Guter Artikel - birngts besser auf den Punkt als so manches andere was auf die
Venter-PR-Maschine reinfliegt oder dem Vatikan alles nachplaudert (wobei ich
das wiederholte Ihr spielt Gott in Anbetracht der Tatsache nett finde, wo
doch der Vatikan wissen muss, dass man sich kein Bild von ihm machen darf -
folglich kann man es auch nicht spielen…)
2 weiter Letters bei nature bringen auch bisschen Einblick was alles getan
werden musste um überhaupt das Fremdgenom in der anderen Zelle zum Laufen zu
bringen:
- epigenetische Veränderung im Sinne von Methylierungen
- Enzyme still geschalten
ansonsten wäre das Genom von der neuen Zelle recht flott degradiert worden
Aber nett find ichs schon, dass Venter eine Emailadresse ins Genom codiert hat,
an die man mailen soll/kann, wenn man das Genom dechifriert hat (+ 3 Zitate
die Erwähnung nahezu aller Beteiligter) siehe
http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/first-replicating-cell-driven-by-synthetic-genome-created-by-venter-institute/81243439/
_
Michael Horak
m.ho...@gmx.at
http://twitter.com/fatmike182
On 21 May 2010, at 15:13, das ende der nahrungskette wrote:
On May 20th, J. Craig Venter and his team at J.C Venter Institute announced
the creation of a cell controlled by a synthetic genome in a paper published
in SCIENCE. As science historian George Dyson points out, from the point of
view of technology, a code generated within a digital computer is now
self-replicating as the genome of a line of living cells. From the point of
view of biology, a code generated by a living organism has been translated
into a digital representation for replication, editing, and transmission to
other cells.
This new development is all about operating on a large scale. Reading the
genetic code of a wide range of species, the paper says, has increased
exponentially from these early studies. Our ability to rapidly digitize
genomic information has increased by more than eight orders of magnitude over
the past 25 years. This is a big scaling up in our technological abilities.
Physicist Freeman Dyson, commenting on the paper, notes that the sequencing
and synthesizing of DNA give us all the tools we need to create new forms of
life. But it remains to be seen how it will serve in practice.
One question is whether or not a DNA sequence alone is enough to generate a
living creature. One way of reading the paper suggests this doesn't seem to
be the case because of the use of old microplasma cells into which the DNA
was inserted that this is not about creating life since the new life
requires an existing living recipient cell. If this is the case, what is the
chance of producing something de novo? The paper might appear to be about a
somewhat banal technological feat. The new techniques build on existing
capabilities. What else is being added, what is qualitatively new?
Link
