digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The DNA so dangerous it does not exist

newscientist.com — Could there be forbidden sequences in the genome - ones so harmful that they are not compatible with life?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ronhawker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Can anybody say "Blade Runner"...bad replicant!
  • kiljoi, on 10/12/2007, -39/+8As interesting and intriguing as this kind of science is, I'm really not sure we should be sticking our collective noses into these particular nooks & crannies of genetics.
    • NoOnEx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36Exactly, we should be letting ignorance and fear dictate our actions, not logic and hope for a better future.
      < /sarcasm>
    • kiljoi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Oh yes, the possiblity to create a "suicide gene" certainly sounds like a bright future to me.
    • Slovenian6474, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The suicide gene would be a good method of destroying bacteria that turns "hostile" during testing. You can destroy just the test bacteria without harming the other normal bacteria in the body.
    • mewhocorrupts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Creating it, perhaps not so positive. Knowing the sequence that would initiate it, and being able to extrapolate future avenues of research from that information? Slightly more than trivial, to say the very least.
    • madhaha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I can't believe how many people just don't understand the article. These guys are just using a computer to run through every possible combination of DNA, brute force style, and then crossreferencing it with all the known DNA sequences in the real world and seeing what doesn't exist. Their reasoning is if its a short sequence then there is an almost certain chance that it Should exist according to the laws of probability but don't. Its kind of like going through ever possible 3 letter word and then removing all the ones that exist in the a known language. You could make an intelligent guess that the remaining words are mostly unpronouncable like "zkt". They're guessing the sequences that are left don't exist because they're unviable for life and then selling it firstly as a "tracer" which you could add to DNA samples you didn't want to confuse with natural DNA and secondly as a "kill gene" which sits dormant until you trigger it. But to be honest they have no idea what the sequences do because they haven't tried any of it yet. If it Does work as a kill gene, then you'd remove one of the major barriers to genetic testing so we can finally grow vitamin enriched vegetables that grow in the desert without "protesters" torching the entire field because the research is "unsafe" and uncontrolled. My prediction is if this all pans out, you'll probably see the first results in genetically modified yeast products because they're well known organisms. Mmmm, designer beer.
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2But this is different in terms of motives than looking for the anti-life equation how?
  • skidzilla, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Imagine the horror of deploying something like this in a war. You have the potential there to simply turn your enemies into puddles of goop, or mutate them in other horrible ways. :-/
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I think that falls right smack dab in the middle of the 'no chemical weapons' rule.
    • mugenkeiji, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm guessing that if side A has the technology and means to deliver something that alters the genome of side B, side A would probably find it far easier to just deliver a few hundred pounds of tritonal.
    • Pyrogen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4We're all human, so how useful would these "mutagenic" weapons actually be? Unless we declared war on space aliens, specific races of humanity, or maybe plants.
    • dawngrrl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A bit far out of context i think...
    • HP844182, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"mutate them in other horrible ways."

      Like a penis on the forehead? "Hey *****."
    • gaijintendo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you could find such an effective way of introducing it to humans, you have just found one of the holy grails of science: effective gene therapy! If gene therapy was so effective, then you are right it could be used as a weapon.
  • jaydilla, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1That would be awesome.
  • doosh, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1If it were true that there were "bad sequences" of DNA "incompatible with life" then nature, which is DNA-neutral so to speak, would have preferred them. Or, as is more likely, exactly why we need to search for them -- as they were extinguished as pointless.
    • johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I do not see why nature "would have preferred" them. Any mutation that would have lead to these "bad sequences" would have self destructed before it could replicated - basic rule of Survival of the Fittest evolution. So nature could not have "preferred" them at all.
    • tck1000, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Evolution is random. *We* see preferences, because humans are not random. We perceive patterns and have biases, and despite our best intentions, it's nearly impossible to truly put those aside. Evolution is not "moving towards a goal", it only appears that way, because we can look back and see that more recently evolved species seem "more advanced" than older species. They may be more suited to survival in a broader range of circumstances, but that's not really the intent of evolution, because evolution has no intent. Or if it does, perhaps it would be more along the lines of "try as many combinations as possible, forever, to ensure the best chances of life continuing". It makes sense that some random mutations would be incompatible with life, but that doesn't mean they weren't worth the try. You're only successful, from an evolutionary standpoint, if you have grandchildren. Life must go on, in any form, under any circumstances. Only then is evolution "satisfied".
    • viscousplatypus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@tck1000

      "Evolution is random."

