL FOOLS". *sigh
I Want My SporeSlave (Score:2)
Soon! It can work my job for me while I rest in null.
I know, I know! (Score:5, Funny)
The other 5 make it grow to 700 feet and eat Tokyo.
Is there a vaccine for that? (Score:1)
Nevel! (Score:1)
Nevel! Neeevel!
Black box science (Score:1)
"Co-lead author and JCVI scientist Lijie Sun constructed dozens of variant strains by systematically adding and removing genes. She and the other researchers would then observe how those genetic changes affected cell growth and division."
If this is how you work out what the genes do, then life will be a black box for ever.
Are biologists so conditioned to research by pointlessly torturing billions of animals to death, that they cannot conceive of how to start from the basics and work up ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I am a dog. But my qualifications are not relevant.
What I wrote is what is relevant.
So address yourself to that instead of making pointless attempts at ad hominem attacks.
FFS, how long have you been spouting rubbish like this ?
Great advance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They are not doing that though.
They are knocking parts of an existing thing until it doesn't work, then putting them back until it works again.
Because: Biologists.
Re: (Score:3)
They are not doing that though.
They are knocking parts of an existing thing until it doesn't work, then putting them back until it works again.
Because: Biologists.
They are Widlarizing it, as a good engineer would. Strip it down to the bare minimums, then learn how those remaining genes work, and bam! Now you have a cell with the lowest possible BOM cos... er.. I mean you now have a test bed for exploring what different genes can do when added to your baseline genome.
Re: (Score:1)
"Method A is also known as "Widlarizing" or the "Widlar" method. "How do you Widlarize something? You take it over to the anvil part of the vice and you beat on it with a hammer, until it is all crunched down into tiny little pieces, so small that you don't even have to sweep it off the floor. It sure makes you feel better. And you know that component will never vex you again." Bob Pease, describing Bob Widlar's method for dealing with broken electronic components."
https://news.ycombinator.com/i... [ycombinator.com]
Doesn't s
Re: (Score:1)
It is like they are learning to write code based on hello world examples. They are learning how to program by trial and error in high-level source code, without learning how to write their own compiler.
Stop this! (Score:2)
God doesn't play Code Golf!
Re: (Score:1)
WE are now gods, just not very bright gods.
Needs limits (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I for one (Score:1)
"synthetic" (Score:2)
Fail
"Remember... (Score:2)
...We don't serve synths."
Re: (Score:1)