<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2026 22:48:45 -0600, Pro Plyd <invalide@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>>>
bwahaha
>
Henry Frankenstein in the 1931 movie: "Now I know what
it feels like to be God!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEB6s8wH1D8
>
https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/worlds-first-synthetic-cell-complete-life-cycle-could-revolutionize-biological
Worlds first synthetic cell with a complete life
cycle could revolutionize biological engineering
July 1, 2026
>
While many of the mysteries of life remain unsolved,
every biologist can describe the basic processes
performed by a living organism, which include energy
use, reproduction, growth and development. While
these characteristics can be replicated in isolation
in a lab, the idea of a completely synthetic
biological organism has long been relegated to
science fiction.
>
Associate Professors Kate Adamala and Aaron Engelhart
and their teams at the College of Biological Sciences
have developed the worlds first synthetic cell with
a complete life cycle, built entirely from non-living
chemical components, and described it in a new paper.
New Scientist magazine has a somewhat toned-down take on this:
>
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2532689-what-is-spudcell-arguably-the-greatest-bioengineering-feat-yet/
>
Non paywlled: https://archive.is/zzAge
>
<quote>
>
SO, IS IT A LIFE FORM?
>
No. It can do some of the things that living cells do, such as
replicating its genes and dividing, but it doesn't do them well and it
needs a lot of outside help just to do them badly. For instance, the
researchers have demonstrated evolution in the sense that when they
introduced a beneficial mutation, those cells did better. But the
mutation had to be introduced deliberately rather than occurring
spontaneously. "I think I would be satisfied with calling it living if
it's replicating indefinitely and if it's capable of Darwinian
evolution," says Adamala.
>
CAN WE REALLY CALL IT A SYNTHETIC CELL, THEN?
>
That depends on how you define things. It is a synthetic cell in the
sense that it has been put together in a lab and does some of the
things a cell does. But it's been made using parts of existing cells -
mainly those 36 genes - rather than being created entirely from
scratch. It could be thought of as an extremely stripped-down E. coli
with a few additions from other viruses, bacteria and jellyfish
>
</quote>
Are you trying to inject vitalism into the discussion?
The project, called SpudCell, marks a major
breakthrough in biological engineering. In time, it
may provide solutions to some of our most challenging
problems in medicine and engineering.
...
>
>
Paper is here
>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.01.735724v1.full.pdf
A Chemically Defined Synthetic Cell Capable Of Growth
And Replication
>
Abstract
Cells are the fundamental unit of life. Yet there is
no natural cell for which all its life-essential
functions are understood. Here we demonstrate a
complete cell cycle for a synthetic cell undergoing
selection, with genome replication, growth, resource
acquisition via feeding, and genetically encoded
division. The cell is encoded via a 90kb genome that
includes functions needed for resource uptake,
transcription, translation, growth, genome replication,
and division. The resulting synthetic cell is
sufficiently encouraging to support routinization of
synthetic cell engineering workflows, and will
ultimately underlie diverse applications across all
of biotechnology.
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.