Artificially Made Cell Evolves Shockingly Fast For Unknown Reasons
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- Get a Wonderful Person Tee: teespring.com/...
More cool designs are on Amazon: amzn.to/3wDGy2i
Alternatively, PayPal donations can be sent here: paypal.me/whatd...
Hello and welcome! My name is Anton and in this video, we will talk about a strange artificial organism Synthia
Links:
www.nature.com...
en.wikipedia.o...
#biology #synthetic #artificial
Support this channel on Patreon to help me make this a full time job:
/ whatdamath
Bitcoin/Ethereum to spare? Donate them here to help this channel grow!
bc1qnkl3nk0zt7w0xzrgur9pnkcduj7a3xxllcn7d4
or ETH: 0x60f088B10b03115405d313f964BeA93eF0Bd3DbF
Space Engine is available for free here: spaceengine.org
Enjoy and please subscribe.
Twitter: / whatdamath
Facebook: / whatdamath
Twitch: / whatdamath
The hardware used to record these videos:
New Camera: amzn.to/34DUUlv
CPU: amzn.to/2LZFQCJ
Video Card: amzn.to/2M1W26C
Motherboard: amzn.to/2JYGiQQ
RAM: amzn.to/2Mwy2t4
PSU: amzn.to/2LZcrIH
Case: amzn.to/2MwJZz4
Microphone: amzn.to/2t5jTv0
Mixer: amzn.to/2JOL0oF
Recording and Editing: amzn.to/2LX6uvU
Some of the above are affiliate links, meaning I would get a (very small) percentage of the price paid.
Thank you to all Patreon supporters of this channel
Special thanks also goes to all the wonderful supporters of the channel through TH-cam Memberships
Images/Videos:
Thomas Shafee CC BY 4.0 en.wikipedia.o...
www.science.or...
Licenses used:
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
creativecommon...
They probably evolve quickly because having so few genes, they lack the mechanisms to control mutations. Which makes me think that the same thing probably happened at the beginning, that the first living beings evolved rapidly to get those kinds of mechanisms that guaranteed the correct copy of their genes. Without these mechanisms, different organisms would arise, which, even if they were more evolved, could not transmit their advantageous characteristics, because in a few generations the mutations would make it almost impossible for evolutionary improvements to be preserved.
There are a few organisms around that are either really simple outward, but have more complex DNA... And really old organisms with very simple DNA instruction sets.
That’s my guess as well - the artificial cells probably lacked many DNA-repair mechanisms, so they were able to evolve quicker.
That combined with the possibility that the stressful environment set up by the researchers may have just happened to be one in which simple mutations in the artificial cells were enough to overcome the challenges. If they repeat the experiment many times with many different kinds of stressors, ideally randomly generated, we might see the natural cells winning out more often.
Interesting
This isn't "evolution".
@@dcmeserveThis isn't "evolution".
To me, “evolves quickly” just seems like the PR twist on “uncontrollably mutates and is only still alive because it’s being kept in a specialized medium.”
That's exactly what it is lol. Also this cell is not really artificial, it's more like an edited version of a pre-existing cell. We have not created a cell from scratch as of yet, not even close.
the difference being? is your evolution not mutations in a specialized medium?
@@Boardwoards High mutation rates are a bad thing that are more likely to kill an organism than help it evolve. You can’t evolve quickly if you can’t survive, and a specialized medium is basically life support, so it can get away with more deleterious mutations and still pass on its genes to the next generation. Given the context the most accurate representation of the situation I’m describing would be “the cell is functioning so badly that it can’t maintain its own genetic code, replicating and reading its DNA incorrectly and passing those mistakes on to the next generation.”
@@6ThreeSided9 and our bodies aren't life support for evolution? granted we have checksafes that are a part of that medium but there really isn't a functional difference just a less shitty lab. kinda like a lab will always be within that which it tests and all. you're a lab, i'm a lab, there are no labs etc.
you're doing the right thing delineating on context it's just given enough time it ends up with checksafes like us.
@@Boardwoards No, we are not beings whose cells rapidly mutate leaving us as giant lumps of cancer and necrosis. That is what we would be if our cells did this.
I commend Anton for preserving the "uh" in that Jurassic Park quote. I admire that level of integrity regarding source material.
Life uh finds a way?
Love that you've expanded into multiple scientific disciplines! This was well researched and clearly written. Love your sense of humor too!
Biology right now is where physics was 110 years ago. So much fascinating stuff we're finding, so much we can only partially explain. If I was 20 years old again, I'd jump into biology for sure.
Seems like Biology is actually going backwards in the last couple years.
@@OakInchHow so?
@@AnthropomorphicTrilobite People claiming to be biology educators can't tell the difference between men and women, or why that would even matter.
@@OakInch What makes you think they can't tell the difference?
@@AnthropomorphicTrilobite I'll pretend you live in a cave and answer your question. When trained biologists talk like this: >>A biology professor at Texas Christian University (TCU) told students that he could not give them “a biological answer” when a student asked what a woman is during his biology class.
Professor Michael Sawey was teaching his students about “gender identity” in his Contemporary Issues in Biology class Thursday. In a video obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation, Sawey says that he doesn’t “really have a biological answer” after a student asked him what the definition of a woman was.
“That is something that is going to depend on the culture,” Sawey said in the video. “Some would argue that ‘do we even have to decide,’
There are a number of assumptions here that are being wrecked. It's not just about the genes. The synthetic lab strain's whole genome was refactored as well. Genes that performed specific functions were grouped together rather than being spread all over the chromosome as in the wild type. The replication time of the refactored genetic organisms were several times shorter than the wild type. Hence, the synthetic organism would always grow faster in its favorite medium over time compared to wild type. I would have to look at the paper's methods, but this is what science is about and it shows how much we just don't know. I would ponder a guess though and suggest that the wild type was a sure bet to lose in the first place since the synthetic strain was selected to grow in vitro from the start while the wild type has had to survive in an animal (in vivo) for millions of years. There is a difference.
Could it be that the scientists accidentally "defragmented" (just like we periodically do with hard disks) the wild type DNA that got messy and confused and redundant through the ages, while the synthetic strain was actually made more efficient by intelligent human editing? That's a great recipe for human hubris and editing of everu species lol
Great points. Additionally, we're talking about a stream-lined highly efficient designer bacteria free of all the 'junk genes' that all other life is filled with, which probably slows down transcription and protein synthesis considerably, relative to some idealized highly efficient junk-gene free strain which, as you noted, had genes aligned with given functions grouped closely together allowing for even greater biological efficiency.
@@giacomostefanoni7634 I like that analogy. I wonder how much energy our bodies would save if we got rid of all the junk genes.
@@loyalsausages I think what we both are saying is that the lab strain is a race car while the wild type is an offroader to use a car analogy. If you test for evolution in lab conditions, the lab strain has the advantage.
Sounds like we need to do the same "genetic clean-up" for a large organism.
Is it possible to do similar experiment with a mice? Or at least rainworm?
Or heck, maybe with a plant? (could turn out to be super beneficial to farming...)
There are an amazing number of experts watching this. Really impressive!
I know, right?
A classic microbiology experiment is to get E.Coli that need lysine to grow and put them in a growth medium that contains DNA from normal E.Coli (but no intact normal E.Coli). Some of the lysine requiring E.Coli somehow absorb the necessary genes to produce lysine from the DNA in the solution. I think Anton has probably explained the matter by theorizing that there was DNA picked up from the environment.
Frankenstein 101: Do NOT create a self-replicating organism!
That lets out test tube baby's , then .
yeah, God screwed up right there, didn't he?
I mean, I doubt that Frankenstein's monster has balls that work well enough to produce viable offspring, so I don't see what the point you're trying to make is.
In the novel, that was Victor's greatest fear - that by making his creation a mate, that they would supplant humanity. Considering that the creature in the book could walk minutes after its birth, was way stronger and faster than a human, barely needed to eat more than a few nuts and berries to sustain itself and had taught itself to speak and read more than one language in the space of a few months, perhaps Frankenstein had good reason to have concerns. What he'd made was superior to man, with its only real flaw being as emotionally fallible as a human.
Too late! 🤓
Anton is a rare species of scientists, brave and promoting new venues of advancements, not found in other scientists. This is why I like Anton, thank you.
god you are not bright.
Anton can meme?! Hes evolving!!!
@@residentJokeBiden I get juicy info from him, often professional physicists fail to provide.
@General_Cornelius Nothing you mentioned has ever happened, anywhere, so no worries.
@@filonin2gain of function
I would have ignored such news as not being serious content, but then spotted your name, so I know the content is real. I find it interesting that I consider everything you post to be serious content. I believe you have a serious and trustworthy reputation. Being trusted to produce honest content is rare in the Internet.
