digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at reuters.com

Harvard Team Creates the World's 1st Synthesized Cells

reuters.com — A single cell is the most awesomely sophisticated molecular machine yet produced. A self-directing, self-replicating micro-factory capable of complex constructions, automated repair and even (like all good sci-fi-sounding devices) self-destruct. The first cells, however, were much less "complex mechanisms" and significantly more "Shake and Bake"

Who dugg this? Made popular Jun 16, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

57 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • MaximusIGN, on 06/16/2008, -17/+51Mixing some fatty acids and DNA in a test tube of water, they found that the lipid molecules formed a crude ring around the information-rich core. Even more strikingly, nucleotides added to the solution successfully entered the cell and replicated the DNA within a day.

    This should be an experiment done in every high school from now on. Learning that the process from nothing to living cell doesn't require a God will hopefully lead to more informed people instead of those living in fear from someone who will send you to an eternity of hell even though he loves you.

  • hauntedchippy, on 06/16/2008, -0/+21Define "living".
    The bases that make up DNA (AGTC) can form spontaneously (as shown in the Miller-Urey experiment).

    You're right that this experiment does not show the origin of life (the scientists used preexisting DNA for example) but it is a significant step towards a complete theory of abiogenesis.
  • KineticShampoo, on 06/16/2008, -2/+15SHAKE AND BAKE!!!
  • Risingashes, on 06/16/2008, -11/+18Doesn't DNA originate from living material?

    If you used such an experiment to demonstrate creating life you'd be lying to the students.

    You may as well say sex proves that there is no God.
  • coyote1284, on 06/16/2008, -1/+8and I helped!
  • CasinoJack, on 06/16/2008, -0/+7More so than those that tell Atheists that they will burn in hell for all eternity for their beliefs?
  • SilasTomorrow, on 06/16/2008, -1/+7The Cylons were created by man
    They rebelled
    They evolved
    There are many copies...
  • kleptomaniac, on 06/16/2008, -0/+6I believe that this experiment attempted to show that if these lipids and individual nucleotides existed in the primordial soup, which appears to be the case, it is possible that they could spontaneously form a rudimentary cell.
  • ambiguus, on 06/16/2008, -0/+5Does anyone else realize that this article is B.S.?

    The concept is not far off, and work like this has been going on for a while, but it's not DNA that does this, it's RNA. RNA has been known to catalyze it's own reproduction for some time, and it's already well established that the early components of life where based off of RNA before the more stable version of DNA was used. Go read this guy's research, he's doing it with RNA and what he's shown now has only strengthened the theories we've had about early life, but it's certainly not revolutionary.

    Science is still making sense day by day.
  • s14sh3r, on 06/16/2008, -1/+6That's all fine and good, except it's not creating a cell from "nothing". It's more like creating something from spare parts. It's still impressive, and should be applauded for the knowledge that will be gained in the name of science and medicine.
  • tarley, on 06/16/2008, -0/+4Re: Above -- In Australia, we're taught about the Miller-Urey experiment in school.
  • spinur, on 06/16/2008, -2/+6That's certainly interesting, but they did not get a living organism. What they did get was a self-assembling membrane that had the right permeability to protect DNA but allow nucleotides in. This is still an awfully long way from a living organism. This thing doesn't make energy, doesn't divide. doesn't make proteins, and it's not clear whether by "replicated the DNA" they mean it went from single stranded to double stranded, or that a complete doubled stranded piece of DNA actually replicated itself. Forming a complement strand is not that spectacular, since the nucleotides carry their own energy. The process will go on it's own, just much slower than it does with enzymes.

    What I would find really amazing and cool would be if a piece of double-stranded, supercoiled, circular DNA managed to replicate itself entirely without enzymes. That would be really cool, because there are a few energy intensive steps there that are handled by enzymes in living cells, including uncoiling, ligating the ends, and recoiling. But it doesn't give specifics, so I guess I'll just have to wait until the paper comes out in Nature.

    Enzymes help a cell accomplish something called thermodynamic coupling. It allows a thermodynamically unfavourable process to be driven by another, much more thermodynamically favourable one. It these researchers have seen evidence of thermodynamic coupling without enzymes, that would be fascinating indeed.
  • nullifidian0, on 06/16/2008, -0/+4@Egoist: just because it's not on Digg doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There's an entire world out there that you appear to be completely unaware of.
  • skags, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3It's alive! It's alive!!! Muhahahahaha!
  • Altotus, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3Artificial genome. Artificial genes have been around for some time...
  • itzac, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3@egoist

    See the next comment thread.
  • itzac, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3I was raised Catholic, so I spent a good year of my life worried about thought crime before I got over it. I stopped believing a long time ago, but I still deal with Catholic Guilt all the time. It's a big pain the ass, and something I truly wish was not a part of my personality.
  • sotose, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3"If you toss enough nucleotids in the primordial soup,a CROC will come out an bite ya!Blimey!"
  • DarkTranquility, on 06/16/2008, -4/+7"This should be an experiment done in every high school from now on."

    I whole-heartedly agree but it is not going to happen. A good example is the work of the Miller-Urey Experiment which simulated the so called "primordial soup". A great experiment I think for a science student to learn about, yet it is not covered in schools. Some skeptics doubt the validity of this experiment but its still an interesting experiment to carry out, science is continuously growing.

