Microbe with stripped-down DNA may hint at secrets of life

[EdEarl]

Phy.org

Scientists have deleted nearly half the genes of a microbe, creating a stripped-down version that still functions, an achievement that might reveal secrets of how life works.

 

The newly created bacterium has a smaller genetic code than does any natural free-living counterpart, with 531,000 DNA building blocks containing 473 genes.

Can individual genes be removed or modified to learn more about the role of DNA and cell dynamics? Armed with better knowledge, will it be possible to eliminate additional parts of the DNA to make simpler and simpler cells until the secret of abiogenesis is discovered? It seems unlikely that life popped into existence with nearly 500 genes in its DNA.

 

They seem to have hit a plateau of complexity at 531,000/473. Perhaps some genes can be changed to more or less complex forms that allow other genes to be removed, perhaps some combinations can be removed to simplify the DNA, or something else. It seems unlikely they have explored all possibilities of simplifying the DNA.

[Strange]

This article seems to answer at least some of your questions: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35895138

[Xalatan]

This is an interesting approach. Rather than going bottom up to see what creates life, going top down eliminating non-essential genes narrows down the bare essentials for life and may be insightful. 500 genes to code a bacterium. As the article writes, it may be possible to create semi-synthetic life forms this way.

[EdEarl]

This is an interesting approach. Rather than going bottom up to see what creates life, going top down eliminating non-essential genes narrows down the bare essentials for life and may be insightful. 500 genes to code a bacterium. As the article writes, it may be possible to create semi-synthetic life forms this way.

Seems they have already created a sem-isynthetic life form; what you have in mind?

[Xalatan]

As far as I can see this is a prokaryotic experiment. They could try the same in Yeast.

Eukaryotes should be more complex.

[CharonY]

Note that this is specific of Mycoplasma. For example, there have been curing experiments in other bacteria, but usually it was so time-consuming that people did not go all the way (after all funding was limited for that exercise, as referees tend to view it as fishing experiments). There have been other approaches to look at the essential set of genes, including wide comparisons of many prokaryotic genomes. The consensus seems that there is no such universal set and that it is highly dependent on the cell.

I.e. chances are that using that minimal genome into a E. coli cell it won't work. So the ability to extrapolate these findings could be somewhat limited.

 

The origin of this work can be seen in the systematic analysis of essential genes (examples in yeast include work from Goebl and Petes in the 80s) and has then focused on genomic analyses of reduced genomes of parasites (Buchnera being another porminent example). A general issue is of course the environment, as a minimum genome requires an intra- and extracellular context to be viable.

Edited March 28, 2016 by CharonY

[Pugdaddy]

Gene editing is here. Just because we can. Should we? Jennifer Doudna give a good talk on Ted.

 

https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely