http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/synthetic-microbe-lives-less-500-genes

This week in 
Science, researchers led by genome sequencing pioneer Craig Venter report engineering a bacterium to have the smallest genome—and the fewest genes—of any freely living organism. The function of 149 of Syn 3.0’s genes—roughly one-third—
remains unknown. As Syn 3.0’s name suggests, it’s not the first synthetic life made by Venter. Syn 1.0 had 901 genes.

Venter set out to determine the minimal set of genes needed for life by stripping nonessential genes from Syn 1.0, using all available genomic knowledge to design a bacterial chromosome with the hypothetical minimum genome. He failed, so switched to trial and error. His team built, designed, and tested “multiple hundreds” of constructs before settling on Syn 3.0.

With a total of 531,000 bases and 473 genes, the new organism’s genome isn’t much smaller than that of Mycoplasma genitalium, with 600,000 bases and 525 genes. But M. genitalium grows so slowly that a population of cells can take weeks to double. Syn 3.0, by contrast, has a doubling time of 3 hours, suggesting that it thrives with its slimmed down genome.

——

Comment, we’ll soon see how much of “junk DNA” really is junk. I personally think almost all of it.

mollwollfumble said:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/synthetic-microbe-lives-less-500-genes

This week in 
Science, researchers led by genome sequencing pioneer Craig Venter report engineering a bacterium to have the smallest genome—and the fewest genes—of any freely living organism. The function of 149 of Syn 3.0’s genes—roughly one-third—
remains unknown. As Syn 3.0’s name suggests, it’s not the first synthetic life made by Venter. Syn 1.0 had 901 genes.

Venter set out to determine the minimal set of genes needed for life by stripping nonessential genes from Syn 1.0, using all available genomic knowledge to design a bacterial chromosome with the hypothetical minimum genome. He failed, so switched to trial and error. His team built, designed, and tested “multiple hundreds” of constructs before settling on Syn 3.0.

With a total of 531,000 bases and 473 genes, the new organism’s genome isn’t much smaller than that of Mycoplasma genitalium, with 600,000 bases and 525 genes. But M. genitalium grows so slowly that a population of cells can take weeks to double. Syn 3.0, by contrast, has a doubling time of 3 hours, suggesting that it thrives with its slimmed down genome.

——

Comment, we’ll soon see how much of “junk DNA” really is junk. I personally think almost all of it.

I don’t for evolution to be possible it makes sense to have junk DNA the variables to access for adaptability. There is evidence that an insect uses junk DNA to cause sex genes to be determined favourably to ensure the survival of bacteria. This is indicative of junk Adana being part of the keys and fundamentals of ensuring diversity is possible.

monkey skipper said:

mollwollfumble said:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/synthetic-microbe-lives-less-500-genes

This week in 
Science, researchers led by genome sequencing pioneer Craig Venter report engineering a bacterium to have the smallest genome—and the fewest genes—of any freely living organism. The function of 149 of Syn 3.0’s genes—roughly one-third—
remains unknown. As Syn 3.0’s name suggests, it’s not the first synthetic life made by Venter. Syn 1.0 had 901 genes.

Venter set out to determine the minimal set of genes needed for life by stripping nonessential genes from Syn 1.0, using all available genomic knowledge to design a bacterial chromosome with the hypothetical minimum genome. He failed, so switched to trial and error. His team built, designed, and tested “multiple hundreds” of constructs before settling on Syn 3.0.

With a total of 531,000 bases and 473 genes, the new organism’s genome isn’t much smaller than that of Mycoplasma genitalium, with 600,000 bases and 525 genes. But M. genitalium grows so slowly that a population of cells can take weeks to double. Syn 3.0, by contrast, has a doubling time of 3 hours, suggesting that it thrives with its slimmed down genome.

——

Comment, we’ll soon see how much of “junk DNA” really is junk. I personally think almost all of it.

I don’t for evolution to be possible it makes sense to have junk DNA the variables to access for adaptability. There is evidence that an insect uses junk DNA to cause sex genes to be determined favourably to ensure the survival of bacteria. This is indicative of junk Adana being part of the keys and fundamentals of ensuring diversity is possible.

Adana = DNA

mollwollfumble said:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/synthetic-microbe-lives-less-500-genes

This week in 
Science, researchers led by genome sequencing pioneer Craig Venter report engineering a bacterium to have the smallest genome—and the fewest genes—of any freely living organism. The function of 149 of Syn 3.0’s genes—roughly one-third—
remains unknown. As Syn 3.0’s name suggests, it’s not the first synthetic life made by Venter. Syn 1.0 had 901 genes.

Venter set out to determine the minimal set of genes needed for life by stripping nonessential genes from Syn 1.0, using all available genomic knowledge to design a bacterial chromosome with the hypothetical minimum genome. He failed, so switched to trial and error. His team built, designed, and tested “multiple hundreds” of constructs before settling on Syn 3.0.

With a total of 531,000 bases and 473 genes, the new organism’s genome isn’t much smaller than that of Mycoplasma genitalium, with 600,000 bases and 525 genes. But M. genitalium grows so slowly that a population of cells can take weeks to double. Syn 3.0, by contrast, has a doubling time of 3 hours, suggesting that it thrives with its slimmed down genome.

——

Comment, we’ll soon see how much of “junk DNA” really is junk. I personally think almost all of it.

yea, coz’ a bacteriums genome = a eukaryotic one …

junk dna might be the fine tuning needed to survive

One thing that this study tells us is that not only is very little junk DNA necessary for survival, even approximately 50% of non-junk DNA ie. genes, can be discarded without problems.

mollwollfumble said:

One thing that this study tells us is that not only is very little junk DNA necessary for survival, even approximately 50% of non-junk DNA ie. genes, can be discarded without problems.

Perhaps when things are fine and dandy for the organism but environmental pressures and other factors could cause the junk DNA to activate and give the organism a better chance of survival

Here’s a Nature article from 2004 on a study in which researchers made a mouse with the “junk” DNA removed from its genome. The mouse was normal.

btm said:

Here’s a Nature article from 2004 on a study in which researchers made a mouse with the “junk” DNA removed from its genome. The mouse was normal.

At least we know 1% doesn’t do anything, as far as we can test.