A perfect start for a horror movie
Those high level bacteria just didn't have any respecs left, and then the devs dropped a dlc with a game changing patch. The min/maxed bacteria just didn't have much room to grow in their skill tree, meanwhile the mid level bacteria could still assign their evolution points into useful traits.
Big Tier Zoo energy here.
In a way it makes some sense. The synthetic cells kind of have a "blank slate" compared to the natural ones that have already followed some evolutionary chain. By subjecting the "blank slate" genomes to specific stressors, you have basically guided their evolution. They either evolve ways to survive or die, while the natural ones already have various evolutionary traits that may be "good enough" to survive, but not nearly as specific and optimized as what the synthetic ones were just guided to develop.
I think you are closer than most! Maybe the experiment should change the conditions on each population a couple of times, and I expect the result to be different.
Well, from an engeneering standpoint, natural evolution is like a monkey drawing lines randomly on a blueprint. If you remove the unnecessary junk, obviously the end product will function better.
So, for the purpose of this segment, evolution means "survival of the fittest", and NOT dividing off into NEW organisms/species.. ok. I'll buy that.
Besides the fact of taking or designing genes based on EXISTING organisms, not DESIGNED from scratch.
No wonder there are a large section of the genes that are nessesary but they have no idea why..
Hmmm. Yup. Artificially designed life..
Evolution should really just be called adaptation. Because it's not about becoming better in a general sense, but better about surviving in the specific conditions the organism is in.
"Followed some evolutionary chain"? Were programmed by God*
Fixed it for you. I bet without anyone telling you, you believe an intelligent mind wrote your biology book. But a word 7 trillion letters long, the instruction BOOK of life- do you realize the intelligence of the mind that had to be behind that?
Anton, you've really outdone yourself with this one. My favorite video of yours in recent memory!
This process reminds me that it's like reformatting a 10 year old computer. It will install the latest system files without all the bloating of 10 years of updates.
Capitalism at is finest
I write code for living. Code size can vary a LOT for the same functionality. Shorter and more direct code tends to have less opportunities for errors. Longer and elaborate code tends to have more bugs, but is also more difficult to modify when adding a new feature. My bet for an explanation would be similar here - a more complex system being harder to change because any change can interfere with more things, and most interactions aren't beneficial. At the same time, there's no redundant mechanisms (or much fewer) in the minimal cells, so the unfit copies die off faster.
I guess we'll see in another video :)
At this point I think any explanation would be great. Altho I guess one difference is that with computer code you're unlikely to face external pressure similar to cells competing for resources. Here the larger cells were supposed to have better tools to survive and evolve but they clearly didn't. I guess we will know later? Hopefully
So, does this suggest that what is thought of as adaptation within species starts not with the individual complex creature's own DNA but rather as a more long term reaction to adaptation of micro-organisms to environmental changes-ie.the microorganism within a complex lifeform's environment influence and guide its genetic changes?
@@whatdamathExternal pressure to get computer code to be modified? You mean malware? Maybe environment changes (library updates and system architecture changes)? Users complaining g about a bug?
The evolution of organisms is extremely similar to how computer code gets updated!
Could it be that, since growing too fast generally causes ecosystem exhaustion (specially in parasites, that require a live host) there was an evolutionary incentive for it to be less efficient? So those unknown genome actually slow down its functioning to make it survive MORE? By removing these parts of its genome, sure, you’ve made a better bacteria, but a worst parasite; and that’s what evolution was selecting for
My thoughts exactly
Perhaps 🤔
We can see that the longest surviving species tend to be the ones that don't change very much, or do so very slowly. It's possible that a species can adapt to a certain environment so quickly that if the conditions change immediately after, they have trouble adapting again in such a short time. Some traits are harder to lose than to gain, and so the species goes extinct beacsue it adapted too quickly.
This seems to be the most likely answer. They practically created cancer lol that doesn't care about ecosystem
@@enderoctanus I don't think that's really true and for most of the "species" you're talking about it's animals, not bacteria since I don't think there's fossilized bacteria where you can get DNA from going back a million years.
Bacteria has been around for what, about 3 billion years? It's taken a LONG time for the existing bacteria to come into existence, and the biological processes that were involved in it getting to the point it has are too numerous to imagine.
On top of that even animals that have been around longer than most have undergone changes to their genetic makeup. Animals in particular continually store information about viruses they've come in contact with. Saying that an animal has DNA that isn't useful may be true, but I think it's also naive and irresponsible to even make a statement like that. The DNA it has, has been shaped by its evolution.
