Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creating Cell Parts from Scratch
MIT Technology Review ^ | 03/10/09 | Emily Singer

Posted on 03/11/2009 8:10:14 AM PDT by Reaganesque

A newly made synthetic ribosome is an important step in the quest to create artificial life forms.

By Emily Singer

Researchers at Harvard University have built a functional ribosome--the cell's protein-making machine--from scratch, molecule by molecule. The creation represents a significant step toward making artificial life, and it could ultimately fill a major gap in our understanding of the origins of life. But the scientists who made the ribosome are most interested in its industrial applications. They plan to genetically tinker with the molecular machinery so that it can make proteins more efficiently, as well as proteins that are the mirror image of those ordinarily found in nature. Both improvements could be a major advantage in the pharmaceutical industry, among others.

To make the ribosomes, George Church, a Harvard geneticist, and postdoctoral researcher Mike Jewett first disassembled ribosomes from Escherichia coli, a common lab bacterium, into its component molecules. They then used enzymes to put the various RNA and protein components back together. When put together in a test tube, these components spontaneously formed into functional ribosomes. While scientists have previously reconstituted ribosomes, which are made up of a complex configuration of RNA and proteins, as far back as the 1960s, these earlier versions were poor protein producers, and were created under chemical conditions very different than that of a normal cell.

The researchers used the artificial ribosome to successfully produce the luciferase enzyme, a firefly protein that generates the bug's glow. Eventually, says Church, he wants to create tiny protein factories out of tailor-made ribosomes. "We want to make large amounts of special proteins that are hard to make in vivo, and are useful for vaccine production [and other purposes]."

Next, the researchers want to create a ribosome that can re-create itself. They have compiled a list of 151 genes that they think are needed for a self-reproducing ribosome, including genes for ribosomal proteins, different types of RNAs, enzymes that catalyze different reactions in protein synthesis, and additional genes not directly related to the ribosome. "We think this is enough genes to replicate DNA, produce RNA and ribosomes, and have a primitive membrane," says Church."Once you get it going, it should be able to keep going if you supply it with amino acids and nucleotides [the building blocks of DNA and RNA]."

Once they get the system up and running, the researchers hope to genetically optimize it into an efficient protein factory. Protein products, such as biologic drugs, are now mostly made in vats of bacteria. "When you make proteins in live bacteria, you throw away 90 percent of the bacterial biomass just to get a few grams of protein," says David Deamer, a chemist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "If you could do it without live organisms, it could be much more efficient."

Church and his team also want to use the ribosome to make a new class of proteins--those that are the mirror image of the proteins found in nature. Proteins and many other molecules have a "handedness," or chirality, to their structure. Amino acids made in nature are almost exclusively left-handed. And just as a glove fits on only one hand, left-handed enzymes can only catalyze reactions of substrates with the correct handedness. This means that mirror-image molecules would be resistant to breakdown by regular enzymes, says Church. That could have important industrial applications, generating long-lasting enzymes for biofermentation, used to create biofuels and other products.

The pharmaceutical industry might also benefit from a method to make mirror-image molecules. Unlike biological synthesis, chemical synthesis produces a mixture of left- and right-handed molecules. But with many drugs--the most notorious example is thalidomide--one form is beneficial and the other harmful. It's expensive to separate the two versions, so an efficient alternative that makes just the desired form from the start could be a boon to manufacturers. Church and Jewett have not yet made a mirror-image protein using their synthetic ribosome, but they say that it can be done just by tweaking a few molecules in the enzyme that joins amino acids into proteins.

The artificial ribosome also has much broader applications. It is a major step on the way to creating artificial life--a cell that can self-assemble and reproduce. Scientists want to create an organism from scratch both to better understand the inner workings of biology and to create new, highly engineerable life forms that can be employed to make new fuels, clean up toxins, or perform other useful functions.

