Synthetic Life Makes Synthetic Proteins

The genetic code is the metabolic instructions by which the genetic information in the DNA is translated into a protein. The fact that almost all organisms use the same code is prime evidence that all life is related in its evolutionary past. The code is considered to be "conserved" and "universal". Of course, the concept of universality may be challenged by exobiology's explorations of Mars, Europa, and Titan, but the conservative nature of the genetic code, with the exception of a few Archaebacteria, has always been a cornerstone of biological science.


But the reality of course is that the Genetic Code is like the Cobal language of computer science. The Genetic Code is old (over 3.5 billion years). Of course life on this planet is not going to update the genetic code anytime soon - it is thriving using the old code, but evolution is a weird thing, if something better comes along, and a mechanism to adapt to that change exists, the out with the old and in with the new. Until recently it appeared to be metabolically impossible to "update" the code. But one species, Homo sapiens, may have discovered a way to fast-track the process.

The basic tenants of the genetic code is that the information coming from the DNA, in the form of messenger RNA, is "read" by a ribosome three units (also called a codon) at a time. Each codon codes for an amino acid, the building blocks of a protein. Proteins are the workhorses of the cell - everything depends on them. In other words, genes code for proteins. While we have had the ability to change genes for some time, using recombinant DNA technology and genetic engineering, until recently we were always confined to the use of the same old programming language.

Earlier this year, independent teams of researchers at Harvard University and the University of Cambridge have found ways to alter not only the genetic code, but also the cellular machinery responsible for deciphering the code - the ribosome. (see Synthetic biology: Rewriting the code for life by Linda Geddes, 2008). This process is called synthetic biology, and due to the efforts of biotech giants such as Craig Venter, this is no longer science fiction. We now have at our fingertips the technology to create new forms of life that are designed for specific missions and environments.

These advances open up unbelievable possibilities, and the potential for unimaginable nightmares. It may soon be possible to manufacture proteins that were not possible from a biochemical perspective just a few years ago. This could create new drugs that could finally eradicate some of our specie's biggest problems, such as cancer and HIV. It could also allow us to develop plants that tolerate salt water, or grow on toxic waste. A new programming language means endless possibilities. It also could spell our demise as a species. After all, the evolutionary history of life on this planet tells us that if something better comes along, the old is replaced... even if it is us. Let us not be so egocentric to think that we are special from an evolutionary perspective. Unless of course, you believe that our purpose on Earth is to generate our own successors.

Nondisclosure Agreements for First Dates

Michael Creighton's latest thriller, Next, presents all sorts of what-if scenarios for the genetic community. While most of us will not have to deal with foul-mouthed orangutans or smart-ass parrots, a recent report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that there may be a genetic factor contributing to fear of commitment in males. As reported today by the BBC ("Commitment phobes can blame genes", Sept 2, 2008), this gene is called AVPR1A. Males with a certain allele for this gene (allele 334)have an aversion to commitment, and are less likely to have happy, fulfilled marriages.

Maybe this is not a surprise...but it could be a problem for some males. In a Creighton-world scenario, a male goes out for a date with an attractive women. As he excuses himself to go use the restroom, the woman quietly swabs the inside of his glass, removing a few epithelial cells. She then sends these off to a genetic screening lab where she finds out that the male possesses two copies of AVPR1A allele 334. The next day she ends the relationship and then publishes his name on her blog to warn her friends that he is a hopeless cause. If you think that these tests do not exist - click here.

Why would she do this? Because there are evolutionary differences between the ways that men and women view relationships. Like it or not, in the animal kingdom (to which humans belong), women often form long-term relationships for the purpose of rearing young. Men, on the other hand, are more likely to seek multiple, short-term relationships. So back to humans.... why should the female invest valuable time and energy in a relationship that is genetically bound for failure? No longer do women have to contemplate whether he will "change" - the genetic evidence will tell them. Anyone else hear warning sirens?


So guys, the next time you go out on that first date, make sure that you have your partner sign a non-disclosure agreement stating that any genetic information that she obtains as a result of your date is to remain your legal property unless you consent to its release. Of course, that type of conversation will probably also stop you from getting a second date, but at least your little genetic secret may remain private.

Hockey Players and the Minority Report

What if society could identify aggressive behavior in individuals before a criminal act was committed? Sound a little like the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report (2002)?,well it should. Researchers at Brock University in Canada have recently completed a study of hockey players and found out that the aggressive tendencies of these individuals is associated with a higher width-to-height ratio of the face. This increased ratio is linked to higher levels of testosterone, which is linked to aggressiveness.

