3 ms·

> Tradeoffs between DNA and traditional methods for data storage Wonder how badly it could go if the data storage container is ruptured while against someone's

> Tradeoffs between DNA and traditional methods for data storage Wonder how badly it could go if the data storage container is ruptured while against someone's body? DNA cross contamination could be interesting, unlikely to be in any kind of good way.

koeng 3y ago
> Wonder how badly it could go if the data storage container is ruptured while against someone's body? Nothing, really. Your body is good at fighting that sort of thing, because it's literally happening every second of every day with billions of bacteria and environmental DNA. Even specialized organisms have a rather tough time getting by all the defenses. For example, there are zero human-infecting raw-DNA pathogens.
- justinclift 3y ago
  Cool, that makes sense. :)
- eternityforest 3y ago
  Could at least some bio computers be hacked to print ebola viruses?
  - webmaven 3y ago
    Yes, but that's essentially like hacking a CPM machine to emit a Microsoft Word macro virus. It's not that it wouldn't work, it's that it's a lot of extra effort for no particular reason except maybe bragging rights. If the goal is to use a bio computer to compromise a biological system, a more likely pathway would be to get the programmable system to construct something more like a prion (an auto-catalyzing protein complex) rather than faffing about with all the extra complexity and layers of indirection of an infectious virus. If your target bio system is a plant rather than an animal, constructing a viroid might be worth the effort.
    - koeng 3y ago
      From someone who has reconsistuted viruses from synthetic DNA - it’s WAY easier than working with prions, or even viroids for that matter. The fact they package themselves and release themselves, while being formed of genetic sequence, is SUPER nice. Any bio computer doing sequence manipulation will probably find it way easier to use a virus-like replicating “malware”
      - webmaven 3y ago
        I guess it depends on whether the replicator is supposed to replicate on the bio computer platform or on a biological platform. The biocomputing platform needs to not only assemble the sequence but also assemble the (or at least "a") protein encapsulation for initial delivery to an organism.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      > for no particular reason except maybe bragging rights. Hmmmm. If we're talking about actually wanting to infect someone with an engineered virus, then using something with sequences widely attributed to some other group could be used as cover. Along the lines of "they were infected by a Russian variant of ebola". Or any other group, false flag operation type of thing. Hopefully this doesn't become an actual thing. :(
pushfoo 3y ago
> Wonder how badly it could go if the data storage container is ruptured while against someone's body? TL;DR: pretty much zero unless you're immunocompromised The price tag of the broken equipment and bacterial infections are probably the biggest concerns. Genetic information is like software. It doesn't do anything unless it's in a compatible environment. Eukaryotic cells like those in plants, animals, fungi are delicate. Viruses which can write DNA into them without killing them have to be complicated, which makes the viruses delicate. Being this delicate means work with these cells and viruses can be very expensive. Why try to use a multi-Xeon server rack with fiber links when all you need is a cluster of 5 Raspberry Pis and a bare bones router? The latter is way cheaper. For the same reasons, well-understood bacterial models like tame E. Coli strains are popular in biocomputing [1]. Slime molds [2][3] are also popular, and they're even famously good at pathfinding. Your coworkers, however, might be annoyed that you broke the biocomputer again. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6421265/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6421265/ [2] https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-642-27737-5_686-1 https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-6... [3] https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0216 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.021...

koeng 3y ago

> Wonder how badly it could go if the data storage container is ruptured while against someone's body? Nothing, really. Your body is good at fighting that sort of thing, because it's literally happening every second of every day with billions of bacteria and environmental DNA. Even specialized organisms have a rather tough time getting by all the defenses. For example, there are zero human-infecting raw-DNA pathogens.

justinclift 3y ago
Cool, that makes sense. :)
eternityforest 3y ago
Could at least some bio computers be hacked to print ebola viruses?
- webmaven 3y ago
  Yes, but that's essentially like hacking a CPM machine to emit a Microsoft Word macro virus. It's not that it wouldn't work, it's that it's a lot of extra effort for no particular reason except maybe bragging rights. If the goal is to use a bio computer to compromise a biological system, a more likely pathway would be to get the programmable system to construct something more like a prion (an auto-catalyzing protein complex) rather than faffing about with all the extra complexity and layers of indirection of an infectious virus. If your target bio system is a plant rather than an animal, constructing a viroid might be worth the effort.
  - koeng 3y ago
    From someone who has reconsistuted viruses from synthetic DNA - it’s WAY easier than working with prions, or even viroids for that matter. The fact they package themselves and release themselves, while being formed of genetic sequence, is SUPER nice. Any bio computer doing sequence manipulation will probably find it way easier to use a virus-like replicating “malware”
    - webmaven 3y ago
      I guess it depends on whether the replicator is supposed to replicate on the bio computer platform or on a biological platform. The biocomputing platform needs to not only assemble the sequence but also assemble the (or at least "a") protein encapsulation for initial delivery to an organism.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    > for no particular reason except maybe bragging rights. Hmmmm. If we're talking about actually wanting to infect someone with an engineered virus, then using something with sequences widely attributed to some other group could be used as cover. Along the lines of "they were infected by a Russian variant of ebola". Or any other group, false flag operation type of thing. Hopefully this doesn't become an actual thing. :(

pushfoo 3y ago

> Wonder how badly it could go if the data storage container is ruptured while against someone's body? TL;DR: pretty much zero unless you're immunocompromised The price tag of the broken equipment and bacterial infections are probably the biggest concerns. Genetic information is like software. It doesn't do anything unless it's in a compatible environment. Eukaryotic cells like those in plants, animals, fungi are delicate. Viruses which can write DNA into them without killing them have to be complicated, which makes the viruses delicate. Being this delicate means work with these cells and viruses can be very expensive. Why try to use a multi-Xeon server rack with fiber links when all you need is a cluster of 5 Raspberry Pis and a bare bones router? The latter is way cheaper. For the same reasons, well-understood bacterial models like tame E. Coli strains are popular in biocomputing [1]. Slime molds [2][3] are also popular, and they're even famously good at pathfinding. Your coworkers, however, might be annoyed that you broke the biocomputer again. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6421265/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6421265/ [2] https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-642-27737-5_686-1 https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-6... [3] https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0216 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.021...