[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Israel knew October 7th was going to happen

One of the World’s Richest Men is Moving to America After Trump’s Landslide Victory

Taiwan has a better voting system than America

Donald Trump on Tuesday nominated veteran, author, and Fox News host Pete Hegseth as the Secretary of Defense

"Warrior For Truth & Honesty" - Trump Names John Ratcliffe As CIA Director

"The Manhattan Project" Of Our Time: Musk And Vivek Ramaswamy To Head Department Of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Trump, Rogan and French Fries at MsDonalds

President Trump wants a 10% cap on all credit card interest rates

Senator Ted Cruz STUNS the Entire Congress With This POWERFUL Speech (On the Border)

Kash Patel, Trump’s top choice for CIA Director, wants to immediately release classified

The £4 supplement that could slash blood pressure - reducing stroke, dementia and heart attack risk

RFK Jr. to be involved in oversight of health and agriculture departments under second Trump admin

​​​​​​​"Keep Grinding": Elon Musk's America PAC Will Continue Anti-Soros Push Ahead Of Special Elections & Midterms

Johnny B Goode

Russian Hypersonic Advances Remain Beyond Western Reach

US Preps for War vs China, Dusts-Off Deserted WWII Air Bases

Spain on high alert as deadly storms loom: new flood risks in Barcelona, Majorca, Ibiza.

U.S. Publication Foreign Policy Says NATO Knows Ukraine Is Losing The War

Red Lobster and TGI Fridays are closing. Heres whats moving in

The United Nations is again warning of imminent famine in northern Gaza.

Israeli Drone Attack Targets Aid Distribution Center in Syria

Trump's new Cabinet picks, a Homan tribute, and Lizzo's giant toddler hand [Livestream in progress]

Russia and Iran Officially Link Their National Banking Systems

"They Just Got Handed Fraudulent Books" - Ed Dowd Confirms Our Warning That Trump Is 'Inheriting A Turd Of An Economy'

They're Getting Worse! 😂

'Forever Chemicals' In US Drinking Water: A Growing Problem

Ex-Trump aides warn Israeli ministers not to assume hell back annexation in 2nd term

Netanyahu seeks to delay taking the stand, citing lack of time to prepare during war

Google inadvertently reveals Kiev regimes aircraft stationed, operating from Poland

Taiwan Mulls Massive $15BN Arms Package To Signal Trump It's 'Serious' About Defense


Science/Tech
See other Science/Tech Articles

Title: Making life in the lab (and defining it)
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/science/28life.html?_r=1
Published: Aug 3, 2011
Author: DENNIS OVERBYE
Post Date: 2011-08-03 05:46:00 by Tatarewicz
Keywords: None
Views: 59
Comments: 4

SAN DIEGO — Here in a laboratory perched on the edge of the continent, researchers are trying to construct Life As We Don’t Know It in a thimbleful of liquid.

Generations of scientists, children and science fiction fans have grown up presuming that humanity’s first encounter with alien life will happen in a red sand dune on Mars, or in an enigmatic radio signal from some obscure star.

But it could soon happen right here on Earth, according to a handful of chemists and biologists who are using the tools of modern genetics to try to generate the Frankensteinian spark that will jump the gap separating the inanimate and the animate. The day is coming, they say, when chemicals in a test tube will come to life.

By some measures, Gerald F. Joyce, a professor at the Scripps Research Institute here, has already crossed that line, although he would be the first to say he has not — yet.

Biologists do not agree on what the definition of life should be or whether it is even useful to have one. But most do agree that the ability to evolve and adapt is fundamental to life. And they also agree that having a second example of life could provide insight to how it began and how special life is or is not in the universe, as well as a clue for how to recognize life if and when we do stumble upon it out there among the stars.

“Everything we know about life is based on studies of life on Earth,” said Chris McKay, a researcher at NASA’s Ames Research Laboratory in Mountain View, Calif.

Dr. Joyce said recently: “It drives me crazy when astronomers say, ‘Surely the universe is pregnant with life.’ If we have an Earthlike planet, what are the chances of life arising? Is it one in a million? Is it one in two? I don’t see how you can say.”

