Here is what they did, in a nutshell. Took one mycosplasma species (mycoplasma are bacteria that do not have cell walls and have very small genomes) and very carefully removed its chromosome. They then mixed this with a recipient mycoplasma that had some detectable genetic differences. And they then selected for cells that had a antibiotic resistance function found only in the "donor" genome. And they got some growth. And surprisingly, many of the cells that grew up appear to have COMPLETELY replaced the endogenous genome with the donor genome. Thus they use the term genome transplantation.
It seems like a pretty solid paper, although I still am not 100% convinced that these are not some relics of the original donor cells that simply made it through the genome extraction processes intact (this is very unlikely given their controls but still possible). Assuming that they really have genome transplantation, it is a pretty cool result.
Why? Well, it means that at least in some sense, they can use this as a tool in synthetic genomics. One of the big limitations of synthetic biology right now is how one would make a genome in vitro of a bacteria and then get this genome to "boot up" into a cell. For viruses, they can make genomes in the test tube and get the virus to be created because viruses are cellular parasites and all they have to do is get the DNA for the virus to be packaged in the right way into a cell or viral capsid. But for a bacteria, things are much different. The challenge has been how to get a recipient cell to boot up a new genome and delete its own or at least silence its own. And without going into all the gory details, this has proven challenging.
So - now genome transplantation. On the one hand, it can serve as a way to boot up a new genome. However, it probably has limited potential in many ways since to get the new genome to effectively replace the old one, it has to not only be replicated, but the machinery of the cell present in the recipient has to work well enough on all the key components of the donor genome to get the booting up to work. For example, all the promoters in the donor genome must be transcribed efficiently by the recipients machinery, at least for the RNA and protein synthesis machinery genes, so that the donor stuff can get made. And of course the replication origin and other replication features must all work as well. What this means is that I think genome transplantation will only work if the donor and recipient are very similar to each other for most of the housekeeping genes and functions. So this is not yet ready to work for all of synthetic biology. But it still seems pretty cool.
I know I am a little dim (well, maybe a lot). And maybe something was lost in the translation of putting this on the web. But WTF? Can someone explain to me what the point of the NY Times "story" entitled "Evolution is" with a bunch of quotes?
And again, WTF? Why did they pick these quotes?
Like this one by Gould
"It touches all our lives; for how can we be indifferent to the great questions of genealogy: where did we come from and what does it all mean? and then, of course, there are all those organisms: more than a million described species, from bacterium to blue whale, with one hell of a lot of beetles in between - each with its own beauty, and each with a story to tell." - Stephen Jay Gould
and this one by Maynard Smith
"As an evolutionary biologist, I have learned over the years that most people do not want to see themselves as lumbering robots programmed to ensure the survival of their genes." - John Maynard SmithAnyone out there have the inside scoop on this?
My first award goes to the Stuart Truelson for a Commentary for the California Farm Bureau Federation. The essay has some OK points about genomics but is a bit overzealous about the benefits that come from genomics. The essay ends with:
Sounds a bit like those who say "Any discussion of the war makes you unpatriotic." And thus Mr. Truelson gets my first award, not just for overselling genomics, but for being so icky about it.
The genomics age is here, whether some like it or not. And, any effort to impede potential benefits that genomics offers humankind--from more and better food to breakthroughs in health and life-saving medicine--should raise moral and ethical questions that are even more serious than those surrounding the science itself.
From the MIT article:
"Sequencing these organisms will give us a better idea of who the players are so we can better control the conditions or improve the design to further improve conversion of waste into biogas," says Ruihong Zhang, the UC Davis bioengineer who developed the system.and
"We want to compare what kind of microbes are there at different conditions and try to figure out why one [set of conditions] works better than the other," says Martin Wu, a geneticist at UC Davis who will lead the genomics part of the project.and
In nature, the microbes that carry out degradation of organic waste and generation of methane exist in a very complex anaerobic community, and individual isolates from the community are hard to grow," says Jim Bristow, head of the community sequencing program at the Department of Energy's Joint Genome Institute, in Walnut Creek, CAMartin has been interested in this area for ages, since his family used to use a biogas reactor on their farm in China. I find this much more sensible than the plans to specifically grow plants to produce biofuels since these reactors simply make use of current solid waste.
Some other interesting stories and links about biogas:
Big biogas Africa project
Biogas project in India wins award
Google blog search on biogas
Google news search on biogas
Books on Biofuels
Scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute have applied for a U.S. patent on a minimal bacterial genome that they built themselves. According to the patent application, it's "a minimal set of protein-coding genes which provides the information required for replication of a free-living organism in a rich bacterial culture medium."