BRO! The voiceover was money. I would legit pay retail admission to hear you overdubbed on all Jeff Goldblum's lines for that entire movie. A+
From an engineering point of view, starting with a clean slate is many times easier because the previous design can be restraining
Could it also be that mutations of existing genome is far more "intensive" then a blank slate per say? thereby allowing said blank slate to far more easily adapt into said intensive environment faster.
Interesting
I'm sorry but... it's "per se" not "per say"
@@chamalinni Was that it? You commented just to be a spelling nazi?... how..... uneventful
My theory is that smaller genome = less proteins needed > more cells produced.
Lean and simple.
Did you try to say:
In the more complex organisms more genes have to cooperate (and already fine tuned to a certain lifestyle), so the same mutation that proves to be only advantageous in the synthetic cells, but also has drawbacks in the more elaborated genetic background due to shifts in fine tuning and gene-cooperation
It's obvious really ... the bacteria with the shorter genome experienced more significant effects from each mutation because the mutation was more statistically significant in the scope of it's genome ... thus it evolved more quickly to suit its environment.
This is my thinking also.
It would depend on the rate of mutations between the two species. Is the lab cell with a much shorter genome as/more susceptible to mutations than the bacteria cell with the longer strand?
Also the genome has no redundancy. I'd bet most mutations that don't benefit the organism simply kills it. There are going to be a lot less offspring with reduced fitness that need to be slowly out competed.
@@scottryall It would be logical to assume so, yes but consider per-gene. Maybe the lab cell is just less stable.
@@scottryallon the other hand, a lot of genes might not do anything, so them mutating does nothing.
The other less obvious way to look at it is that it has been stripped down so far that what genes it does have are sub-optimal for survival. This is a lot different than an organism that is already well established. Small changes equates to small incremental improvements, negative effects, or nothing at all. For something that is too stripped down, even seemingly small changes could have huge effects both positive and negative due to it not being suited as well to its environment.
Random post: but I love Anton's channel. It's just pure in it's approach; interesting, honest, entertaining and 'wonderful'... That is all.
That’s like buying a car, removing the seats, doors and chassis, keeping only the basics required to make a car and then claim “Hey! I made a car!”
You could even say ab organic car because ‘synthetic’ has lost its meaning here.
Two types of organisms were covered in this video: minimal cells (which fit your car analogy pretty well), and synthetic cells. For the latter, researchers took bits of genes from organisms that aren’t bacteria to make a bacteria. That’s like taking parts from a wagon, bicycle, and lawn mower to cobble together something like a car.
@@elijanzen4015 wouldn’t be a great car though 😹
@@huraibyel-huraiby7462 It won't be a great, but someone will have fun building it in the backyard.
And I'm aware that I deviated from the analogy, as those organisms are created for research purposes.
One day I predict that one of their creations will end up eating the researchers. Sponsors of the project will say that creations "evolved quickly".
@@aquarius5719 and soon after it will enter into politics 😹
Hey Anton, I don't comment on your videos nearly enough. This was really interesting. Thank you for your tireless dedication to educating anyone willing to listen. All the best.
There's a book called Artificial Life by Steven Levy, that was published in the early 90's which was a really interesting read.
I've been surprised that research in that field is rarely talked about, and instead AI gets all the buzz.
Priorities, priorities, I suppose.
I have that book.
@@baigandinel7956 and maybe just more people in that field with a more obvious payoff too?
Non disclosure agreements.
@@jefftheriault3914 That wouldn't explain hardly any news on the subject for nearly 30 years, that would be similar to the info in that book.
Back from holidays Anton. Time to binge .. you! ❤
Well done, Anton. Nice graphics!
im growing from a single cell - a second Anton Petrov right NOW...I'm going to start a youtube account with it and get that gold play button I've always wanted
Sounds like the "gray goo" apocalypse scenario where out of control bio-engineered nanotech start converting all biomass to its replicated gray goo format...
lets keep up the good work, my fellow japanese scientists! nearly there!
Probably explains the Fermi paradox. So many ways to end ourselves accidentally.
Can anyone see an "Umbrella Corporation" and"Raccoon City" situation happening? 😂
Release the Kraken!!😼
What if gray goo, but an std?
Nothing to be surprised about, the cell just subscribed to this channel recently
Human curiosity combined with normalized ignorance of ethical boundaries is catching up to us.
*"Human curiosity combined with normalized ignorance of ethical boundaries is catching up to us."*
I would say "normalized _disregard or disdain_ for moral boundaries", but given enough time, who knows?
One possibility is that the initial organism being less fit is exactly what allowed it to evolve faster. As others have pointed out, it lacked a lot of the devices that limit mutations so it should be expected that most examples contained some mutations. Combine that wide scope of options to select from with an extremely marginal baseline ability to survive and you get extremely strong selection function. Even very minor benefit will significantly improve survival and quickly dominate. The unmodified organism on the other hand is already near optimal and thus has relatively little to gain by adopting mutations.
OTOH, I'd bet that the evolved minimal strain actual *over* optimized for the new environment and would likely under perform compared to the evolved original strain if each was transferred to a different stressful environment.
Proof against evolution itself! Losing information to adapt in a more specific environment
does that mean that the longer something has been evolving, the longer it takes to evolve further?
@@johanjotun1647 yes. The longer a system has been selecting for a given environment, the lower the likelihood any random change will be an improvement vs a decline.
(FWIW, that same observation is part of the reasoning behind some conservative political approaches: the longer a system has been in place, the more evidence a change is for the better is required before implementing it. It also points out a common flaw in such conservatism; failing to recognize and adapt when the environment and evolutionary pressures change from what the existing system optimized for.)
Anton thank you so much for your hard work bringing us this information in such digestible format. You and your channel are an absolute gift to this world.
At first I was blown away a few months ago by Michael Levin's work on bioelectric fields, and now this. Scary to see some field progress so far but super super interesting.
I was thinking that the bioelectric field has something to do with the evolution we see in this video.
I nearly choked on my breakfast when you commented on how naughty we all might be and now my mind is sidetracked wondering how naughty you might be😂🤦♀️🤷♀️🤣 Smooth Anton, real smooth...now I gotta start over
Based on the title, I thought this was going to be about Syn61.
Anton, I think you'd find it to be very interesting. They basically took E.coli and re-coded the amino acid sequences of the whole genome using a new custom triplet codon system. In doing so, they freed up several extra triplet codons to potentially use for other custom amino acids beyond the typical 20 or so. It's wild and opens up huge possibilities for protein engineering.
The extra codons are for error correction. Most single base flips wind up coding for the same amino acid, and even when a mutation changes the amino acid, it will tend to be in the same hydrophobicity class. This allows neutral drift and conservation of function despite mutations and is something you'd want to keep. Maybe you'd want even better ECC tho
@@acmhfmggru Pharm companies do not need to use custom amino acids to do this. They can already swap out a few amino acids for other existing ones and patent that way. Syn61 will allow use of novel amino acids other than the existing 20.
@@acmhfmggru You cannot patent a species, only a specific procedure to produce a species.
“Your Scientists Were So Preoccupied With Whether Or Not They Could, They Didn’t Stop To Think If They Should”
Australia thinks this is a muti trillion industy able to employ 50,000 and CSIRO are charging ahead. Given our success with introducing natural animals into a new environment, I think it will employ more than 50,000, but cost trillions.
Australia always found solutions that were more dangerous than the problem. Solution to rabbit plague that eats crops? Microorganisms that kill rabbits. What could go wrong?
This kind of science is the most interesting yet also possibly terrifying kind of science to me. So much endless progress that can be done and worked on
This channel never fails to reassure me that the world is not doomed. I really like your style.
"Depending...on how naughty we are" hahaha
This is genuinely terrifying. This is an organism for whom the design-space is tabula rasa. It can go in any, and any number of directions whatsoever. And has already demonstrated it can outcompete evolved organisms of it's own class. If this doesn't scare you, you're not paying attention.
I agree. I'm not scared of AI right now.. it may become terrifying too, but right now it's "smart" only from scaping the web. This is scarier than if something like Covid escapes from a lab.
Yeah, I'm hoping the scientists don't let this escape, because this could be close to a real grey goo scenario if it does.
What? How do you suppose a grey goo scenario with this?
@@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre Yeah no that was probably a bit too over the top, but maybe there is a scenario where it escapes and causes minor ecological collapse in certain places as it outcompetes natural bacteria in specific environments.
Stop being emotional about science bro, and its not even close to frightening if you understand biology and genetics, this was not a surprising result
The only scary part about science is how dumb as heck humans are going to use it to hurt each other
As a person who did not study biology. This is mind blowing.
I'm also guessing that fewer genes can cooperate faster and that the lack of redundant genes makes mutations more impactful. It would be like the difference between a small team and a big team. Though a big team is more powerful, it requires much more coordination and cooperation than a versatile small team that can adapt its functions quickly and easily.