He continued, “If you had a second example of life, even if it were synthetic, you might know better. I’m betting we’re just going to make it.”

Four years ago Dr. Joyce and a graduate student, Tracey A. Lincoln, now a researcher at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, evolved a molecule in a test tube that could replicate and evolve all by itself, swapping little jerry-built genes in a test tube forever, as long as it was supplied with the right carefully engineered ingredients.

An article in the Joyce Laboratory newsletter called it “The Immortal Molecule.” Dr. Joyce’s molecule is a form of RNA, or ribonucleic acid, which plays Robin to DNA’s Batman in Life As We Do Know It, assembling proteins in accordance with the blueprint encoded in DNA. Neither RNA nor DNA is alive by itself, any more than any other chemical, like bleach, or a protein. But in Dr. Joyce’s test tube, his specially engineered RNA molecule comes close, copying itself over and over, and evolving.

But, Dr. Joyce says, “We really would hope for more from our molecules than just replicating.”

Reproduction is the job of any life, he explained, but Earthly organisms have evolved a spectacular set of tricks to improve the odds of success — everything from peacock feathers to whale songs. Dr. Joyce’s molecules have not yet surprised him by striking out on their own to invent the molecular equivalent of writing a hit pop song.

It is only a matter of time, he said, before they do.

“Our job is to give them the running room to do that,” Dr. Joyce said.

The deeper philosophical and intellectual ramifications of test tube life are as enormous as they are unknown. The achievement would probably not come with sci-fi drama, say scientists who are squeamish about such matters anyway, saying such speculation is beyond their pay grade. No microbe is going to leap out of the Petri dish and call home, or turn the graduate students into zombies. Indeed, given the human penchant for argument and scientists’ habit of understatement, it could be years before everybody agrees it has been done.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0)

(Page 2 of 3)

“The ability to synthesize life will be an event of profound importance, like the invention of agriculture or the invention of metallurgy,” Freeman Dyson, a mathematician and physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, wrote in an e-mail. “Nobody can tell in advance what will come of it.” Life Out There

From Inanimate to Animate

Articles in this series examine the search for new forms of life in the universe. Previous Articles in the Series » Multimedia Graphic A Step Toward Synthetic Life Related

Life Out There: Gazing Afar for Other Earths, and Other Beings (January 31, 2011)

RSS Feed RSS Get Science News From The New York Times » Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

Read All Comments (135) »

On Earth, all life as we know it is based on DNA, the carbon-based molecule that contains the instructions for making and operating living cells in a four-letter alphabet along its double-helix spine.

The possibilities of a second example of life are as deep as the imagination. It could be based on DNA that uses a different genetic code, with perhaps more or fewer than four letters; it could be based on some complex molecule other than DNA, or more than the 20 amino acids from which our own proteins are made, or even some kind of chemistry based on something other than carbon and the other elements that we take for granted, like phosphorous or iron. Others wonder whether chemistry is necessary at all. Could life manifest itself, for example, in the pattern of electrically charged dust grains in a giant interstellar cloud, as the British astronomer and author Fred Hoyle imagined in his novel “The Black Cloud”?

Dr. Joyce said that his RNA replicators would count as such a “second example, albeit one constructed as a homage to our ancient ancestors.”

So far, he said, his work with Dr. Lincoln has shown that manmade molecules can evolve over successive generations. “They can pass information from parent to progeny, they can mutate,” Dr. Joyce said. “They can win or die. The molecules are doing it all. We’re just keeping the lights on.”

Dr. Joyce’s molecules may not be clever enough yet to qualify as life in his view, but all sorts of alternatives are being explored in other labs.

Some researchers, like Steven Benner of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution in Florida, are constructing and experimenting with forms of DNA that use coding alphabets of more than four letters. J. Craig Venter, who helped spearhead the decoding of the human genome and now works as president of the J. Craig Venter Institute, recently used store-bought chemicals to reconstruct the genome of a bacterial goat parasite and put it in another bacterium, where it took over, churning out copies of itself with Dr. Venter’s watermark inscribed in its gene code.

In a related vein, George Church and Farren Isaacs of the Harvard Medical School recently reported that they had reprogrammed the genome of an E. Coli bacterium, opening up the possibility of incorporating new features into the ubiquitous little bug. Dr. Joyce called the work “really macho molecular biotechnology.”

Jack Szostak of Harvard Medical School and his collaborators have embarked on an ambitious project to build an artificial cell that can replicate and presumably evolve. Dr. Benner wrote in an e-mail, “In my view, a terran laboratory will make synthetic life before NASA or the E.S.A. finds it elsewhere,” referring to the European Space Agency. He added, “And a lot before, given the disassembling of NASA by the current administration.”

According to modern science, life on Earth originated about 3.8 billion years ago, perhaps in a warm pond, as Darwin speculated, or perhaps in a boiling, bubbling mud bath or a scorching volcanic vent way under the sea. The first inhabitant of this Eden, chemists suspect, was RNA.

In today’s world RNA runs errands for DNA. Like DNA, RNA encodes genetic information. Unlike DNA, however, RNA can also catalyze chemical reactions between other molecules, chopping them up or binding them together, a task mostly performed by proteins in modern organisms.

In 1962, the M.I.T. biologist Alexander Rich suggested that RNA could have played both roles — blueprint and machinery — at the beginning. Scientists cannot prove that this is how life arose on Earth, but they can do the next best thing. They can make their own RNA and see if they can then breathe life into it.

Tatarewicz  posted on  2011-08-03   5:57:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: All (#1)

(Page 3 of 3)

Enter Dr. Joyce, who says he came to his vocation by reading “Gravity’s Rainbow,” Thomas Pynchon’s 1973 novel about rockets and death in World War II, while he was a student at the University of Chicago. The last section of that book, he pointed out, is called “The Counterforce,” about pockets of life and love carving order out of the rubble of wartime Europe. For biologists the counterforce creating order and life out of chaos is simply Darwinian evolution, Dr. Joyce explained. “I wanted to be a member of the counterforce.” Life Out There

At the center of the Joyce lab experiments is a T-shaped piece of RNA that has the ability to glue together other molecules of RNA. In 2002, Dr. Joyce and a postdoctoral fellow, Natasha Paul, configured it to recognize and glue together a pair of smaller molecules, essentially an L and a straight piece. When joined, those molecules would form a new copy of the original T-shaped molecule. It worked; the RNA was able to manufacture new versions of itself, but not fast enough to keep up with the original RNA’s natural tendency to fall apart. Essentially it was dying faster than it was reproducing. Dr. Joyce and Dr. Lincoln found a way to speed the process up, by having two complementary versions of the RNA manufacture each other.

“There was a day that it all happened,” said Dr. Joyce, namely Oct. 1, 2007, when as he puts it, the replicators “went critical,” and their population began growing exponentially.

The game, as he likes to say, was on. And it has never stopped. Dr. Joyce and his colleagues next proceeded to engineer a sort of March Madness for molecules. They synthesized 12 versions of the replicators, which could mutate and evolve to improve their ability to reproduce. The experimenters threw these into the pot, along with the appropriate “food” segments, to compete. “They just go at it,” Dr. Joyce explained.

By the end, the winning molecules were doubling their numbers every 15 minutes. Mistaken swaps had produced combinations, mutations, that had not been in the mix at the start. Most of the original versions almost completely disappeared. In short, the molecule evolved.

“Evolution is not a theory for us chemists,” Dr. Joyce said. “It’s what molecules do when they have the property to replicate and transmit information from parents to progeny.”

In a separate experiment the molecules were redesigned so that they would replicate only when another chemical was present. “That’s the app that’s going to pay for this,” said Dr. Joyce, explaining that the replicating molecules could be fashioned into sensors to detect pollutants or dangerous toxins in the environment. Dr. Joyce and his collaborators are now starting to run the same tournament with 256 versions of the replication enzyme. “We are pipetting madly,” he reported recently.

