It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New 'Artificial' DNA Base Pair Created

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   
This is the first thread that I have started so apologies if this is already up but I was looking athrough some stories online and came across one which I believe could be very significant long-term.

Researchers have been able, after several failures to successfully synthesize an artificial DNA base pair. Unlike previous attempts, it is believed that this pair could be accepted into the DNA molecule within organisms which could lead to a great deal more variety in genetic engineering and disease research.

The article also mentions some of the potential applications of this technology in terms of DNA computing etc. I was hoping that some of my online friends here at ATS (as I'm a new member) who know more about genetics than me could perhaps let me know if this really is as big a breakthrough as it sounds?

Also, what are other members' opinions on whether this is genetic engineering gone too far, or whether we should embrace this potential (as it is only potential) new development?

The link to the story is :Link to DNA Story



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
It is a breakthrough, of course, since it has never been done before. But the usefull prospects of it is quite a bit into the future.

You see, even though we can now incorporate nucleic acids into a DNA chain, it has little use at this point. The cellular machinery has no way of transcriping the DNA chain, because it doesn't know the nuclec acid. So it would probably just go to a stop, and make a premature and incomplete RNA chain, and therefore a faulty protein (If one at all).

It could only be used for well, stopping transcription. If the DNA-transcribing enzymes stops with the chain attached, it is a bit usefull, but we have other techniques for doing that.

The real advantage could come several years into the future, when man has learned to design proteins from the bottom and up. Then we can make enzymes that can handle these special nucleic acids, and make special DNA strings that can't be transferred to other organisms, making GMO much safer compared to now.


sty

posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
i know about the first bacteria with 100% synthetic DNA . Once we understand more about how the DNA works I guess we would be able virtually create anything we wish. I see that in the future the DNA programming and the cybernetics would merge. Let us just hope we will not "run" under Bill Gates Microsoft haha



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I think that till we figure out the collosal "junk" chunk of DNA any modification can go terribly wrong. Just because we are not sure what it does, it does not meen that it is useless/harmfull/parasitic.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Well they can now create female sperm which might one day lead to the end of men!


sty

posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


100% agree. I have the feeling that the so called "junk" DNA is as important as the rest of the DNA, it could be the "anti-virus" database of the cell. We just started to understand DNA and only virtual simulations using evolutive computing would turn some more pages in our understanding of the DNA. However, I believe that we are decades - up to 100 years of actually manipulating the DNA knowingly of what we actually do.
It was stated that we could do cloning since 60s . This is definitively not a big deal - it is like someone starting to learn about computers , and first starts with COPY+PASTE procedures. It is still miles away from witting the first program - and light years away from hacking programs /code.
We will eventually learn how to read the DNA , but to re-design our DNA would take a long time . Some of us that are under 30s could be lucky enough to have the life extended to 300 years or so - enough to actually decode most of the DNA secrets.
I am optimistic about the DNA progress but at the same time scared as I know that ultimately every discovery of the human kind was finally adjusted to fit the military purpose.. it is a Russian roulette we will all play - even if we like it or not ..

[edit on 16-2-2008 by sty]



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sty
100% agree. I have the feeling that the so called "junk" DNA is as important as the rest of the DNA, it could be the "anti-virus" database of the cell.

We actually know quite a lot on how cells cope with viral infections, and our current knowledge does indeed answer quite a lot of those questions. Thats not to say the the junk DNA doesnt have a say in that, but one of the reasons its called junk, is that it mostly produces non-functional proteins, or isnt even transcribed.

We will eventually learn how to read the DNA , but to re-design our DNA would take a long time .

We already know much on our DNA, and we know how to read it, and we know how to redesign it. GMO you know. Its not hard to do in humans either, the problems are more ethical that functional.




top topics



 
0

log in

join