First synthetic virus created

BBC ^ | July 11, 2000 | Dr David Whitehouse

[aruanan]

See the abstract for "J Gen Virol 1999 Jan;80 ( Pt 1):39-46" in post 31 above.

[Nebullis]

Although that may not be a concern at "this time", it should be a concern for a time not too far off.

Effective delivery of damaging sequences is already possible. Small pox specifically requires overcoming some technical hurdles, size is only one of them.

[Nebullis]

Did they select polio because it is the easiest virus to make or because their work will receive more publicity?

Polio is small and simple.

[RightWhale]

How big a step would it be to synthesize a complete gene if RNA and DNA sequences can be synthesized or is a virus a gene itself? And then, of course, would that be considered living even though viruses aren't by some scientists? And the step after that, could a complete viable gene set [chromosomes] for a nucleus be synthesized that would build the rest of the parts that make up an obviously living, growing cell? You see what I'm getting at.

[Nebullis]

Apparently, they created a DNA "master strand" from which the RNA and coat proteins were synthesized. Essentially, they duplicated what happens in the production of the polio virus inside a live cell.

This information was at the Wash***ton P*st.

[RightWhale]

The problem for Darwin was getting the life process going in the first place. If it can be done in a suitably-equipped lab, well, that should change the nature of the discussion.

[Nebullis]

...could a complete viable gene set [chromosomes] for a nucleus be synthesized that would build the rest of the parts that make up an obviously living, growing cell?

Theoretically, yes. It's very difficult to get all the components in the right order, temporally, spatially, etc. The production of whole gene sequences is already commonly done. Viral delivery of such genes has been experimentally performed for research known as gene therapy--the replacement of normal genes in cells lacking such.

A couple of years ago, attempts to build the polio virus de novo was in the news. I think it was briefly discussed on FR. The general response was that it couldn't be done because, of course, life cannot be created in the lab. Now it's been done, so viruses are definitely not life. For ethical reasons this is the position of Wimmer et al., the researchers who did this work. More importantly than ethical considerations is if it can be done, somebody will do it and it had better be us, so we know what it is about and know sooner how to combat potential ill uses.

[Nebullis]

importantly important

[Nebullis]

If it can be done in a suitably-equipped lab, well, that should change the nature of the discussion.

I had that in mind when I posted this article. I even bumped it to the crevo_list. People think of more timely and pressing matters than I do, however!

[RightWhale]

It's very difficult to get all the components in the right order, temporally, spatially, etc.

No doubt it would be a huge undertaking. You are on or near the cutting edge of this, looks like. Would you think it is just a matter of time?

[RightWhale]

My questions are probably obvious. The closest I get to a biolab is an equipment catalog. But this is interesting stuff!

[Nebullis]

Would you think it is just a matter of time?

I do think it's a matter of time. But whether it will change the philosophical nature of the discussion is another matter. Consider how this polio virus was constructed. The "machinery" used in construction included enzymes taken from live cells. A parasitic or, in this case, a viral operation. Construction of small cells would likely be done in a similar manner. Again, the essential discussion can be side-stepped with the excuse that life was required in the final production. I'm imagining, here.

[MHGinTN]

I am reminded of the story of the great scientist who approached God one day and delivered the sad news that He was no longer needed scnce they had now done something similar to this tweek. God asked them if they were so knowledgeable as to create a universe. There cautious reply was that they were able to do so. God responded by challenging them to do just that. When one scientist bent over to retrieve a couple of handfuls of dirt, to start the process, God cautioned him to 'drop the clay and get his own dirt.'

[aruanan]

How big a step would it be to synthesize a complete gene if RNA and DNA sequences can be synthesized or is a virus a gene itself? And then, of course, would that be considered living even though viruses aren't by some scientists? And the step after that, could a complete viable gene set [chromosomes] for a nucleus be synthesized that would build the rest of the parts that make up an obviously living, growing cell? You see what I'm getting at.

Well, consider that the entire genome for polio is a little over 7400 base pairs in length whereas the genome for just the first chromosome of C. elegans, a worm used extensively in research and the first eukaryote to have its genome completely sequenced, is 15,059,339 base pairs in length. You've still got chromosomes 2-5, X, and the mitochondrial DNA to consider. Having the DNA or RNA won't get you anywhere unless you have a functional cell. The virus is able to hijack the existing cellular machinery to replicate itself. The genome is the reference library a living cell uses to produce the proteins it needs in order to live and to reproduce. Though it's indispensable for the continuation of life and though damage to it can show up in damage to a particular cell, tissue, organ, or organism, its role is passive--it doesn't direct anything, control anything (except in the sense that a closed room controls the extent of your ability to move around), respond or act. So, even if you were able to synthesize the entire genome of something, unless you could make the rest of the cell, you wouldn't be any closer to the living thing than a written play is to the actual production. By comparison, whipping up the sequence of the genome would be nothing compared to getting a cell up and running into which the packaged genome would be popped.

[Nebullis]

Well, consider that the entire genome for polio is a little over 7400 base pairs in length whereas the genome for just the first chromosome of C. elegans, a worm used extensively in research and the first eukaryote to have its genome completely sequenced, is 15,059,339 base pairs in length.

Consider also that the smallest prokaryote genome is maybe twice as large as the pox virus.

[aruanan]

Consider also that the smallest prokaryote genome is maybe twice as large as the pox virus.

More like three times: Mycoplasma genitalium, complete genome, 580,074 bp versus Variola virus, 185,578 bp. Even the smallest are friggin huge.

[Mo1]

The US researchers built the infectious agent from scratch using the genome sequence for polio

Polio???

Are we are suppose to be happy about this because ...... ????

[Have Ruck - Will Travel]

He added that it was possible that viruses like Ebola could be assembled in laboratories, but there were only a few people in the world with that skill.

Okay, so why is it that statement doesn't exactly give me that "warm and fuzzy" feeling inside?

[The Great Satan]

He added that it was possible that viruses like Ebola could be assembled in laboratories, but there were only a few people in the world with that skill.

Yeah, and they'll only work for the highest bidder. Reassuring, isn't it?

[Redcloak]

This is one case where I think technology should be destroyed...

Except that one cannot uninvent a technology. It's one of those putting-the-toothpaste-back-in-the-tube things. It's best to learn about the technique and invent a method for dealing with it. Tailor made viruses could lead, for example, to quickly developed tailor made antibodies to fight them. Rather than wishing for the technology to go away, the solution lies in encouraging the development of countermeasures.