That means that there will be about 65,000 possible gene combinations that can emerge and try out their wings, which means things are getting interesting. As Dr. Lincoln said, “We’re knocking on the door, but we’re not quite there yet.” Sidney Altman, a Yale professor who shared a Nobel prize for discovering some of the talents of RNA, said that true test tube life could still be years away. “Gerry Joyce’s replicators are very clever molecules,” he said, but added that they were not self-sufficient enough to be alive.

Dr. Joyce said his team was working on having the replicating molecule invent a new ability, but he would not say what it was. Asked for an example of the kind of things he could teach his RNA to do, Dr. Joyce suggested it could take part in creating one of the ingredients for its own replication by adding together a pair of smaller molecules. “What would be cool,” he said, “would be if they could make their own food.” The key to more ability, he said, is complexity. His molecule has only two genes, compared with 25,000 in human beings, and experiments involved fiddling with four letters of these genes. The human genome has three billion letters.

“We have a little toy genome where we can have the complete book of life,” he said, “but the sentences only have two words.”

Dr. Joyce’s molecules will never catch up to the biosphere. But someday their genome may surprise their creator with a word — a trick or a new move in the game of almost life — that he has not anticipated. “If it would happen, it would do it for me, I would be happy,” Dr. Joyce said, adding, “I won’t say it out loud, but it’s alive.”

Tatarewicz  posted on  2011-08-03   6:08:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Tatarewicz (#0)

deleted

The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~ Ben Franklin

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry

Eric Stratton  posted on  2011-08-03   7:07:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: All (#2)

From among 135 comments:

As a scientist, I appreciate that it is difficult for even the well-educated citizen to understand this sort of thing, so it is incumbent on the scientific community and science writers to "get it right" in terms of both details and overall tone. This article is not bad for details, but wretched for the general impression it leaves. There is, in fact, nothing here to either be afraid of or very impressed by. Consider the diagram in the article: The authors are taking the catalytic molecules (E and E') and "feeding it food segments" (A, A', B, B') that are each about half the size and complexity of E/E'! Absent these enormously complex "foods," E and E' are going nowhere. And there is no reasonable scientific expectation that E and E' (or their relatives) will be able to use any simpler compounds any time soon. Thus the title and much of the text is a complete disservice to the reading community. Everyone involved should be embarrassed by the story (though not by the science).

#91: "The whole concept is for idiots and grant money. Is it any wonder that with the trillions of dollars spent on what grant-seeking people choose to call 'cancer research' we are hardly any closer to a solution to the cancer problem than we were 100 years ago. Yes, a lot of information has been [c]ollected, some worthwhile, but at the rate we're going the solution is at least 5 generation down the road. Get real, people; stop funding (with your dollars) meaningless pie-in-the-sky-Professor Cory research projects. Time to get down to real business."

You're confusing science with technology. A rough working definition of technology is manipulating the known. A rough definition of science is investigating the unknown. Technology in one word: Know-how. Science in one phrase: Don't-know-yet. Scientists can't decide in advance what they're going to find and go find it -- and although we don't have a cure for cancer (or AIDS or a lot of other things) we have found a lot en route to those goals, including the knowledge that "cancer" is not a single entity curable by a magic bullet, but a process of cell reproduction going haywire, with multiple possible triggers and maybe (scary thought) for some kinds, no cure. Cancer research has yielded many other unexpected benefits even if it hasn't cured cancer. (Samuel Beckett: "Try again. Fail again. Fail better." He would have made a good scientist, perhaps.)

It has been said the most important words a scientist can utter are: "Hey whoa, didn't see THAT coming."

Paul Adams: Stony Brook

It's unfortunate the article fails to describe the really crucial, specific issues involved in this type of research, though at one point, when it speaks of the experiments "going critical", it hints at them. At the heart of the science of the origin of life is the question of the accuracy of the selfreplicase. In essence, one needs a catalyst for RNA replication, which must be able to help copy each base with an error rate that is less than the number of bases making up the catalyst (which is itself an RNA molecule): this is what one means by "going critical". One doesn't just need RNA, or a catalyst, but an RNA molecule that works so well that it can catalyze its own PERFECT replication most of the time. It's a very tall order, and it's still uncertain that it can happen, though Stoszak's work, and the fact we are here, suggests it did. In this case, I'm afraid that if you don't understand this subtle point, you have no right to comment. There are lot of other interesting issues, but they are all subsidiary.

Mark: One point, RNA itself is very unstable in aqueous (i.e. water) solutions, so it has been proposed that the original autocatalytic replicator molecules might have been neither RNA nor DNA. It makes sense, DNA is chemically optimized for stability and RNA for transience (since in many of its uses the cell turns it over rapidly to be able to change state as needed). The original molecule might have had slightly different chemistry to be able to a bit of both. However RNA might be more stable in less aqueous environments, and there are some enzymatic reactions that can performed in highly organic solvents, so who knows. Re the point about cell walls, the Russian Oparin did some work a long time ago showing that lipid and protein mixtures could be teased into pseudo-cell like objects pretty easily. A real cell wall today is very complex, but simple lipid bilayers are not that hard to make.

There is a whole other school of thought arguing that stable cycles of chemical reactions using non-nucleic acid catalysts arose first, and that DNA:RNA were later on the scene. I don't quite buy it myself, but some pretty smart guys are into that model for abiogenesis.

Jim: These molecules fall apart of their own accord. They only exist temporarily in a petri dish. Beyond that, established micro-organisms would break them down in no time at all. Billions of years of evolution have created organisms thousands of times more efficient, robust and effective than this process ever could. That is why we don't know how life got started. Anything as simple as RNA-based life is laughably non-competitive compared to natural bacteria around today. There have been so many improvements beyond RNA world (if that is how life got going), with new generations of life enormously more competitive than earlier ones, that not only the first life but its more complex successors (such as early DNA based life) that might give us direct clues are long gone. We are left to guess work and experiments like this just to get a vague idea.

Daniel: there are several reasons that mutations happen..first of all DNA replication is very efficient, but not totally error free..so every time a cell replicates there are mutations...the cellular energy metabolism based on oxygen generates reactive oxygen species which then induce DNA damage..cosmic rays induce DNA damage leading to mutations..Overall, we have very efficient systems to repair DNA damage, but they are not perfect...viral diseases can induce wholesale chromosome changes, which are mutations...there is nothing "perfect" in nature, everything has a margin of error.... Overall, the point of the article relates to the origin of life question..it has been possible to make amino acids and nucleotides under prebiological conditions simulated in the laboratory...the big question is whether or not one can generate a self replicating molecule...for a whole lot of reasons, the idea that the first self replicating molecule was probably RNA and not DNA is popular idea..what Joyce's lab accomplished was to generate self replicating rnas that can replicate in the 'test tube' but they use oligonuleotides as substrates, which becomes a chicken and egg question, since what will synthesize oligonucleotides ? here are two articles of possible interest..www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/...s/PMC2652413/?tool=pubmed and cshperspectives.cshlp.org...10/05/04/cshperspect.a0... both of which are a bit technical, but the second article has a review of the RNA world...One of the big problems of origin of life experiments is that life evolved in a reducing atmosphere, and these experiments were performed under a reducing atmosphere.. here is an alternative perspective on the RNA world, a bit more recent... cshperspectives.cshlp.org.../10/a002204.full.pdf+html finally, the work that has gone into these experiments is very difficult and i respect it...i am not discounting them..

Ruth Light MD: "We're just keeping the lights on." To me, the essence of life is the ability to capture energy on its way down a gradient, and use that energy to create structure. These investigators are providing the energy. As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't count.

To clarify, I would consider it the creation of life if one started with simple inorganic compounds spontaneously available in adequate concentration in the universe - or perhaps if one brought them together in adequate concentration. If the investigator started with common substances such as H2S, H2O, CO2, etc., with mineral catalysts, and ended up with a metabolism that processed the energy released in simple chemical reactions, trapping it to produce self-replicating structure, then I would consider this to be the creation of life. Whatever "food" is being added in these experiments, the energy is obviously already in a highly specialized high-energy bond produced by preexisting life. Ruth L.

If I may infuriate #32 even further by citing to the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes: Perhaps the most convincing sign that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is the fact than none of it has tried to contact u

Tatarewicz  posted on  2011-08-03   8:14:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]