3 ms·

Building a Synthetic Cell Together

9 points by pillars 1y ago

M95D 1y ago
A better link about this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium
- flobosg 1y ago
  The article is about bottom-up efforts in building a synthetic cell (i.e. assembled from molecular building blocks) as opposed to the top-down M. m. JCVI-syn1.0 you’re linking, which originates from a pared-down synthetised genome transplanted into a wild type Mycoplasma host without DNA.
  - M95D 1y ago
    There is no bottom-up building of a living cell. All those building blocks you speak about come from DNA and genes (edited or not) can only come from existing living cells, which makes any "new" cell not at all different than editing-out redundant DNA from an existing species.
    - flobosg 1y ago
      > There is no bottom-up building of a living cell. There is currently no bottom-up building. The article proposes some potential strategies. > All those building blocks you speak about come from DNA and genes (edited or not) can only come from existing living cells Many of the macromolecules found in a cell can be generated abiotically. In fact, that is how the initial M. laboratorium genome cassettes were built. No living system was involved in the synthesis of their DNA (cassette recombination was done in yeast, though)[1]: > Synthetic genome assembly strategy. The designed cassettes were generally 1080 bp with 80-bp overlaps to adjacent cassettes (11). They were all produced by assembly of chemically synthesized oligonucleotides by Blue Heron (Bothell, Washington) [1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1190719 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1190719
      - M95D 1y ago
        > The article states otherwise and proposes some potential strategies. The article has very low scientific value. It doesn't say anything new,which is why I provided a better article on the subject, easier to understand for most readers of this page. > Many of the macromolecules found in a cell can be generated abiotically. So? The result is the same and it doesn't make the cell any different than one with edited DNA. Sure, you can replace some codons with more stable equivalents (more G/C), leave out some introns, and even add a watermark, but the information encoded is the same, the function is the same, the protein is the same, the metabolic pathway is the same, etc. If looks like a duck, moves like a duck, then ... Why go through all the trouble to get basically the same result? Contrary to their claims, it won't really help understanding how the cell works. Not adding a gene to a custom genome vs. cutting out a gene from an existing genome leads to the same understanding of that gene's function.
        flobosg 1y ago
        > The article has very low scientific value. The article is a perspective. According to Nature’s guidelines: > Perspective articles are intended to provide a forum for authors to discuss models and ideas from a personal viewpoint. They are more forward looking and/or speculative than Reviews and may take a narrower field of view. They may be opinionated but should remain balanced and are intended to stimulate discussion and new experimental approaches. > which is why I provided a better article on the subject They are not mutually exclusive. Readers will profit from both, as they present the topic from different perspectives. > So? It directly contradicts your previous claim, namely: “All those building blocks (…) can only come from existing living cells” > The result is the same and it doesn't make the cell any different than one with edited DNA. Exactly. Not sure why you’re focusing on gene editing, though. The perspective doesn’t address that point at all. > Why go through all the trouble (…)? The article lists several reasons, … > Contrary to their claims, it won't really help understanding how the cell works. …which could be more difficult to achieve using existing cellular machineries, such as enabling non-canonical chemistries, alternate macromolecular architectures, and allow for more control and fine-tuning, given the minimalism that these systems could reach. “Understanding how the cell works” is only a small fraction of the potential applications presented in the perspective.

9 points by pillars 1y ago

M95D 1y ago

A better link about this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium

flobosg 1y ago
The article is about bottom-up efforts in building a synthetic cell (i.e. assembled from molecular building blocks) as opposed to the top-down M. m. JCVI-syn1.0 you’re linking, which originates from a pared-down synthetised genome transplanted into a wild type Mycoplasma host without DNA.
- M95D 1y ago
  There is no bottom-up building of a living cell. All those building blocks you speak about come from DNA and genes (edited or not) can only come from existing living cells, which makes any "new" cell not at all different than editing-out redundant DNA from an existing species.
  - flobosg 1y ago
    > There is no bottom-up building of a living cell. There is currently no bottom-up building. The article proposes some potential strategies. > All those building blocks you speak about come from DNA and genes (edited or not) can only come from existing living cells Many of the macromolecules found in a cell can be generated abiotically. In fact, that is how the initial M. laboratorium genome cassettes were built. No living system was involved in the synthesis of their DNA (cassette recombination was done in yeast, though)[1]: > Synthetic genome assembly strategy. The designed cassettes were generally 1080 bp with 80-bp overlaps to adjacent cassettes (11). They were all produced by assembly of chemically synthesized oligonucleotides by Blue Heron (Bothell, Washington) [1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1190719 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1190719
    - M95D 1y ago
      > The article states otherwise and proposes some potential strategies. The article has very low scientific value. It doesn't say anything new,which is why I provided a better article on the subject, easier to understand for most readers of this page. > Many of the macromolecules found in a cell can be generated abiotically. So? The result is the same and it doesn't make the cell any different than one with edited DNA. Sure, you can replace some codons with more stable equivalents (more G/C), leave out some introns, and even add a watermark, but the information encoded is the same, the function is the same, the protein is the same, the metabolic pathway is the same, etc. If looks like a duck, moves like a duck, then ... Why go through all the trouble to get basically the same result? Contrary to their claims, it won't really help understanding how the cell works. Not adding a gene to a custom genome vs. cutting out a gene from an existing genome leads to the same understanding of that gene's function.
      - flobosg 1y ago
        > The article has very low scientific value. The article is a perspective. According to Nature’s guidelines: > Perspective articles are intended to provide a forum for authors to discuss models and ideas from a personal viewpoint. They are more forward looking and/or speculative than Reviews and may take a narrower field of view. They may be opinionated but should remain balanced and are intended to stimulate discussion and new experimental approaches. > which is why I provided a better article on the subject They are not mutually exclusive. Readers will profit from both, as they present the topic from different perspectives. > So? It directly contradicts your previous claim, namely: “All those building blocks (…) can only come from existing living cells” > The result is the same and it doesn't make the cell any different than one with edited DNA. Exactly. Not sure why you’re focusing on gene editing, though. The perspective doesn’t address that point at all. > Why go through all the trouble (…)? The article lists several reasons, … > Contrary to their claims, it won't really help understanding how the cell works. …which could be more difficult to achieve using existing cellular machineries, such as enabling non-canonical chemistries, alternate macromolecular architectures, and allow for more control and fine-tuning, given the minimalism that these systems could reach. “Understanding how the cell works” is only a small fraction of the potential applications presented in the perspective.