The problem with this research is that someone may attempt to pre-identify a criminal based upon an inherited characteristic. Sounds good? Well, maybe, if the study is done right. Not too long ago, studies of Jacob's syndrome, males with an extra Y chromosome (XYY), predicted that since these males had an extra Y chromosome, that they should have higher testosterone levels and be more aggressive than "normal" (XY) males. Unfortunately, this is not entirely true. These males do not typically have high testosterone levels, and although they may show higher levels of aggression, this is usually attributed to learning and social problems as a result of the syndrome. These, of course, are treatable with proper identification.

So back the minority report. Should I be keeping an eye on my block-headed neighbor for signs of criminal intent based upon this study. Probably not. Another explanation may be that people with different width-to-height ratio of the face may prefer to play hockey rather than other sports. Who knows, maybe this gives them advantage when being knocked in the head by a stick, or maybe low width-to-height ratio people are selected against in tryouts. In either case, lets not make Minority Report a reality. People should be prosecuted for their actions, not their genetics.

Cell Phones and Cancer - Round X

As reported on CNN (Cancer expert warns employees on cell phones, 7/23/2008), Dr Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, has advised against the use of cell phones by employees, citing that it may possibly cause cancer. Here we go again.....

This type of grandstanding by a official should not be tolerated by the academic, medical or scientific communities. It does nothing but confuse the general public and further degrade the reports of legitimate scientists (which Dr. Herberman is suppose to represent!). Reports like this one often go viral over the web, and most often get distorted in many ways. I predict that the National Enquirer will soon start to blame all of the celebrity problems in the news on the use of cell phones. If I was on the staff of this Institute, I would be asking some tough questions of my leadership.

Is it possible that the use of cell phones may increase the risk of certain types of cancer? There is always a possibility - even though multiple published reports have discounted this idea. There may be physiological and genetic factors that predispose some individuals to certain forms of cancer, and these people may use cell phones, but that does not really mean that the cell phone caused the cancer. Should additional studies be performed? ..... maybe, especially if it covers some area of study that has been neglected in a previous study, including the effects on youn brains. Herberman contends that we can't wait for the scientific process to examine the link..... and he is the head of a major scientific cancer institute? Something doesn't sound right.

I wonder if Dr Herberman drives to work in a car..... after all, we know for certain that cars kill over 40,000 Americans per year, and that the emissions from automobiles are killing additional thousands per year (as reported by the World Health Organization)....but I don't hear any outcry about that from Dr Herberman.

For a more detailed report - see the AP report "Pittsburgh cancer center warns of cell phone risks"

I am Legend - The Sequel?

There has recently been another documented case of the Hendra virus in Australia (see Rachel Nowak’s “Could killer horse virus spread amongst humans?” In case you are not familiar with Hendra, it is a respiratory disease virus of horses, and is believed to be found exclusively in Australia. The disease has been known to jump to humans from horses, and there have been a few fatalities, but in general, this virus has not gathered a lot of media attention. What is interesting about this article is that Nowak reports that the new version of the virus may be slightly different than the previous versions. So why is this important?

In general, viruses are very specific in the species, and even the types of cells within a species, that it infects. However, the big problem with viruses is that most viruses have a high mutation rate. This means that the genetic material within the virus, which may be either DNA or RNA, changes at a faster rate. Some of these changes, especially when they are compounded over time, may cause the virus to change some of its proteins, and “recognize” new hosts. By the way, for you diehard creationists out there, these genetic changes are an example of evolution, and viruses have been doing this for millions, if not billions, of years. Some viruses mutate fast, others more slowly. Hendra virus has already done this, as it is appears to be derived from a virus found in fruit bats. Since fruit bats, horses, and us are all mammals, it appears that this virus has a special liking for warm-blooded creatures. For that reason alone, we need to pay attention to this one.

While I am glad to see that magazines, such as New Scientist, are reporting these outbreaks of Hendra virus, I am a little worried about how the general media is going to spin this story. If you remember, not too long ago the media picked up on scientific claims that scientists were predicting that the H5N1, aka “Avian Flu”, would leap to humans from poultry. With the release of “I am Legend”, many people believed that the apocalyptic end of the planet was at hand. When it didn’t happen that summer, or even the next, avian flu quickly faded from people’s minds, even though it has been increasing its range annually.

In fact, I still have friends of mine who claim that this was just another example of scientists blowing things way out of proportion. Some of them even try to use this logic to say that scientists are doing the same thing about climate change. This just shows a complete lack of understanding, and respect, for nature. Nature does not work on our timescale, nor does it even have a timescale. When these viruses mutate, as they have for millions of years, they may just develop the ability to infect a new species. And if that species is us, we are going to really wish that we had paid a little more attention to those over-reacting scientists.