Live data from Hacker News

In Newly Created Life-Form, a Major Mystery

quantamagazine.org

121–130 of 144 posts

Re: In Newly Created Life-Form, a Major Mystery

#121
post #48

I find it fascinating we still don't really know how life works. I have a hunch we are going to find the large scale 3D structure of the chromosome is a big deal, and these genes regulate it. There aren't many good tools to study chromosome structure and it's quite possible there's a whole layer of information we've missed so far.

Actually there are new approaches to study exactly that, and they are developing rapidly, cf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_conformation_captur... Basically, this problem, along with a long list of other applications is being attacked by deep sequencing. The way it works is that you apply a treatment to DNA that 'glues' 3D contacts in place and covers the glued segment, apply restriction enzymes to cut out…

> The 3-D organization of the genome can also be analyzed via eigendecomposition of the contact matrix.

Love it when linear algebra pops up in unexpected places!

Re: In Newly Created Life-Form, a Major Mystery

#122

I find it fascinating we still don't really know how life works. I have a hunch we are going to find the large scale 3D structure of the chromosome is a big deal, and these genes regulate it. There aren't many good tools to study chromosome structure and it's quite possible there's a whole layer of information we've missed so far.

You mean like this: "Second layer of information in DNA confirmed" http://phys.org/news/2016-06-layer-dna.html

That's a theoretical study by physicists; it's a bit of a misleading headline, and anyway it's for eukaryotes, not bacteria, which are much smaller.

Re: In Newly Created Life-Form, a Major Mystery

#123
post #113

If I were a biology/biochem/genetics/etc type of student today this is exactly what I would love to work on. Perhaps someday we will actually understand how life works. That's both exciting and incredibly scary.

I don't know. The definition of "life" seems so arbitrary and nebulous. It seems really more like we're trying to attribute properties based on a wishful interpretation of emergent behaviour that ultimately boils down to extremely convoluted chemical reactions. Trying to produce genuinely novel and distinct biological lifeforms sounds cool enough on its own though.

Yes, the boundary between life and non-life is not sharp, but to claim it follows that life is hard to define would be the continuum fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy)

Manufacturing a living cell from purely chemical ingredients is a concrete enough goal.

And almost certainly it lies far, far off in the future.

Re: In Newly Created Life-Form, a Major Mystery

#124
post #14
post #10

TL;DR: Venter and his collaborators originally set out to design a stripped-down genome based on what scientists knew about biology. ... With the right tools finally in hand, the researchers designed a set of genetic blueprints for their minimal cell and then tried to build them. Yet “not one design worked," ... So the team took a different and more labor-intensive tack, replacing the design approach with trial and e…

Not all life has DNA.

I'm not aware of any life which lacks DNA. This is kind of "definitional" - really depends on your definition of life, but I don't include viruses, because they don't have a regulated metabolism.

Re: In Newly Created Life-Form, a Major Mystery

#125
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Isn't the current theory that all life on Earth has a common ancestor? Wouldn't this point put that into question" Not really. For one thing there's too much commonality across life in terms of things like the genetic code, i.e. what a sequence of genetic letters "means". The genetic code is arbitrary but essentially universal with minor variants. For another thing, the organisms now present can be separated from ea…

Deep down, somewhere in the genetic code, it still says "Mozilla (compatible)"

That explains why a human being is like a gecko.

Re: In Newly Created Life-Form, a Major Mystery

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like this: "Second layer of information in DNA confirmed" http://phys.org/news/2016-06-layer-dna.html

That's a theoretical study by physicists; it's a bit of a misleading headline, and anyway it's for eukaryotes, not bacteria, which are much smaller.

Thanks for putting that into context.

Re: In Newly Created Life-Form, a Major Mystery

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Firstly what constitutes "minimal" depends on what you feed the organism. So maybe the environment needs to be changed to support an organism with a smaller genome. The world today is certainly different than when life began. It's probably difficult to evolve the environment, so they'd need to understand what goes wrong with gene deletions and figure out how a different environment could help.

When dnautics says "different environment" he's not talking about the global environment, he's talking about the environment around the cell. A minimal viable cell should be able to survive on water, some dissolved gasses, and an energy source like glucose. Bacteria that have even smaller genomes are doing that by stealing components from other lifeforms. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong, but I think you're reall…

> A minimal viable cell should be able to survive on water, some dissolved gasses, and an energy source like glucose.

M. mycoides certainly does not survive on that. Mycoplasmas need cholesterol and lipids because they lack the HMGCoA reductase pathway and FAS, so all the media you grow them on are enriched for that (started as FBS, but we found horse serum worked great and was cheaper). In general, I think you need a few more things than just that for most basic life (nitrogen, phosphorus, metals)... Is using glucose cheating? Because you could use light for energy and CO2 for carbon, but that adds a ton ton ton of genes...

So this becomes a nitpicky definitional conundrum.

Re: In Newly Created Life-Form, a Major Mystery

#128
post #10

TL;DR: Venter and his collaborators originally set out to design a stripped-down genome based on what scientists knew about biology. ... With the right tools finally in hand, the researchers designed a set of genetic blueprints for their minimal cell and then tried to build them. Yet “not one design worked," ... So the team took a different and more labor-intensive tack, replacing the design approach with trial and e…

> That's the most interesting point to me, I deeply believed that organisms share the same basic set of genes. Yes, isn't there a universal gene that encodes the RNA polymerase enzyme? I.e., the machinery that transcribes DNA into RNA?

probably the ribosomes and tRNAs are the most universal-ish genes.

RNA Pol is very diverse across clades.

Re: In Newly Created Life-Form, a Major Mystery

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked in the synthetic biology lab (on a different project) while the early stages of the Syn3.0 was being done, and also have paid several visits to chat with them in the meantime. [Proof: first author on http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms16012020 ] I was a fly on the wall for most of the group meetings and even contributed some unpublished results (there were transposons that were causing problems by shuffling the t…

> Most of the mystery essential genes are vague cell wall proteins. Probably what is going on is that if you knock out too many of these genes, you lose cell wall turgidity and the cell becomes nonviable. So what is important is not so much which of these genes you have, but how many of them you have. Sounds like dependency hell. Gene A only works in the presence of Gene B which only works when there's Gene C which n…

> Sounds like dependency hell.

Random mutations are like that. It's almost like no-one was planning out how these things should work, and whatever did work stuck.

Weird, huh?

Re: In Newly Created Life-Form, a Major Mystery

#130

Has anyone else here read Nick Lane's new book - The Vital Question - I just finished it and this article really seems like a continuation of some of his theories he talks about. I found about the book from HN, and have since bought every single other book by him, almost done with Life Ascending now, which is also amazing

Yes. I read The Vital Question after hearing about it on HN a few weeks ago and found it very interesting (although less so nearer the end, as it seemed to get more speculative). To oversimplify, mitochondria are the key to understanding life and eukaryotes. (I should study electron transport more closely.)
Post reply on HN