Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Science

Scientists Made a Cell From Scratch For First Time (cnn.com) 37

AleRunner writes: The first fully synthetic cell ("SpudCell") has been created in the Department of Genetics at the University of Minnesota. Strictly speaking, it's described as a "cell-like system constructed entirely from known chemical components that can perform a complete cell cycle." It is able to replicate, but only for approximately five generations.

The key advance is that the cell is "built entirely bottom-up from individually purified, non-living components," although it still contains material from E. coli bacteria. "PURE is a defined mixture of 36 purified enzymes from E. coli bacteria," including ribosomes, that provides the infrastructure for genetic replication.

CNN has an article on the advance, including interview material with Professor Kate Adamala, who led the research. "I know the full ingredient list of the cell. I know exactly what chemicals, what molecules, at what concentrations," she said. "It is fully defined, which means we can engineer it."
"Humans did not create life," notes an anonymous Slashdot reader. "Researchers call it a constructed cell, not 'life created in the lab' but a 'genuine milestone on the road toward that question.' It lacks full autonomy (needs feeding, no independent evolution)."

Special thanks to Slashdot readers kemosabi and AleRunner for submitting the story and additional sources, including reports from The New York Times and The Guardian, as well as information from the University of Minnesota Twin Cities.

Scientists Made a Cell From Scratch For First Time

Comments Filter:
  • This should go in the "Just Because You Can, Doesn't Mean You Should Dept." category of Slashdot.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by backslashdot ( 95548 )

      What kind of baloney pansy shit is the phrase "Just Because You Can, Doesn't Mean You Should" ?? There are many useful things that can be done with it .. everything from studying how cells work to a platform for protein production. Just because you lack the IQ to see the value in something doesn't mean it has no value. We need science to advance. We need the attitude: "every experiment you can do is worth doing" (unless you know it will fuck shit up) .. forget the "just because you can doesn't mean you shou

      • by TWX ( 665546 )

        I didn't get the feeling that the GP post was claiming it was valueless. I got the feeling that the concern was it would get out of the control of its creators, manage to mutate or evolve past a death in five generations, and become a threat to everything we know and love.

        • Just like any other virus or bacteria or fungi.

          As long as they do not release something that is completely different, like replacing carbon by silicon or changing winding direction of DNA etc. out immune system will handle it. Well, Ebola shows you the limits.

        • Yeah, I guarantee none of the people involved know the true risk factors.
      • Just because you can make bubonic plague even more contagious doesn't mean you should.

  • Research still valuable for applications on self-healing materials: for concrete, for sealing/gaskets, and so on.

  • by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Wednesday July 01, 2026 @04:35PM (#66218898) Homepage Journal

    After discovering how to clone humans, two scientists challenged God:

    "We don't need you anymore," they said. "We can make life by ourselves now."

    "Okay," God replied, "let's have a man-making contest."

    "All right," said the scientists. "We'll do it like you did in the beginning." Then they reached down to grab a handful of dirt to begin to form a man.

    Then they heard God's voice from heaven: "Hold it - get your own dirt!"

    --
    Credit: Not sure who created this joke, but I 8th-commandmented it from here [christianitytoday.com].

  • The various religious apologists are going to have a field day with this having to explain it to their base. They always do because that's literally what they do for a living but the explanations are getting increasingly strained and ridiculous. If you're religious I think the best way to be religious is what that YouTube guy Dan McClellan does where he knows that everything in the Bible is bullshit and just believes what he believes.
    • by nwaack ( 3482871 )
      Scientists took already existing enzymes from a living cell and made a less-than-living "cell" out of those enzymes using the blueprint for life that we already have. How exactly does that "mess up" religious beliefs?
  • "From scratch" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Darren Hiebert ( 626456 ) on Wednesday July 01, 2026 @05:21PM (#66218956) Homepage
    ...except for all of the 36 enzymes we borrowed from another living cell, yet still cannot do what that cell we borrowed it all from can do.
    • This is what I came to say. Starting with elements is as close to scratch as we get, and they didn't go there

    • by ajedgar ( 67399 )

      Yes. Came here to say that. And not the first time either.

      Ask your favorite LLM: "how many times have scientists claimed to have make a cell from scratch?" ;)

    • ...except for all of the 36 enzymes we borrowed from another living cell,

      And ribosomes.

      So, they took apart living e-coli cells, purified the pieces, and put the pieces together. To make something not as good as what they started with.

      (the summary seemed to imply that ribosomes are enzymes. They're not.)

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      There's a kid that can make digital clocks like that.

  • by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Wednesday July 01, 2026 @05:21PM (#66218958)

    Now AI, via robotics, will eventually be able to construct its own meat puppets with AI-directed brain development. Soon there will be no further need for the messy process of giving birth and raising kids to adulthood - just grow adults in a vat, program them, and put them to work.

    I'm sure that Thiel, Karp, Musk, and the like are jacking themselves off while contemplating this news.

    • Are we doing that great with the process ourselves?

      Our children are deeply despondent, increasingly suicidal, and from the latest surveys evolution seems to have decided higher thinking abilities are to some degree a waste of energy better used for other things.

      • Good points. My only caution would be against conflating the evolution of some Western societies with the evolution of Homo Sapiens in general.

  • by unfortunateson ( 527551 ) on Wednesday July 01, 2026 @05:49PM (#66219006) Journal

    Starting with a ribosome seems a bit like cheating -- they're extremely complex, probably Turing-complete biocomputers.

    If there's proof of a supreme being, or aliens seeding life here (is there a difference), it's the ribosome.

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      People seem to think that the first living organism to evolve has to be as complex as the simplest cells we know, but more likely it was much simpler. We just don't have any living examples because such protocells probably can't compete with modern ones. The first life-forms can be slow, inefficient, inaccurate at reproducing, etc. because they had zero competition. Somebody joked "union workers evolved first!"

      One interesting theory is that the first living thing(s) were actually a set of complimentary prot

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      One could also say this is basically nano-tech, not life.

  • You know, creating a perfect cell

  • Pedant here.. the article mentions ribsomes , google tells me they are interpreters of DNA as a blueprint, the article doesn't mention DNA. Aside from the chemicals was there no "starter" biological component?

    If it doesn't haven't DNA, is that really a cell then ?

    Dont want to take away from the remarkable of this invention, feels like we created life from chemistry, but always believed DNA was part of that.

     

    • The paper mentions "90kbp genome" (90,000 DNA base pairs) and "DNA polymerase for genome replication".

      For pedantry: DNA isn't strictly needed. Life is defined by ability to feed on an environment, grow, and self-replicate, independently on the biomolecular mechanism to implement it. We happen to only have live examples based on DNA, so that's what they used so can copy existing DNA code. We assume that early cells were based on self-replicating RNA enzymes rather than DNA+transcription. In principle nothing

  • ... because we will be dead from AI first.
  • It was a few years ago, but it was fascinating.

    https://www.preposterousuniver... [preposterousuniverse.com]

  • They got all the parts from E. coli bacteria. Convince me that they didn't just make artificial poop.

FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies.

Working...