      Evolution is not random. Natural selection is the systematic development of organisms in response to their environments. Organisms that die out have not responded well. Organisms that thrive are as adaptable as they need to be.

      Edit: Surely, there are a few mutations, but those are the exception to the rule.
    • Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@tck1000 , buried since "humans are not random" stinks of creationism / (not so)intelligent design - Making your credibility on matters of evolution nonexistant
    • jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What tck1000 means is that there is no goal of evolution. Evolution isn't a thing that exists with plans and foresight. It would be like saying that the goal of erosion is to destroy mountains. It's not. That's just what erosion does over time. Same with evolution. The DNA in living things randomly mutate. That mutation is beneficial, harmful, or neither. If it is harmful it is not passed on and so on. It's that simple. Ascribing a purpose to evolution is no different than positing a God as the Creator. Both are supernatural, have no explanatory power, and are not falsifiable. That means they aren't in the realm of science. Take it elsewhere.
  • modernsquid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19This just seems like a really bad idea.
  • toomuchgreentea, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Too much sensationalism for the sake of fundings. According to those I know who are working in the field, they all say DNA really isn't THAT interesting. RNA and protein folding are way more interesting by far.
    • tisfl37, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0WTF??? Who the hell knows the difference here on Digg??
    • mewhocorrupts, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Yeah, you're probably right. The very thing that allows our cells to format and arrange themselves in such a way as to create a sentient, self preserving, and highly adaptable creature really aren't all that great. Instead, we should focus on weight loss alternatives. That's where the real science is.

      /sarcasm

    • madhaha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, he's saying that we've discovered that DNA isn't the only thing that controls how we grow and there are piles of research still to be done on RNA and Prions. They don't replicate like DNA (and what we know about their creation/repoduction is rudimentary) but they are present in all our bodies and are just as responsible for how we function.
  • forgetmenots, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I can't imagine how they would experiment with this research if they do find a "deadly" combination for humans.
    • KRa104, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Simple, engineer it into bacteria or lab animals and see what happens. This is just a strand of DNA that they would be experimenting with, its not going to jump out of the test tube and bite you. It is only potentially dangerous when it is placed inside a living cell and becomes expressed into protein.The DNA is just a "set of directions" for how to make proteins, it is the proteins themselves which would be dangerous.
  • Chesterfield, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9This creeps me out. 1 million grant from the Department of Defense to develop a DNA "safety tag".
    Yeah, and I'm sure they're not pursuing the 'possibility-of-constructing-a-"suicide gene"' aspect of the research.
    • madhaha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The "kill gene" idea would require them to control the people from birth. If the DoD could do that with North Korea (for example) already, I doubt they'd have much of a problem killing them with more conventional means. Remember the DoD sponsors all sorts of research including ones with no obvious applications like dARPAnet (the "survive a nuclear threat" thing is an urban legend).
  • crgnetworks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Whats the point of this?
    • daBosq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Shortened version of the article: some dudes have written a Perl script* that computes every possible DNA sequence (i.e. every possible combination of A, G, C, T) of a certain length. Then, they compare these to the existing databases of DNA (such as from the Human Genome Project) and strike out every sequence that has already been recorded somewhere.

      They're left with a bunch of DNA sequences that don't exist in any living thing (as far as anyone knows). Most of these sequences will just be random silly strings, but maybe some of them will code for a deadly poison. Those will be tough to find but are ultimately what they're looking for, and that's the source of the overly-sensationalist headline.

      Possible use: as an addition to genetically-engineered organisms so they kill themselves after a period of time (in case they escape or whatever). It could maybe possibly one day become a weapon, but that day is a looooong way off.

      * admittedly I'm guessing, but it's what I'd use.
    • Eddy3oy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Genius!