The more I learn about scientific advancements, more specifically, with what was talked about in this video. My first thought is how are we still alive? You talk about stuff we are allowed to see, I could only imagine the stuff that’s kept from us!
And the stuff banned in civilized places.
Disease X is coming soon!
A lot of people are scared of AI these days... but if you REALLY wanna be scared, then be scared of the future of genetics.
Now let's imagine genetics being done by an AI. Lol
@@themadpolymath3430 Heh heh... give it time.
It’s been mentioned already, but it bears repeating.
This is actually exactly what one should expect. Likely the researchers stripped away the global repair mechanisms. Or parts of them. This allows for more rapid mutation. It also allows for runaway growth and detrimental mutation. It’s probably pure luck that they found an environment where the synthetic organism evolved and didn’t become incoherent.
That look you gave when you said "depending on how naughty"😂😂😂.......why you lookin at me like that anton????
Thank you Anton for being consistent in uploading new content daily.
Stopping off for my daily scientific news I've learned so much here, thank you for everything you do Anton!
It's not synthetic. It's made from living organisms. It's taken down to Its barest component to survive, but it's made from living organisms.
your video quality has improved dramatically.
Yea, we all know how beneficial messing around in a lab can turn out, specially when there is a lab leak.
Actually your idea of horizontal gene transfer is probably on point here, at least to some degree.
Also having fewer genes could give you an easier time developing new traits, since there is less... information present? less noise? something like that :D
Horizontal gene transfer is what immediately popped into my mind when he said that the bacteria regained a bunch of functions. HGT happens all the time in the microscopic world.
having fewer genes isnt something we can intuitively argue about - it could mean that a mutation will replicate quicker within the population, or it could mean that mutations within a small state space is a lot less likely to be valuable, unlike a mutations within a large state space, or it could mean all mutations have much larger effects... and so on ...there is no intuition here
I don't understand, how is horizontal gene transfer possible if the original and the minimal cell are isolated from each other? They're raised in similar conditions but they're not raised together as in the same dish or whatever they used to put them to (because they seem to have used several things).
I have read part of the article and also a different article talking about this article and nowhere have I found that the original cells and the minimal cells could interact with each other. I also haven't really found any clear statement of if they were separated or not, but by what was explained I assumed they were separated.
Can anyone point to where they say how are they?
this does make reawakening ancient viruses and bacteria much scarier
the bacterial flagellum debunks evolution. what a marvel of engineering.
Always something new to learn on this channel! Informative and interesting. Thanks Anton! 🎉
Isn't there a trend for small genomes to evolve much much faster rather than largest genomes we have found.
So maybe that.
Anton you keep getting smarter and share. Thanks!
Biologists: mind blown. Engineers: yeah, you stuff your blueprint full of junk, of course the machine will operate like junk.
I love it when scientists reassure us that their extreme genetic modification of a bacterium is completely safe, they do the experiment, and then tell us they are amazed at the results which were the complete opposite of what they believed would happen. That doesn't engender confidence in their prior "completely safe" assumption.
Yep, I smell bullshit. 90 years ago it was " Better living through chemistry !" How did artificial colors and flavors turn out? And here we are artificial intelligence and synthetic cells, yeah there's nothing to worry about.
@@acmhfmggru - I was mostly joking about the possible danger of this type of genetic research into a goat's intestinal bacteria but I was using the joke to draw attention to what happened in Wuhan. I wasn't surprised there was a lab leak because that country often plays fast and loose with industrial safety. I was shocked to learn that US tax dollars funded it. Yes... crimes against humanity.
@@acmhfmggru amen. wish i could say more, but of course they ban that kind of behavior.
don't ban GOF testing, just ban people discussing it. :|
@@acmhfmggruit's too late there are too many fields of study and rogue scientific organizations that have the potential to generate extinction level threats.
At this point, we just have to put eggs in more than one basket. We need to get off this rock.
@@acmhfmggru Absolutely no evidence of a lab leak, read the 2023 US intelligence report, it is simply right-wing conspiracy theorists News with no evidence at all.
Just think how far synthetic organisms have evolved in all of those super-secret labs...
There are thousands of such labs.
@@johngalt97 and one wonders how many years that they've been experimenting with this kind of stuff...
