> Human Genome: About 20,000 protein coding genes.
> E. Coli: A lab strain of the E. Coli bacterium use for research has 4,460 genes.
> SpudCell: This new synthetic cell only has 36 genes.
Wow, so little genes even compared to E. Coli! Things like this make me wonder what the minimum number of genes is required to maintain functionality for cells in species we have all around us. There isn't much evolutionary pressure to do the genetic equivalent of dead code removal (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equisetum_arvense) besides the ability to copy the genes.
My other first impression is the potential similarities to alien contact. What if these cells, once given the ability to reproduce autonomously, become widespread around the globe, with no way for our, and other species', immune systems to prevent their consumption of biomatter, or whatever is made to be their "food".
> My other first impression is the potential similarities to alien contact. What if these cells, once given the ability to reproduce autonomously, become widespread around the globe, with no way for our, and other species', immune systems to prevent their consumption of biomatter, or whatever is made to be their "food".
According to this (https://biotic.org/research/spudcell/): it's "food" is: "small 'feeder liposomes' that deliver lipids for membrane growth plus nutrients including ribosomes, enzymes, and small molecules [emphasis mine]".
So it can't make everything a cell actually needs.
Anyway, still kinda scary, since you know it won't stop here.
This synthetic cell is based entirely on common Earth biology, just stripped down to a semi-functional "MVP". So there's no reason to expect it to do anything other than "what existing bacteria can already do but worse".
There is some pressure for genome compactness, especially in prokaryotes. But, like with most pressures, there are tradeoffs to shrinking the genome. The extra DNA isn't "waste" - it's often buying something somewhere.
It doesn’t natively reproduce but still this is freaking amazing. And the process is going to be open sourced. Still can’t say we understand one cell (the ribosomes don’t assemble) but much much closer!
Bad title for this big of a story imo. Are we less sure about life now than before today? Good excerpt:
“ Scientists hope synthetic cells can tell them things about life that natural cells cannot, including such basic questions as how many genes are necessary for a minimal form of life.
But synthetic cells also might someday be engineered to do things that natural cells can’t, like making new kinds of medicine or drawing large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In theory, engineered SpudCells might produce a vast range of proteins that natural cells cannot be coaxed to make, or even toxic chemicals like rocket fuel.
Now, “we can think about doing chemistry that we’re barely getting our heads around,” Dr. Glass said.”
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48747304
> Human Genome: About 20,000 protein coding genes.
> E. Coli: A lab strain of the E. Coli bacterium use for research has 4,460 genes.
> SpudCell: This new synthetic cell only has 36 genes.
Wow, so little genes even compared to E. Coli! Things like this make me wonder what the minimum number of genes is required to maintain functionality for cells in species we have all around us. There isn't much evolutionary pressure to do the genetic equivalent of dead code removal (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equisetum_arvense) besides the ability to copy the genes.
My other first impression is the potential similarities to alien contact. What if these cells, once given the ability to reproduce autonomously, become widespread around the globe, with no way for our, and other species', immune systems to prevent their consumption of biomatter, or whatever is made to be their "food".
> My other first impression is the potential similarities to alien contact. What if these cells, once given the ability to reproduce autonomously, become widespread around the globe, with no way for our, and other species', immune systems to prevent their consumption of biomatter, or whatever is made to be their "food".
According to this (https://biotic.org/research/spudcell/): it's "food" is: "small 'feeder liposomes' that deliver lipids for membrane growth plus nutrients including ribosomes, enzymes, and small molecules [emphasis mine]".
So it can't make everything a cell actually needs.
Anyway, still kinda scary, since you know it won't stop here.
This synthetic cell is based entirely on common Earth biology, just stripped down to a semi-functional "MVP". So there's no reason to expect it to do anything other than "what existing bacteria can already do but worse".
There is some pressure for genome compactness, especially in prokaryotes. But, like with most pressures, there are tradeoffs to shrinking the genome. The extra DNA isn't "waste" - it's often buying something somewhere.
I wonder if genetic engineering will ever have its RISC moment
It doesn’t natively reproduce but still this is freaking amazing. And the process is going to be open sourced. Still can’t say we understand one cell (the ribosomes don’t assemble) but much much closer!
Lets hope they don't end up creating the "grey goo" that endlessly replicates and can't be stopped.
Bad title for this big of a story imo. Are we less sure about life now than before today? Good excerpt:
“ Scientists hope synthetic cells can tell them things about life that natural cells cannot, including such basic questions as how many genes are necessary for a minimal form of life.
But synthetic cells also might someday be engineered to do things that natural cells can’t, like making new kinds of medicine or drawing large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In theory, engineered SpudCells might produce a vast range of proteins that natural cells cannot be coaxed to make, or even toxic chemicals like rocket fuel.
Now, “we can think about doing chemistry that we’re barely getting our heads around,” Dr. Glass said.”