According to the group of scientists working on this latest development, the definition of the "synthetic cell" is a “cell controlled by a genome assembled from chemically synthesized pieces of DNA.” In addition, the cytoplasm or the liquid part is of the host cell. To further clarify, DNA was synthesized first from yeast, then was modified in-vitro and in-silico, and then transplanted into a bacterial cell. With the assistance of the recipient bacterial cell, the artificial/modified genome was able to self-replicate its content. So, in time, all of the cells present in the bacteria originate from the “synthetic” part of this system. [1] In essence, it is synthetic, but partially synthetic, since other natural cells were used and assisted in its production. Dr Francis Collins of the National Institute of Health makes a great analogy to assist our understanding. He said in an interview with Business Weekly,
“Imagine that bioengineers could program genes to grow into a fully functioning heart,” Collins said. “If you transplanted that into someone, the recovered patient wouldn’t be a synthetic individual, just a very lucky person.” [2]
Though a big step towards progression, we still have much more to go. This was in fact, the first time an entire genome or the total DNA making up a living cell was artificially modified and able to survive and replicate. Usually with the current bioengineering techniques, we are able to genetically modify organisms and cells on a gene-to-gene resolution. In this study, the modified genes were all stitched together (again with the help of nature) and then transplanted, replicated, and survived in its entirety, while converting the host bacteria into a new species due to the new genes introduced. The next step and real challenge is to figure out what the minimal genome needed for viability is, meaning what is the least amount of genes or DNA required for self replication, survival, and conversion.
The potential benefits arising from this study are unparalleled. Ranging from developing new bio-fuels, fighting pollution, and leading to breakthroughs in medical treatments. We already see that this is leaning in those directions. For example, Dr Greg Venter (the chief scientist in this research) has teamed up with Exxon Mobile in order to devise a mechanism and method to convert algae into bio-fuels using the same procedures, which would act as an alternative energy source for us. [2]
Nevertheless, there has been a plethora of articles and pieces either vehemently criticizing or praising the actions of these scientists, specifically from the Christian right and the extreme left atheists. We must acknowledge that whenever a scientific breakthrough occurs, the same questions arise almost in a predictable and cyclic manner. Nonetheless, most of these questions arise from a majority that is neither qualified, nor have the expertise to really decipher the impact of and research behind such findings. Clearly, the inclination of the media to sensationalize issues makes it appear as if new life was created from scratch, but the reality is far from it. Before we convince ourselves of a position, especially in the realm of science, we should be certain that we possess enough knowledge of the methods, results and implications of a particular discovery. The consequences of allowing fear and ignorance to guide our judgment would be to deny ourselves of groundbreaking advancements that can change our world for the better.
----------------------
1. Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome
-- Gibson et al., 10.1126/science.1190719
2. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-21/life-form-created-with-man-made-dna-offers-benefits-dangers.html
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/14/green-algae-exxon-mobil)
No comments:
Post a Comment