"Depending on how naughty we are" 😂
Like a swift runner that has gained weight and therefore cannot move around the track as fast as before, all other factors being equal, the leaner, meaner synthetic bacterium HAS to evolve. And, who’se to say the original bacterium did not evolve from this minimal state eons ago? We’re probably simply duping that which previously occurred pre-Cambrian.
This is the one video on this channel that's closest to reporting an apocalyptic scenario, not space phenomena, aliens, volcanos etc., but super microbes
I find this facinating but also quite alarming. This could quite easily lead to a super varient that could overtake existant life.
The smaller size might be an advantage; Since they didn't have the genes to grow larger, there would be more of them. This would allow for quicker reproduction and more chances for beneficial mutations to accumulate.
Keep in mind that natural selection is the best way to determine success. If a bacteria has more genes in the wild, then it’s more successful with more genes.
I, for one, welcome our new single-celled Overlords.
I recently came across Active Matter courtesy of a mention from Mike Levin in his recently conversation with Iain McGilchrist. From looking that up, and the conversations with McGilchrist, I am not too surprised by these results! There are some fundamental laws towards telos within our universe, driving things towards fittedness/optimization and intelligence of whatever level is _possible_ for a thing.
Imagine designing some sort of organism to be used as internal medicine, and it does something unpredictable like this.....shiver.
Anton you do a great job explaining interesting topics. Thankyou.
Holy _~bleeping bleepety bleep,~_ what a result! There are a half-dozen things I could think of right off to test, next, myself - and I'm not a molecular biologist! 😂 I will be amazed to see, hear, or read what happens to these little critters, next!
Thank you very much, Anton, for bringing this to my attention, and for doing all you do, every day, too. 😊 You are Truly the Wonderful Person!
❤❤
Out of control, evolving, synthetic life is DEFINITELY gonna be used as the premise of a zombie film. I mean, to survive, the bacteria had to resort to cannibalization!
Or it will be on News at 10
This reminds me of the BBEG scene at the end of the movie Evolution. It basically said that sometimes the simplest solution is the best one.
wait... but can synthetic bacteria perform horizontal gene transfer, if they only have the bare minimum?
“your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”
who tf wouldn't want to create dinosaurs and a modafaccen anomalocaris bro
Well, it's always an option to do absolutely nothing or go to church and pray.
It's almost like senescence, maybe extra junk just gets in the way after a certain critical point is reached.
Theres no junk DNA .
A very good point but then if bacteria can take beneficial genes from its environment why can't it expel useless ones?
@@davidarundel6187 I feel like what he means can be summed up with a computer analogy
If dna is code then the organism runs calculations based on them. When a gene is not useful the organism still does the calculation, it's not until they reach the end of the equation before it understands that this particular gene has no purpose or requires another gene which isn't active, so it ignores it and continues on
Any lifeforms without these extra calculations will evolve faster as a result of it having to do less pointless equations
@@drsatan9617
You said it better than I my friend.
Thanks for the articulation
BREAKING: first syntetic plant created by adding one apple tree branch to another!
7:20 anton running out of power haha
Imagine if it escapes... i remember havigng a dream of a contaminated lake that produced a terrible plastic-like smell. Imagine a bacteria like this taking over other natural bacteria 😢
My guess is that having fewer genes would be more energy efficient. I am also guessing that the environment the batchera was in was one that the only pressure they had was competition of resources, which would be done more efficiently by the batchera with less genes.
The Zerg from StarCraft overruns and corrupts Terran humans inside the base.
Anton says the Zerg "evolved quickly".😂
Perhaps this situation could be compared to a company hiring an employee with little history so they can teach him from scratch to hiring someone with lots of experience but also a lot of expectations and preconceptions.
Jurassic Park: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should".
Seems like the beginning of a horror sci fi movie
more like act 2 where the hero tries and fails to convince congress that this is a bad idea
I think one contributing factor would be that during replication there is a probability of mutation, and that for the simplified bacteria there would be a higher probability of mutation in a genes that are critical for survival. Due to that they should be able to adapt to changes in environment faster.
Almost sounds like refactoring of code if you think about it. Each iteration of a code base gains junks that might have had a purpose but isn't needed due to newer additions. Removing the extra stuff makes the entire system work better.
Depends, in dna parts that are just there to not do anything can still help..
In code that either hurts the Performance or just wastes space
Mindblowing indeed, can't wait to hear what the theories are of why this occurred. Thanks Anton
i would really love for someone like Anton here to talk about Michael Levin out of Boston University Levin Lab. He has been using ELECTRICITY to make genes do things that will make you proclaim all you knew about genes and dna may be wrong! Please check out what tiny electric pulses alters expression of genome. Electricity grew extra limbs heads and even changed the species into a relative specie..