      Why do I never think of doing things like this?
    • KRa104, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sometimes breakthroughs come from experiments that no one would expect to be important. What if one of these "prime" sequences codes for a protein which resembles the protein found in Alzheimer's or mad cow disease? If that happened, maybe doctors and researchers could learn a lot more about these diseases. This is just one possibility in a million, but is shows why this type of research is valuable.
    • ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Actually Perl has long been used in genomic research and in fact BioPerl is a variant that has been around for a number of years now specifically for this purpose. Perl is pretty much the top dog when it comes to string handling and manipulations, and genetic code is just one looooong string.
  • hthth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3DNA are naturally selected building instructions — bad mutations (instructions) are filtered out. Ergo — any DNA that doesn't exist is potentially dangerous or deadly.
    • ShinjiTheGale, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Deadly is not the only category they could fall into: The sequences could just be a waste without other sequences. An ant wouldn't need a gene to build a human retina. A sequence to build an antenna on our forehead would be a waste of resources. If we were to grow a telepathy cortex, then that antenna may be very useful. Genetic advantage is not an absolute, it's very time-dependent.
    • notouch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The scary part is they could develop more deadly disease like AIDS or Cancer from this.
    • LacY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, I had similar thoughts. I mean, there are dominant mutations that are lethal -- wouldn't these count? But I think their point is not to find long sequences, like whole genes, but to find short (20bp, etc) sequences. I don't think it's necessarily fair to extrapolate though, that if a sequence isn't present, it must be deleterious. It could just be unnecessary, which means that these guys are going to have a *lot* of work to do, validating the universal lethality of the given sequence. Basically, this seems like a large waste of time and money. Notice the $1M grant they mentioned was not for this research...
    • hthth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ShinjiTheGale & LacY
      yeah, that's why I said *potentially* dangerous. I just consider this story's topic to be very misleading in a scientific sense and wanted to clearly illustrate my position.

      @notouch
      They could. But really I think everything should be researched — we just need to know the potential dangers so we can respond adequately if things go wrong. Also, check out the brilliant comment by hendriks further down the page.
  • jlebrech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Looks like an Universal Poison for DNA based living organisms.

    So maybe they discovered aliens have DNA or they are making the asumption that they would do.
    Maybe extraterrestrial beings have other forms of multiplication.
  • M3hul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6As if the world wasn't already a hard place to live in already, we're trying to figure out how we could possibly wipe ourselves out. Science never ceases to amaze me, and I mean that in a good and bad way lol.
  • synorgy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm not exactly sure about this.
    Looks to me that all DNA should be 'compatible' with life, but some just introduce unnecessary problems into 'life'. It's a good idea to look for them, but I don't buy the idea that life isn't compatible with certain DNA sequences.
  • maggyu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4'"suicide gene"... activated to destroy them at a later date if they turned out to be dangerous..."

    lol...imagine.....this organism will self-destruct in 5,4,3,2,1.

    that's crazy.

  • inquebiss, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1DNA is soooo awesome! I love DNA!
    • adent1066, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2From The Simpsons,
      Commercial Narrator: "It alters your baby's DNA, while leaving the RNA untouched…not suitable for babies under two."
    • kosmicki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Deoxyribonucleic acid? More like Deoxyribonucleic Awesome!
  • homerjs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yes, waste you time and money on this foolishness, dont bother looking for a cure for trisomy 21 or something more important
  • adent1066, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I know I'll be Dugg down,
    but what about all those ethical & moral men of science that we keep hearing about ?
    • duxxyuk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Suprise suprise, I digg you up. I agree with you.
  • ipxodi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7In the words of Dr Malcom from Jurassic Park:
    "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
  • jmmtn4aj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Awesome. If this will let me destroy all the lizards currently residing, or trying to reside in my home, I'm all for it!
  • bighed213, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Further down the line there is the possibility of constructing a "suicide gene" to code for deadly amino acid primes. It could be attached to genetically modified organisms and activated to destroy them at a later date if they turned out to be dangerous, Hampikian suggests."

    Sounds like the idea in Jurassic Park about making the dinosaurs infertile.
  • crash128, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I hope they find a gene that would let people grow to be as big as dinosaurs - that would be cool. This would also help justify funding from the military - our big soldiers would have a huge (sorry) advantage (although I'm not sure how we'd transport them to the middle east - maybe they could swim).
  • sinfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Here are the sequences of DNA I can think of:

    DNA
    DAN
    NDA
    NAD
    AND
    ADN

    That's all that I can think of, and none of them look deadly. Can anybody think of any others?

    (Yes, I'm joking.)
    • viscousplatypus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I dunno, sinfree. NADs can be pretty deadly.

      I don't even know what that means.
  • hendriks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Bullocks! Disclaimer: I'm a geneticist. Nothing to see here, move on people. This entire story is just sensationalism. They are just looking for parts of DNA that don't naturally occur. Doesn't mean they are all deadly. It's much more likely they are just chemically instable, or not there by chance. There are a lot of combinations you can make with 11 A,T,G or Cs in a row (4^11). Genbank, the database of known DNA sequences is far from complete. And then, suppose you did find a deadly sequence (highly unlikely) , how would you turn it into a weapon? Shoot it into enemy soldiers with a bullet?? Highly improbable. The tagging of DNA samples with a unique sequence (to avoid mix up of tubes in the lab), is a nice application that is much more probable and very peaceful.
    • duxxyuk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Highly improbable is what gets past. This kind of research is interesting but one must apply caution so as not to be burned with the fire.
    • Onychophora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As another biologist, I have to agree here. There's no evidence that these sequences are dangerous--just that they don't exist in our known databases. They're likely *useless*--proteins/RNA made from them probably fold in weird, biologically useless ways. They're the genetic equivalent of these:
      ̀ĀЂਉċ ąāā ̂Ԅ܆ईଊ Ё́ЂԂ؇ ԈఃijȀ̑℄
      You can't make any useful words out of some sequences of letters and characters, and the same goes for DNA. Doesn't mean they're dangerous--just meaningless gibberish.
      I suppose they could be, of course. But "Whether these sequences have any biological significance in living organisms is not yet known." Why claim toxic effects BEFORE testing for them?

      Irrelevant info: Firefox's built-in spellchecker didn't underline that string of nonsense (" ̀ĀЂਉ"), but it did underline 'spellchecker' as a misspelling.
  • weprin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Further down the line there is the possibility of constructing a "suicide gene" to code for deadly amino acid primes. It could be attached to genetically modified organisms and activated to destroy them at a later date if they turned out to be dangerous, Hampikian suggests."

    Scary.
    • Stiffler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My thoughts exactly. But it's prolly not as bad as it sounds...
  • tazmeister, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah the story is sensationalism. Its sort of like saying given the alphabet can you write a FORBIDDEN CURSE word??????

    Can anyone say VIRUS? (dna or reverse RNA, ect)

    Lol how the code for cobra venom?

    Botulism Toxin too (one of the most virulent toxins know)

    *sigh* This sort of sensationalism works because people just aren't well edumacated on the subject.
    • gaijintendo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The code for cobra venom is found in the Cobra, the code for botulism toxin is found in Clostridium botulinum. The DNA for Viruses is surprisingly common to those in the cell cycle of the target cells, and no doubt exist for that function in other organisms.

      That said, you are spot on, a gene for something which will screw up a cell - that wont exist.
  • Fornbogi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2And the purpose of this is what? To destroy and kill? Hmmm.... That is productive.
  • robertc1964, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Could this be Darkseid's "Anti-Life Equation"?

    The secret's been within us all along, and the poor New God's been busting his head against the Source Wall. Almost makes a fella feel bad for him.
  • gaijintendo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Reading the comments, it is really saddening to see how much fear there is of this research. In reality it isn't easy to infuse genes into humans. Viruses do it with ease, but it just isn't that easy in practice.

    DON'T PANIC. All they did was look for sequences which have not been found yet. these will likely be sequences which are inviable. for example:
    DNA packs neatly into a cell - it is really really long, so it has no choice it has to pack neatly. The sequence dictates its packing, so perhaps some sequences just don't pack, or degenerate or whatever. It is impractical to use this stuff as a weapon. If people did, it would be no more specific than gassing people, and would require massive pharma investment.

    Basically, this is boring bio stuff, but you should think about it and the consequences, this is what science needs to do - engage the public. Articles like this sadly do not help the public understanding, just increase the nervousness in the public's mind.
  • BradMW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This sounds a lot cooler than it actually is.
    • bullrassler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, it actually is cool. It would be interesting to know what characteristics the 'forbidden sequences' had in common. A couple WAGs (I am no geneticist):

      - The DNA sequence is subject to frame shifting or ambiguity due to repetition of subsequences - might lead to high mutation rate or chromosome fragility; there are some known examples of things like this.
      - The sequence is resistant to unwinding for transcription or replication due to particularly strong binding or perfect nesting.
      - The amino acid sequence it codes for cannot be assembled due to to adjacent amino acids with like net charge/large R groups/hydrophobic etc.
      - The secondary structure of the coded protein precludes the approach of the next tRNA so the chain assembly cannot be continued.
      - The charge and shape of the assembled amino acids is such that it binds permanently/releases spontaneously from the ribosome.

      I am guessing that most of these sequences will likely turn out not to be 'killer' types, but just 'not possible to build'.

      If you think of DNA as a blueprint, an automotive analogy to some of those sequences might be an engine with rubber connecting rods and solid aluminum fan belt.
  • hthth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Doughnut so Delicious it doesn't Exist!
  • RedXlll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It could be attached to genetically modified organisms and activated to destroy them at a later date if they turned out to be dangerous."

    Somehow I'm reminded of the genetic experiments in Resident Evil. =)
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
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.