In addition, the ribosome might solve major unanswered questions about the origins of life. "How did the first ribosomes or the equivalent structure evolve on the way to life as we know it? This is really a major gap in our understanding of the origin of life," says Deamer. "If [Church] can manipulate parts to make a better or simpler version of the ribosome, it will teach us a lot about how ribosomes came to be." And second, why does almost all life have a left-handed chirality? "It's a mystery," says Fred Blattner, a geneticist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "Did it just happen that way, or is there a reason we are not aware of?" With a left-handed ribosome, the answer to the question may soon be in reach.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Technical
KEYWORDS: artificial; cells; life; ribosomes
So, we may be able to engineer synthetic cells that can do whatever we want them to do, huh? Maybe its just me but this seems to suggest that there's even more proof that embryonic stem cells are increasingly irrelevant in bio-medical research. There are more and more reasons nearly every day to use sources other than embryos for stem cell research. If we can manipulate the very building blocks of life, why would we need to destroy naturally created life? And yet, the Left remains committed to the destruction of existing, embryonic life. That says a lot about who these people are; none of it good.
1 posted on 03/11/2009 8:10:15 AM PDT by Reaganesque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque

Soylent green is PEOPLE!.........................


2 posted on 03/11/2009 8:16:11 AM PDT by Red Badger (The Zero has more Chicago Bull than Michael Jordan...................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque
"If we can manipulate the very building blocks of life, why would we need to destroy naturally created life?"

Because the baby killers want to create a market for all those baby parts that are currently being tossed away at abortion clinics. Imagine the money these clinics can make, say if baby pituitary gland cells at 9 months maturity suddenly become the most desired stem cells in the marketplace. Multiply that by demand for other baby part cells from other organs, those that aren't already being harvested and sold on the black market.

3 posted on 03/11/2009 8:24:12 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque
In addition, the ribosome might solve major unanswered questions about the origins of life. "How did the first ribosomes or the equivalent structure evolve on the way to life as we know it? This is really a major gap in our understanding of the origin of life," says Deamer.

Evolve? Evolve??!

Your study and efforts are specifically aimed at designing a life form. And still you stubbornly persist in that stoopid "accident/evolution" scam. I guess it just proves that intelligence doesn't make anybody smart.
4 posted on 03/11/2009 8:24:58 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque

They probably will need the stem cells until after researchers are able to engineer synthetic cells repeatedly, with the desired results.


5 posted on 03/11/2009 8:27:03 AM PDT by stuartcr (If the end doesn't justify the means...why have different means?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool
I'd think the idea that man was capable of designing life would worry creationists.
6 posted on 03/11/2009 9:19:40 AM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque

Do any of these laboratory tinkerers ever consider that they might create uncontrollable virus-like life forms that could infect and destroy all human life?


7 posted on 03/11/2009 9:21:22 AM PDT by golf lover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

Man was designed with an incredible capacity for studying and understanding the created world. We’re constantly amazed at new discoveries about the Earth and the universe.

We don’t even understand what life itself is, but we can attempt to duplicate it. (Not “design” it, just duplicate it.) Just as we don’t understand what mind is, yet we attempt to duplicate it in our crude way.

When you see a magnificent machine or device, don’t you marvel at and applaud its designer and inventor? Whether it’s a Formula One race car, or an intricate mechanical watch, or a Mars Rover, or IBM’s Deep Blue, or the Gateway Arch - these are amazing devices designed by the genius of the human mind. “Marvels”, we call them.

What has always puzzled me is that scientists - those most deeply engaged in the amazing study of Creation - are often farthest from recognizing that it has a Designer.

Perhaps its better to be a simple farmer, who is constantly amazed that life can spring from a dead seed buried in the ground.


8 posted on 03/11/2009 9:41:18 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
I'd think the idea that man was capable of designing life would worry creationists.

I am shocked...utterly shocked that these scientists had to "design" life. Life isn't designed, it just happens spontaneously...poof like magic.

Why didn't they just pour some inorganic goo into a flask and wait for St. Darwin to do his thing?

9 posted on 03/11/2009 9:55:16 AM PDT by AreaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: golf lover
Do any of these laboratory tinkerers ever consider that they might create uncontrollable virus-like life forms that could infect and destroy all human life?

Shh...don't spoil the surprise. Pretty soon you'll have Rutger Hauer looking to push their eyeballs into their skulls.

Remember...more human than human.

10 posted on 03/11/2009 10:01:09 AM PDT by AreaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque

And it all happened by chance...no intelligence here!


11 posted on 03/11/2009 10:04:26 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware of socialism in America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson