4 ms·

How far are we from just saving the genetic code digitally and then synthesizing the seeds by arranging a sequence of amino acids to instantiate viable nucleoti

How far are we from just saving the genetic code digitally and then synthesizing the seeds by arranging a sequence of amino acids to instantiate viable nucleotides? Is this still science fiction?

cjk2 2y ago
Seeds are more than just a program. They are more an embryo than a cell.
- waynecochran 2y ago
  How far are we from instantiating the proper embryo then?
  - ServiceNigga 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 2y ago
      If you keep doing this, we will have to ban your main account as well, so it would be good if you would stop.
  - margalabargala 2y ago
    Quite far. Not only do you need to synthesize the proper genomic sequence (barely possible), but it needs to be packed into a valid chromosome structure with a valid epigenome. Then that needs to be placed into a cell with valid RNAs, compatible chloroplasts and mitochondria, compatible proteins in a compatible configuration, etc. Creating all of that de novo for a plant is well beyond current capabilities. This is why when we clone e.g. a sheep, we transfer a nucleus from the cell of one individual into the cell of a different individual. It is much easier to mix and match pieces of different cells from the same species, than to create those pieces from raw materials.
  - dflock 2y ago
    Creating artificial seeds, from scratch, based on a stored DNA sequence? Pretty far - that's still SciFi at this point.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  You're making a distinction without a difference there.
  - Nevermark 2y ago
    Seeds are much more than single cells. Embryos are much more than single cells. The comparison is apt, and highlights a relevant difference.
    - Suppafly 2y ago
      Sure, but you don't need to bootstrap the whole system to be able to clone a plant and reproduce it. We already can clone plants using single cells, the next step would be to synthesize the cell from raw ingredients.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    No, it's not. Seeds and even embryos are to DNA what a running piece of software (and especially, a Lisp/Smalltalk image) is to its source code: the latter stores only a fraction of the former. And then consider that life is always built by other life, there is no bootstrapping from source code happening. Compare with Ken Thompson's "Reflections on Trusting Trust", and realize that the most important bits about life may not even be encoded in the DNA, but rather in the runtime state that's passed "out of band" from generation to generation.
    - Metus 2y ago
      > No, it's not. Seeds and even embryos are to DNA what a running piece of software (and especially, a Lisp/Smalltalk image) is to its source code: the latter stores only a fraction of the former. Thank you for pointing out this similarity. While a piece of software is infinitely replicable - a simple git clone from GitHub would suffice -, the surrounding software ecosystem - compilers, interpreters, installers, linkers, operating systems - needs to be in place, as well as the hardware.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  At least with plants we have a sufficient understanding of them that it's possible to propagate them from a single cell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropropagation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropropagation
redundantly 2y ago
I wonder what would be achieved first: genetic synthesis or matter replication.
greenie_beans 2y ago
seems like we should use the levers we have rather than hope for a moon shoot
- waynecochran 2y ago
  Certainly. I am just curious if this is even a possibility in this century.

How far are we from just saving the genetic code digitally and then synthesizing the seeds by arranging a sequence of amino acids to instantiate viable nucleotides? Is this still science fiction?

cjk2 2y ago

Seeds are more than just a program. They are more an embryo than a cell.

waynecochran 2y ago
How far are we from instantiating the proper embryo then?
- ServiceNigga 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 2y ago
    If you keep doing this, we will have to ban your main account as well, so it would be good if you would stop.
- margalabargala 2y ago
  Quite far. Not only do you need to synthesize the proper genomic sequence (barely possible), but it needs to be packed into a valid chromosome structure with a valid epigenome. Then that needs to be placed into a cell with valid RNAs, compatible chloroplasts and mitochondria, compatible proteins in a compatible configuration, etc. Creating all of that de novo for a plant is well beyond current capabilities. This is why when we clone e.g. a sheep, we transfer a nucleus from the cell of one individual into the cell of a different individual. It is much easier to mix and match pieces of different cells from the same species, than to create those pieces from raw materials.
- dflock 2y ago
  Creating artificial seeds, from scratch, based on a stored DNA sequence? Pretty far - that's still SciFi at this point.
Suppafly 2y ago
You're making a distinction without a difference there.
- Nevermark 2y ago
  Seeds are much more than single cells. Embryos are much more than single cells. The comparison is apt, and highlights a relevant difference.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    Sure, but you don't need to bootstrap the whole system to be able to clone a plant and reproduce it. We already can clone plants using single cells, the next step would be to synthesize the cell from raw ingredients.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  No, it's not. Seeds and even embryos are to DNA what a running piece of software (and especially, a Lisp/Smalltalk image) is to its source code: the latter stores only a fraction of the former. And then consider that life is always built by other life, there is no bootstrapping from source code happening. Compare with Ken Thompson's "Reflections on Trusting Trust", and realize that the most important bits about life may not even be encoded in the DNA, but rather in the runtime state that's passed "out of band" from generation to generation.
  - Metus 2y ago
    > No, it's not. Seeds and even embryos are to DNA what a running piece of software (and especially, a Lisp/Smalltalk image) is to its source code: the latter stores only a fraction of the former. Thank you for pointing out this similarity. While a piece of software is infinitely replicable - a simple git clone from GitHub would suffice -, the surrounding software ecosystem - compilers, interpreters, installers, linkers, operating systems - needs to be in place, as well as the hardware.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
At least with plants we have a sufficient understanding of them that it's possible to propagate them from a single cell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropropagation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropropagation

redundantly 2y ago

I wonder what would be achieved first: genetic synthesis or matter replication.

greenie_beans 2y ago

seems like we should use the levers we have rather than hope for a moon shoot

waynecochran 2y ago
Certainly. I am just curious if this is even a possibility in this century.