Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 5201737" data-attributes="member: 115">What's impressive of the work is the scope, but I too think it's being over-sold.If anyone is interested in reading the paper in Science, the link (PDF) is <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/science.1190719v1.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.The basic science of it is that they used a yeast genome that they already knew the sequence of and recontructed the DNA sequence chemically.&nbsp; They started with small chunks (called cassettes) and combined them into larger pieces, eventually ending up with a full genome.&nbsp; It looks like the fully constructed genome got put in an &quot;empty&quot; yeast cell (really a cell with the DNA removed); the paper linked to above is not terribly well written, IMO.So while technically it is synthetic, I would consider it more that they made a copy of a cell, almost like a copying machine.&nbsp; They didn't actually make a new life-form.What makes this notable is that genes could be added to and subtracted from the individual cassettes, rather than having to do it with the whole genome.&nbsp; This makes it a little easier to work with, and allows the scope of changes to be vastly increased.&nbsp; Doing what they did by normal methods of gene alteration would be extremely time-consuming.That said, the practical utility of this approach is still a long way away.&nbsp; If I were to guess where CJVI is going with this, they'll start making cassettes from all sorts of bacterial species, allowing pieces to be mixed and matched more easily.&nbsp; While it sounds very exciting, the reality is that most microbiology labs are only interested in looking at minute changes - one or two genes at a time.&nbsp; It's much more practical time-wise and money-wise to make the changes &quot;in genome&quot; rather than through this method.A human cell application of this is even further away.&nbsp; It's easy to work with yeast, but magnitudes more difficult to work with mammalian cells.&nbsp; Still, the approach has merit, and it will be interesting to see what comes of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LightPhoenix, post: 5201737, member: 115"] What's impressive of the work is the scope, but I too think it's being over-sold. If anyone is interested in reading the paper in [I]Science[/I], the link (PDF) is [URL="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/science.1190719v1.pdf"]here[/URL]. The basic science of it is that they used a yeast genome that they already knew the sequence of and recontructed the DNA sequence chemically. They started with small chunks (called cassettes) and combined them into larger pieces, eventually ending up with a full genome. It looks like the fully constructed genome got put in an "empty" yeast cell (really a cell with the DNA removed); the paper linked to above is not terribly well written, IMO. So while technically it is synthetic, I would consider it more that they made a [I]copy[/I] of a cell, almost like a copying machine. They didn't actually make a new life-form. What makes this notable is that genes could be added to and subtracted from the individual cassettes, rather than having to do it with the whole genome. This makes it a little easier to work with, and allows the scope of changes to be vastly increased. Doing what they did by normal methods of gene alteration would be extremely time-consuming. That said, the practical utility of this approach is still a long way away. If I were to guess where CJVI is going with this, they'll start making cassettes from all sorts of bacterial species, allowing pieces to be mixed and matched more easily. While it sounds very exciting, the reality is that most microbiology labs are only interested in looking at minute changes - one or two genes at a time. It's much more practical time-wise and money-wise to make the changes "in genome" rather than through this method. A human cell application of this is even further away. It's easy to work with yeast, but magnitudes more difficult to work with mammalian cells. Still, the approach has merit, and it will be interesting to see what comes of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification