E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
J. Craig Venter Institute
A genetically transformed strain of bacteria takes on a bluish cast as a signal that synthetic coding was incorporated into the cell's genetic machinery.
Someday, microbiomes just might give us a world where crude oil is grown like a crop, where vaccines for new flu strains can be produced in days instead of months, and where physicians can tweak the bacteria in your gut to cure what ails you. At least that's the promise held out by genomics pioneer Craig Venter and others at a symposium conducted this week at Seattle's Institute for Systems Biology.
A decade ago, Venter was among a cadre of researchers who first decoded the human genome — in Venter's case, his own. Today, as the head of the J. Craig Venter Institute, he's among a cadre of researchers who are not only working out the implications of that genetic code for our daily lives, but also studying how to tweak the genetic codes of the myriad microbes that surround us — and in some cases, live within us. The makeup of those microbial communities is what scientists refer to a "microbiome."
A decade ago, the main challenge facing geneticists was to translate the "analog" information of cellular chemistry into a digital database, Venter told attendees. Today, the main challenge is to reverse course and make the "digital to analog" conversion, so that innovations in genetic code can be applied to the real world.
How's that done? Venter and his colleagues made a start on that task just a few years ago, by pioneering a process to synthesize DNA and insert it into a strain of bacteria. The daughter cells reflected the artificially altered programming instead of their forebears' natural genetic code.
Now Venter and others are putting synthetic biology to work. Here are just a few of the examples cited at the Seattle symposium, titled "Systems Biology and the Microbiome":
- Novartis, a major pharmaceutical company, is working with Venter on techniques to crack the genetic code of an influenza virus strain and pass it along to the vaccine-makers within five days. A quick turnaround is the key to containing the spread of deadly flu strains like the one that killed tens of millions in 1918. "We think we're actually pandemic-ready," Venter said.
- Several commercial ventures, including Sapphire Energy, are tweaking algae to produce oil-like compounds at a price that's cheaper than the cost of crude oil. Sapphire CEO Jason Pyle pointed out that based purely on commodity costs, corn is a cheaper energy source than oil (though not as cheap as natural gas). If genetically modified algae could be grown in mass quantities as cheaply as corn, it could become a renewable energy source that's much closer to carbon-neutral than fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide could come to be seen as "the raw material of the future," Venter said.
From 2010: Algae fuel start-ups across the country are getting closer to commercial scale production of the environmentally friendly fuel, thanks to investment from the government.
- Algae strains could also be reprogrammed to produce foodstuffs, Venter said. Such genetic twists could outpace today's chemical-heavy agricultural methods, which are increasingly being seen as too wasteful for the planet's rising population. "Ultimately, the elimination of agriculture as we know it should be a goal of modern science," Venter said. However, harnessing synthetic algae cells is "not a short-term project," he cautioned.
- Unraveling the human microbiome, particularly in our digestive system,. ranks among the top priorities for microbiologists. Physicians are already experimenting with "fecal transplants" — a gross-sounding procedure that involves injecting material from a donor's intestines into the gut of a patient who needs a healthier bacterial community. Having your digestive bacteria analyzed, and tweaked if necessary, may someday become part of a routine physical. (However, MIT's Eric Alm noted that it wouldn't have to be done annually, because your gut's microbiome doesn't usually change that quickly.)
- The bacteria in our bowels may even play a role in space exploration: If we ever get to the point of sending astronauts to Mars, Venter said one of the first items on the agenda should be to replace the astronauts' Earth-centric gut bacteria with a selection more suited to the Mars trip. Venter has said other bacteria cold be engineered to create fuel and food from raw materials on Mars, including the carbon dioxide in its atmosphere.
This all sounds like a science-fiction utopia, but some believe there's the potential for a sci-fi nightmare instead. Last month, an international environmental consortium called for a moratorium on the commercial use of synthetic organisms, and an outright ban on the application of synthetic biology to the human genome or the human microbiome.
"It is our obligation to safeguard the future, to be wise in our development and use of technologies which could threaten humans and the Earth," said Carolyn Raffensperger, executive director of the Science and Environmental Health Network. The results of an online survey on synthetic biology are due to be released next month.
What do you think about the idea using genetically altered microbes to produce fuel, food and medicine? Is it a panacea, a Pandora's Box, or something in between? Feel free to register your opinion in the online poll above, or in the comment space below.
More about the microbiome and synthetic biology:
- Scientists map the world's microbes
- What's living on your smartphone?
- Bacteria prefer prime real estate
- Renewable rubber highlights new economy
- One-third of Americans back ban on synthetic biology
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Very powerful topic Alan ....
Micro organisms are both good and bad ....
Single celled organisms are able to multiply at an astonishing rate ....
Therefore , increasing the odds for a mutation ....
There's the danger ....
Single celled organisms should be one of the most feared problems we face today and should also in the future ....
The good news would be the capability to master single celled organisms ....
Like opposing cells or organisms to rid cancers ....
Thinking on a molecular level or single celled level is something many can't conceive ....
But most cancers begin with a single cell ....
I'm curtain that these studies will lead to a better understanding of microbes and single celled organisms ....
Which then can be used for the grace of mankind ....
A posted article on the 4 ebola virus's would shed a nice light on this topic also ....
Ebola has been found in fossils tens of millions of years old ....
Thanks for this article Alan Boyle ....
Harnessing single celled organisms to do our dirty work is nothing new. Can anyone say e.coli and insulin? I can't agree with bigbenalaska because harnessing organisms is how we've been able to rise above many illnesses that we would have wiped us out.
As for ebola, its a virus, not a single cell organism. Its kills people so rapidly that its not even an endemic.
I'm not sure what your comment was about, bigbenalaska, but you have really narrow thinking. Some people are born scientifically inclined, whom we can thank for vaccines and such, and if everyone was like you, we would've been wiped out by disease a long time ago, so stick to articles about creationism, why don't you?
In this case, the genie could be particularly onerous. So what it needs is a particularly good bottle. The facilities that work with these potentially dangerous microbes should be located in environments that are hostile to life and be contained in multiple enclosures, one of which would house the staff and another to contain the growing facilities. Multiple layers of containment should resemble the care taken to keep radioactive material out of the environment, which I see as currently inadequate and should be strengthened. A quarantine facility should house anyone leaving the facility for a reasonable period. Sad to have to treat humans as we now treat animals, but very necessary in my view.
Such a facility would be a good testing ground for space habitation technology as well.
@ bicfj
Though their personalities do resemble that of parasites
kimposibl ....
It's your really narrow thinking that allowed you to have given such a foolish response ....
The study of viruses is known as virology , a sub-speciality of microbiology ....
A large part of this article ....
I guess you had some trouble seeing the connection ....
But I hear your anger ....
And an unknown reason for your mention of creationism ....
Your comment stating , ( and if everyone was like you, we would've been wiped out by disease a long time ago,) ....
Is without question , ridiculous , foolish and far from anything related to my initial post ....
It appears to me that your hostility is overflowing ....
I hope it's not anything like a virus ....
Technology of this magnitude should only be used by highly trained scientists! Until we fill in the gaps, of what we don't know, this is a disaster just waiting to happen! Wait and see!
but he was part of the team to decode all of our genes! you don't think he's trained enough to handle some microbes? =/
I'm sure that the scientist mentioned in the article is not doing all the research on these microbes in every lab around the globe kimposibl ....
I see you missed his point as well ....
If history is any indicator, this will be developed, sooner or later, whether we are ready for it or not, and most likely we will utilize and develop it, having moved on to something else before we even contemplate any ramifications.
I doubt we'll have moved on before we 'even contemplate any ramifications', but I definitely think we'll see wide-spread use before anyone takes the possibility of ramifications truly seriously.
As a self employed environmental microbiologist for almost two decades I can understand why we now find ourselves in this developing Genetically Modified Microbes situation. BigBen has it, we need to be VERY careful with this.
Research was halted recently because we studied avian bird flu so diligently that it jumped to the mammals (ferret's) scarring the Bejezus out of some around here. Yep we did it! The simpler the organisms DNA the easier it is to tweak or mutate. Naturally or man induced. Combine that with the quick multiplying rate or generation time of 20-40 minutes for some bacteria and look out for trouble.
Algae is the future of biodiesel but not necessarily as a GMO. I've researched other compounds that will boost lipid (oil) content in the algae. Imagine if it got out of control like Kudzu.
The microflora of our gut is only now starting to get a broader understanding of how it makes us overall healthy or not. Up until recently the whole concept was to much of a "dirty idea" and not appealing enough to be considered meaningful. Our intestinal health is as obvious to effecting our overall internal health as our epidermal health is at being an external indicator of our personal well being.
Yes, eat more Activia.
One more thing, newborn babies delivered by C section should be coated with the mothers birth canal microflora as nature intended instead of being first dried and wrapped in a sterile hospital towel (containing who knows what nosocomials) to help reduce the amount of autoimmune disorders like eczema and propensities for asthma and allergies that are on the rise along side the increases in C section births.
or the mother could lick the baby ALL over (yes, that's what I mean), just like animals do.
people should separate algae level manipualtion with complex genetic sequencing, for example, I cant see how this could ever be ap roblem if its something like energy or food crop. The problems start when you mess with the human body (especially when it comes to the state and legislation).
so there should be a strict demarkation of synthetic biology when it comes to energy and crop yield, which could vastly help resource production and the human race, as a natural population equilibrium is acheived (higher standard of living lower birth rates) as more cheap basic resources means people procreate less...the consumption then goes up the ladder and if things can be produced with cheap manufacturing/biological engineering then everything becomes sustainable at some point..self sustaining...
this should be completely SEPARATE in the mind arbitration scheme on the state level, from the human engineering, because if they are lumped together if something n\happens in the real extreme complex side of a science it can be used to block the entire science even though 'synthetic biology' at one end is so radically different than on the other they cant really be called the same thing..
even though we lump together things in mental categories to get an ease of use of what is going on..
someone cannot say that what happens in complex human trials is equivalent to algae for example, its too different sciences/ jobs even though we call it the same thing because we are a bit bureacractic (the entire society)
so the solution is to form different categories, because one really has a lot of benefit and even the high stuff, but there may be some high end exceptions --'weird areas' ...that should be kept on eye on, primarily so it is not arbitrated and gives an excuse to a monopoly to come in and call the shots, such as the state
the state = the highest monopoly, the one that regulates all others.
I think that we are quite a ways down the road of the crop research. The laws protecting these discoveries, how and what they are used for, and the science to determine their saftey is the "gaps" that I was questioning in my earlier post. When you have a scientific community with NO understanding of immunity, which they do not, the door is open for epidemics. When we understand MRSA and similar bacteria, I will be more satisfied with letting the children play with the new toys!
Even genetically modified foods may carry some risk. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a knee jerk naturalist that hates anything synthetic, but I'm not totally convinced by any corporations claims of safety. I certainly believe that clearly explicit labeling of GMOs is always appropriate and let the consumer make their choice.
Additionally, there could be risks down the road if a certain strain or variety becomes too widespread in use. Take, for example, Monsanto's genetically modified corn seed. It supposedly produces higher yields and is more parasite resistant and I believe it has been designed to tolerate certain pesticides (also produced by Monsanto) extremely well. Fine. So it becomes extremely popular and everyone is using it, and Monsanto is making bazillions in profit which was their goal anyway, after all, right? But then, what if some new fungal corn smut evolves which wipes out the entire crop and there's no other variety of seed readily available? We could very rapidly get into a disastrous situation.
Maintaining variation in seed stocks is crucial to long term viability. This, in addition to protection against widespread global environmental disaster, is one of the best justifications for supporting and protecting the "World Seed Bank" which has been created in a deeply submerged cave somewhere on an island off the coast of Scandanavia. Let's hope we never need it.
Said not SAND in the second-to-last paragraph, Alan. Fascinating story though.
Thanks, will fix. I really appreciate the thoughtful comments!!
I see we have a pedant in our midst.
Could not "cold" in the final bullet point regarding Venter.
Thanks for the awesome articles you post, Alan!
I know we have painted ourselves into a corner with the misuse of antibiotics. Neat things like MRSA. The problem with modifying DNA in micro-organisms is that once released into the environment it's too late to control it. A single gene has more than one function and we don't have the capability to predict all the ways it might interact with the environment. NDM1 is an example of this, a gene that turns an ordinary bug into a super-bug. In my opinion science currently lacks the wisdom of how to use the things it creates. The fact that you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should.
Yes. Exactly. No scientist has any idea how such organisms in the environment will evolve. And they WILL evolve. The algae thing is very compelling however, it is a multicellular plant that could be far better controlled than unicellular modified organisms.
Anything used as a manufacturing system could potentially be controlled much better than the bugs in our guts or the like. First off, strict controls and hard regulations for breaches are perfectly reasonable in this environment. If done well, nothing ever has to get out into the world at large. We should assume, though, that things won't generally go well and, as such, should engineer these species to be perfectly suited for the lab environment (temperature controlled, fixed humidity, controlled chemical environment, no competition, etc.), while also making sure they're perfectly UNsuited for the wide world.
Let's not forget Jurassic Park!! The lesson of the book foremost (nature will find a way), then the lovely movie. Dinosaurs out of control is one thing, We can see and at least shoot them if nothing else. Bacteria..well then we might just have to shoot the person harboring the contagion, just to be sure, then burn the body.
How about the Andromeda Strain for another parable of potential risk?
In Jurassic Park, they were also consciously and deliberately sabotaged...