    Regardless, an amazing achievement by the Harvard team.
  • hauntedchippy, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Venter created the first artificial gene, subtle difference.
  • hauntedchippy, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2+1 for Austrailian education. Now apologise for Ray Comfort.
  • hauntedchippy, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Damn that's good science
  • kleptomaniac, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2I assume that this would be a good first step http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribozyme
  • mdraper, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2So say we all.
  • normalkid0615, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2you are impure. sell your pollutant computer, your house, and everything you own and take up your cross and follow in his footsteps....

    ill be waiting...

    thought so...
  • LacY, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2I don't know why people are digging you down. It's interesting, but it's not really earth-shattering. We can get modified lipids to form a ring around small DNA now--it's an easy way of getting RNAi into human cells.

    I didn't understand "Even more strikingly, nucleotides added to the solution successfully entered the cell and replicated the DNA within a day. " That makes no sense--replicating DNA requires enzymes (quite a few of them). Even if it was single-stranded and the nucleotides bound to make it double-stranded (which isn't "replicating" the DNA, but that may be what they meant), the nucleotides wouldn't actually make a strand of DNA--they could base-pair with the existing strand, but enzymes are required to connect the nucleotides together. I'm assuming maybe they left a few parts out of the story.

    Interesting, though.
  • Zong, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2God is a mathematical equation
  • drshane, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2More of a micelle than a "neo" cell.
  • endus, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2And they were smart enough to make one of them a really hot Asian chick.
  • 938MeV, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1I just saw a video that goes through some of this.
    It starts slow, but goes through some of the details of this hypothesis of abiogenesis.
    It's about ten minutes long.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
  • hauntedchippy, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Honest mistake
  • nullifidian0, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1http://www.hhmi.org/news/szostak20080604.html
    http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak ...
  • Torpov, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1And they have a plan.
  • mstrebe, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Short answer is no: DNA can spontaneously form, as shown by the Miller-Urey experiment. In fact there are numerous polymer chain molecules that form spontaneously and are even capable of self-replication--but which do not result in exponentially increasingly complexity. The fact that one of them did result in processes which increase in complexity isn't surprising. After all, God had to have evolved from something.
  • sandiegodude, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Dug for the Young Frankenstein reference.

    "What knockers!"
  • nihility, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1The singularity must be close now...
  • svensko, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Didn't Craig Venter produce his own organism from scratch recently? He even went as to far as to put code words in the amino acid sequence (such as the names of his family members and pets). I don't see how this is "shake and bake".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratori ...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter

    And what's with the dumb picture for the article? WTF?
  • synwolf, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Um, it looks like all they did was create a lipid membrane around some DNA. They've been doing this for years. Actually, this researcher, Professor Szostak, has been doing that for years. Just search "Szostak" on discovermagazine.com.
  • nullifidian0, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2If there's a god that can "poof" things into existence, what need is there for sexual (or any other kind of organic) reproduction?
  • hauntedchippy, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Link to original paper?
  • SilverBlade2k, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1If synthesized cells can be created, couldn't these cells be created to specifically destroy cancer cells, and leave others alone?
  • uptwolait, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Weird Science. Awesome.
  • wevegotthejazz, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2can't wait to see the new possibilities in medicine and disease prevention this brings about.
    amazing!
  • Foot56, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1This reminds of the medical research the U.S military is doing to try and develop synthetic blood for the wounded personnel on the battlefield.
  • spinur, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1The RNA world hypothesis suggests that is exactly how it happened. Ribozymes have enzymatic activity and can therefore accomplish thermodynamic coupling. The system above didn't have anything like that in it. Ribozymes are already relatively complex and have to be synthesized by different enzymes. There haven't been any discovered that can replicate themselves without other enzymes.
  • Egoist, on 06/16/2008, -1/+1Apparently you're completely unaware of the idea of "forum." If this is happening outside of this forum, what sense does it have to launch attacks here?
  • dmallymally, on 06/16/2008, -4/+4"Learning that the process from nothing to living cell doesn't require a God will hopefully lead to more informed people instead of those living in fear from someone who will send you to an eternity of hell even though he loves you."

    I think you have it wrong buddy, not to start a flame war or anything but your statement is quite the opposite from the truth. The fact is, i no longer live in fear. I don't shake in fear about God "sending me to hell" everyday or anything. That's something you've heard somewhere. I feel more free everyday now that i am beginning to walk with Christ and i sincerely hope you will too one day.
  • mdraper, on 06/16/2008, -1/+1Without God there are no fatty acids or test tube. God doesn't physically create life. God created the universe and put it in motion. All things in our observable universe are of a natural phenomena. They are not supernatural. Nature however could not exist without God.

    The religious freaks argue with the skeptics about the wrong things. Nature has been created and set in motion by God. He does not control it, nor does he manage it. He is an observer, all evidence indicates this. Science cannot explain itself fully with the respect to how the universe was created or how it was created. The problem is the religious people can't admit they don't know where God came from. The fact is neither of the factions know how we got here. And any guess is a leap into futility.

    The fact is there are no answers, only the question "when I die, do I continue to exist?". The only way to find out is to die, a process that there is no returning from. Enter the debate, the fight, the battle, the wars. Nobody wants to just admit we don't know.

    They are not playing God, they are playing human. They're observing nature.
  • Nell45, on 06/16/2008, -0/+0If I were superstitious I'd point out that this was first published on Friday the thirteenth. The image it brought to mind was Dr. Frankenstein's excitement after his success with animating cobbled bits of life
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.