Posts Tagged ‘JCVI’

Implanted Genome

Posted by amanda on Friday, May 21st, 2010

Mycoplasma

Mycoplasma

Is a rose still a rose if it doesn’t smell as sweet? Is a Mycoplasma capricolum still a Mycoplasma capricolum if it expresses a different genome? The answer to the first question is definitely “Yes” (especially if you could smell the roses I received on Mother’s Day). A paper published yesterday in Science confirms that the answer to the second question is a big fat “No”. Researchers at Maryland’s own J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) in Rockville in collaboration with their sister institute in San Diego are the first to successfully implant a new genome into a bacterial cell to create a new self-replicating bacteria that never existed before. In the most simplistic description, they created a unique new life.

Using a novel technique in which large DNA sequences were strung together in yeast, a 1.08 Mbp (Mega base pairs, where a base pair is one unit or nucleotide of double-stranded DNA) encoding all the necessary genes to make Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 was synthesized. After synthesis, the circular chromosome was implanted into the nucleus of a similar species, Mycoplasma capricolum, for gene expression. This was not easy. After the first attempt failed, the researchers found a single mutation limiting proper gene expression. In their paper, the scientists recall several obstacles that had to be overcome: They needed to develop a method to extract large chromosomes from yeast, learn how to transplant these genomes into a recipient cell, and to choose a fast-growing recipient with the required gene expression machinery as a donor.

By synthesizing the DNA themselves, the researchers were able to include “markers” within the sequence. For example, if the genes were successfully expressed, the bacteria would be blue in color. Furthermore, they were able to leave a lasting mark on the DNA sequence by including strings of nucleotides (that when expressed into protein) spelled out an email address, the names of the scientists involved in the project, and a few famous quotations. [It isn't clear whether or not these proteins would actually be expressed. If only you could make an enzyme composed of a Shakespeare quote.]

This paper has raised some ethical and therefore political issues. President Obama has already asked the White House bioethics commission for a review of the issues to be provided to him in a report within 6 months, stating that the creation of a new genome raised “genuine concerns”. The application of this method for the synthesis of novel compounds using bacteria, such as biofuels, make this an important industrial topic as well. Can you patent an organism that you created? Would the laws that apply to genetically engineered crops where patents are in place apply to this as well?

In the last paragraph of the paper, the researchers write:

“We have been driving the ethical discussion concerning
synthetic life from the earliest stages of this work (25, 26). As
synthetic genomic applications expand, we anticipate that this
work will continue to raise philosophical issues that have
broad societal and ethical implications. We encourage the
continued discourse.”

Let the discourse begin.

Oral Flora

Posted by amanda on Saturday, April 17th, 2010

mouth

Mouth with probably over 240 species of bacteria inside
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbaruzza_2/

It’s been an interesting week in the stratosphere with a fireball in Wisconsin caught on video and a giant ash plume from the eruption of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull volcano.

But I’m feeling a bit introspective. Published in The ISME Journal, researchers (including a couple from the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville and the Institute For Genome Sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine) finally determined the bacterial diversity of our mouths or at least of 10 lucky individuals.

The researchers collected 26 separate samples from different parts of each healthy person’s mouth and pooled them, collecting and amplifying the RNA sequences present. RNA (or ribonucleic acid) contains the important coding information from DNA. RNA is necessary to every living organism, transcribed from DNA and translated into protein. Without RNA, there would just be pieces of DNA code, unable to be read or to be used as a template to construct protein. By isolating and amplifying a specific piece of RNA present only in bacteria, scientists are able to determine specific species through deciphering the sequences. In this study, around 1000 sequences per mouth were analyzed.

So what did they find? Contrary to past estimates that the mouth harbors 500-700 different bacterial species, this study found about 240 belonging to 9 different phyla or groups. As you may expect, not every mouth is the same. Subject 4 had the greatest number of bacteria (lucky duck), and only around 50 different species were expected to be shared between any two individuals with 11 shared between all 10 of the people studied. If you’re really into species (and who isn’t?), the magic 11 are: Haemophilus parainfluenzae, Streptococcus oralis, Streptococcus sanguinis, Granulicatella adiacens, Veillonella parvula, Veillonella dispar, Rothia aeria, Actinomyces naeslundii, Actinomyces odontolyticus, Prevotella melaninogenica and Capnocytophaga gingivalis. Interestingly, although every subject had sequences belonging to the group of bacteria known as Neisseria, no single specific Neisseria species was shared across all subjects. Our mouth bacterial flora also appears to be very distinct from that found in our colon, confirming that these are very different environments (as if we didn’t know that already).

It’s already known that bacterial flora can be passed from mother to child. I wonder if this study had been conducted with healthy couples who kiss frequently, if they would find a more similar bacterial diversity than 10 strangers. But that study probably isn’t a strong candidate for NIH funding.