Yes..but. The sabotage had nothing to do with the unknown mistake of frog DNA that enabled spontaneous reproduction. They believed that was controlled. And the park wouldn't have been a success due to the total unpredictability of actually seeing dinos in their enclosures, except for the plant eaters ...maybe.
Every organism is the consequence of its adaptation within an environment. As the environment changes, so will the organism. Man adapted to an environment that was essentially static for a million years. The first major break with that past was the invention of agriculture, which changed man wherever it occurred. It's not mere cultural myth that the men of the pre-agricultural age of every culture were viewed as heroic "true-men," while later generations were viewed, in some way, as different from their ancestors. The Industrial Age ushered in fundamental environmental changes and man is adapting to them. As the changes continue, whether with alternative food streams or altered sources of selection, man will continue to change to accomodate that new environment. "Man" will continue to exist, but he won't be the "man" we are today, and he will be fundamentally different from the "man" of our historical past. In time, man will cease to be anything we would even recognize as human. That is the fruit of our technology. Welcome it or not, it is where we are being led by our technology.
Nice.
This kind of research needs to be done and in deed we need to use it. There dose need to be oversight and careful application, but this sort of evolution to where life begins to direct it's own creation is going to happen with or without those forward thinking enough to see its benefit.
QE137, actually, this sort of research doesn't need to be done. The environment "designs" species to fit the environment, while man would "design" himself to be what he wants to be, without regard to the environment. That will work only as far as man is able to configure the environment within rather narrow tolerances. That requires a tremendous input of resources. If we continue to degrade the environment as we have, then those resources will diminish to the point of being unable to sustain the environment we "desire," which, by then, will have become the environment we absolutely need to survive since we would have altered ourselves beyond our ability to survive in an unmodified environment. You can see that happening already with the increase in maintenance therapies needed by our species. Eventually we will "improve" ourselves to the point of extinction. Hopefully a few atavistic individuals will have survived so the species can re-establish itself, although Western society is doing its best to eliminate those atavistic invididuals, who are generally considered "undesirable."
Atavistic = evolutionarily "Luddite"?
Well if we can point out corrections, in the last bullet should be 'could' not 'cold'... Thanks Alan.
Good article. I myself am worried about where modifying organisms will take us. I'm not saying we must take a hands off approach, but figure that our ancestors spent tens of thousands of years bringing us edibles such as corn, wheat and the cow. It was slow but it got us where we are today. What scares me is what we could now destroy in a single generation. We will likely have to modify more and more organisms, but I just hope we can find some sort of balance.
On a side note, they have been using microbes to stop toxins leaking from an abandoned mine near Vancouver BC. There are microbes that 'enjoy' the run-off and help reduce the negative effects of the old mine site.
But are they GMO's?
They're not GMO. They are organisms that were collected from ancient mine spoil areas, mainly in Europe, where they have co-evolved with slag pits since the Bronze Age. Similar organisms occur in areas naturally contaminated with heavy metals, or in high-acid environments. Evolution is an on-going process. Before they stopped adding lead as an additive to gasoline, roadside species were evolving lead-tolerance. It's important to remember, though, that "evolved a tolerance" means that those chance individuals that were more tolerant to lead than their fellows survived and reproduced while their more sensitive compatriots died. Individuals have virtually no capacity to "adapt" except through their progeny.
Additionally, have they "stopped" the toxins from leaking, or are they just letting the microbes sop them up?
I'd rather cut into a nice grilled Porterhouse with mushrooms and onions than a nice algae burger.
Soylent Blue is algae!
What a nice place to be trying new things the lunar habitat would be, no chance of escape for any problems that occured.
Actually there are hypothesis that life came from Mars. Not joking. We have found Martian meteorites here so what would stop it coming from our moon?
Nothing's certain, but statistically speaking, in terms of the likelihood of that type of scenario occurring again, if indeed it did happen orginally, there's MUCH less asteroidal and cometary bombardment now than there was billions of years ago when the solar system had only recently formed.
In other words, I'd call the moon a pretty safe bet for a quarantine facility. Now, as for the transport rockets, landers and all, well... How did that go for the Nostromo?
Agree its very small probability today. I was just pointing out the contrary of "no chance".
Such genetic twists could outpace today's chemical-heavy agricultural methods, which are increasingly being seen as too wasteful for the planet's rising population. "Ultimately, the elimination of agriculture as we know it should be a goal of modern science," Venter said.
In the future it may come to the question of why doesn't mankind just become cannibals? There are historical and archelogical facts that early mankind had a lot of foibles such as this.
Soylent Green is people.