What do people think? I for one find the patent system completely incomprehensible. I think most biotech. related patents recently have been overly broad and/or represent something that should not be patented. But in this case, I do not know enough detail to really judge but it sounds like at least they did some real work here, which is more than the case for many genome sequence related patents from the past. Given that many places now have patents on mice and other organisms with single genetic knockouts, I do not see how the patent offices could reject a fully synthetic organism. This is not to say whether it is a good idea to synthesize an organism, but I think we are past that point anyway as clearly people will do it.
The most important to write to are the members of the House Appropriations Committee
Nita M. Lowey (NY)
Phone: (202) 225-6506
Rosa L. DeLauro (CT)
Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (IL)
Phone: (202) 225-0773
Patrick J. Kennedy (RI)
Phone: (202) 225-4911
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA)
Phone: (202) 225-1766
Barbara Lee (CA)
Phone: (202) 225-2661
Tom Udall (NM)
Michael Honda (CA)
Phone: (202) 225-2631
Betty McCollum (MN)
Phone: (202) 225-6631
Tim Ryan (OH)
Agonizing massive loss for the world and for microbiology - Valley of the Geyseys in Kamchatka mostly destroyed
There has been an environmental disaster of epic proportions in Russia. The Valley of the Geyseys, one of the most spectacular places on the planet - an ecosystem of hotsprings and thermal sites much like that in Yellowstone National Park in the US, has apparently been destroyed by a massive mudslide.
See the news stories
TASS reports for example
most of the unique hot water springs in the Valley of Geysers have been damaged beyond repair.
This will affect many important research projects (including mine). For example see the web site of the Kamchatka Microbial Observatory (funded by NSF) on which I have a minor role.
If anyone out there has any additional information it would be appreciated.
PS Thanks to Jenna Morgan for pointing this out.
PPS - Nature has run a news story on this
1. There will be many mistakes, at least with current methods. Get ready for lots of false positives and negatives relating to risk.
2. People will use it against you. Companies. Friends. Relatives. The government. This is not to discourage people from doing it (well, maybe a little bit). But given our current inability to keep anything important private in this country and our apparent inability to not snoop into people's lives, this is going to be one overwhelming temptation for many people. Now is clearly the time to move forward with anti-discrimination laws.
3. Having your genome sequence will not automatically improve your health. It could even make it worse (e.g., see false positives above)
4. If you REALLY want to understand some of your biology from your genome, you are going to want to take a peak at the genomes of relatives. Good luck on all the family issues that will come up.
5. Just because Watson and Venter are releasing their genomes to the public does not mean you have to (for medicine it is VERY useful to have a genome associated with an individual ... even many individuals, but there is no real need for names to be there)
6. The methods being used may not recover the haplotypes well (e.g., see Keith Robison's blog).
ALSO check out some other articles on this topic
But one thing really strikes me as too bizarre to be a coincidence, although some news stories are presenting it as such. Extreme drug resistant TB is pretty rare in the US. Studying drug resistant TB is also pretty rare among scientists. Yet the father in law of the man flying around the world with this TB is Robert C. Cooksey, a CDC researcher studying, among other things, drug resistant TB (e.g., here is a link to one of his review papers).
The CDC put out a press release implying that he could not have been the source of the infection. Interesting, the release seems to have been removed from the CDC site but can be found at the google cache. Here is the text of the release:
May 31, 2007
Contact: CDC Media Relations
Statement by Robert C. Cooksey
Research Microbiologist, Division of Tuberculosis Elimination, CDC
First and foremost, I am concerned about the health and well being of my son-in-law and family, as well as the passengers on the affected flights.
I am the father-in-law of Andrew Speaker, who was recently publicly identified as a person infected with extensively drug resistant tuberculosis. I do work at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I have worked at the CDC for 32 years. I´m a research microbiologist in CDC´s Division of Tuberculosis (TB) Elimination, and my work does involve working with a wide range of organisms, including TB. As a research microbiologist, my laboratory work involves identifying the characteristics and features of bacteria.
As part of my job, I am regularly tested for TB. I do not have TB, nor have I ever had TB. My son-in-law´s TB did not originate from myself or the CDC´s labs, which operate under the highest levels of biosecurity.
I wasn´t involved in any decisions my son-in-law made regarding his travel, nor did I ever act as a CDC official or in an official CDC capacity with respect to any of the events of the past weeks.
As a parent, frequent traveler, and biologist, I well appreciate the potential harm that can be caused by diseases like TB. I would never knowingly put my daughter, friends or anyone else at risk from such a disease.
I would ask the media to respect my privacy and that of my family, and I will be respectfully declining all media requests. My thoughts and focus over the next few months will be with my family, and we are hopeful that Andrew will have a fast and successful recovery.
Robert C. Cooksey
I understand his request for privacy, but come on, his son in law apparently flew around the world with a horribly nasty, possibly contagious form of TB. And even if the authorities did not tell him he could not travel, there is no doubt this is something I want reporters looking into. It is entirely possible that it really is a coincidence (son in law having this TB and him working in a lab that probably studies this type of TB) but it is worth investigating this further.