Damn, that sounds trippy!!
Quantum biology will end up explain many of these effects. There is no doubt in my mind that we still lack an understanding of the emerging processes of biological evolution combined with the forces of electromagnetism, the strong force and gravity (clumping)...
@@Raydensheraj Not to spoil your dreams, but he achieved amazing results with EM only. Consider that DNA is the blueprint, but we never found the exact mechanism that decides when and how to read and write the information written inside DNA. Things like WHERE to grow a limb, or HOW LONG should it be before stopping cell reproduction.. his experiments point very strongly to an EM language coding between cells and tissues that controls exactly those aspects of growth and DNA expression. Every time we think we figured it all out, there's an ocean of new understanding just around the corner waiting to be explored
The Nature paper is about a passaging experiment (as the authors state). Passaging is a process where an organism or virus adapts better and better to its environment on each replication cycle. It explains how a bird virus can jump to humans, for example. The more rapid evolution of the minimal cell does not seem surprising because it (lacking many useful genes) is not as well adapted to the environment as the non-minimal cells, and thus has many more opportunities for improvement than do the non-minimal cells.
Stability in itself is an evolutionary adaptation. Every system will seek out a state of equilibrium. It makes perfect sense that a new organism would be unstable at first. It’s trying to find the closest stable state.
Even more reason to think cell life is more than just random proteins
Of course it is
Sure, Jan.
It ain't random lmao.
Basic survivorship bias, most random combinations of proteins result in nothing at all happening.
Emergent properties. No magic required.
They always wonder if they can, but they never wonder if they should......
I do wonder hmm..... idk.
My guess is that because the scientists couldn't recreate an environment that's truly like the dynamic conditions inside the parasite's host species, they couldn't subject the bacteria to the survival pressures that come with being in that host. The wild strain would be adapted for those, of course.
I always thought that gut bacteria was more symbiotic than parasitic.
threeMetreJim anton sometimes forgets too use the proper terminology when it comes too biology... Like in "First Ever Organism That Actually Eats Viruses For Nutrition - Halteria" 2:37 PROTISTS ARENT BACTERIA AHHHHHHHH
Tyrell: [Tyrell explains to Roy why he can't extend his lifespan] The facts of life... to make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
Batty: Why not?
Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies, like rats leaving a sinking ship; then the ship... sinks.
Batty: What about EMS-3 recombination?
Tyrell: We've already tried it - ethyl, methane, sulfinate as an alkylating agent and potent mutagen; it created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before it even left the table.
Batty: Then a repressor protein, that would block the operating cells.
Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication; but it does give rise to an error in replication, so that the newly formed DNA strand carries with it a mutation - and you've got a virus again... but this, all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.
Batty: But not to last.
Tyrell: The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy.
And then Roy sticks his thumbs in Tyrell's eyeballs.
Zombie virus. Definitely zombie virus 🙂
Actually, this reminds me more of John Carpenter's The Thing. A parasite that borrows genes from a host...
@@darthagaddadavida9936👍👍 Part of what Tyrell was saying about the mutations and viruses
RIP Rutger hauer. And good lord that was such an impactful movie. Even if it did deviate from the source material, it was exactly what it needed to be.
they were talking about stopping death. i think more people here seem to be threatened by the idea of synthetic self replicating organisms which seems like a dumb premise because this is really just humans exploring a natural process of microbes exchanging genes to stitch together already existing natural life. that's not really a true synthetic organism. it's more like another gmo.
This experiment should be repeated with both variations of the bacteria seperated and I really don't understand why they didn't do that in the first place as just this setup leaves way too many variables.
Yeah, but were they really together as he suggests in the first place? I have read part of the article and another article talking about this and nowhere was clear to me that both the original cells and the minimal cells were able to interact with each other. I mean from my point of view it doesn't make any sense, as you point out.
Where did you find the information that they were together in the same container? Or is it just by what he said on the video?
Biology really is the final playground of science. Living biological machines and factories are a concept so advanced that even science fiction rarely touches on it. And we have this inextricable reverence for the sanctity of biology and life, to the point that our minds are programmed to consider it "holy" regardless of our beliefs otherwise. Very interesting to see how far people will take this.
The simulation updates on a regular basis, so if we remove essential files from a bacteria, the matrix does a check file and if it is incorrect it will repair it.