Science Progress | Where science, technology, and progressive policy meet
LIFE SCIENCES

Ribosomes Rising

Synthetic Biology Accelerates

Student participants at the 2009 International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. SOURCE: iGEM and David Appleyard, flickr.com/igemhq Student participants at the 2009 International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Among the striking words I learned in tenth grade biology was “ribosomes.” Try using it in a sentence about anything other than making proteins. According to a report in The Scientist last week, it turns out that ribosomes not only can be used in sentences, they can be applied to the construction of a whole new coding system or “language” for the construction of new proteins, polymers (multi-part molecules) that do not appear in nature. The work was done at the Medical Research Council’s Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, England.

The ability to develop more complex artificial proteins is a reminder of the speed with which synthetic biology is developing. In “synbio,” biological parts like genes, proteins, and whole chromosomes are used to build new microscopic organisms that behave in certain ways, like producing specialized chemicals. Faster and cheaper DNA sequencing is a key technology that is making synbio practical for a range of purposes.

Previously scientists have been constrained in their experiments with proteins by the inability to introduce more than one modification at a time. The new technique developed at Cambridge enables significantly more flexibility by creating a parallel set of genetic information readable by specially modified ribosomes. Normally, ribosomes read messenger RNA in units of three nucleotides called codons, each of which corresponds to a specific amino acid. The altered ribosomes can also read “quadruplet codons” of four nucleotides and translate them into 256 protein building blocks.

Interestingly, the UK team tested their technique by culturing their new ribosomes with an antibiotic resistance gene with four codons. The designer ribosomes read the gene and produced the antibiotic resistance protein. Although the test selected surely seemed innocuous to the scientists, and is a standard way to assess such lab-designed alterations, one of the principle worries about synthetic biology is that novel biological weapons could be created by people with relatively modest lab skills who are malevolent or just careless. The biological parts or “biobricks” are in many cases available on the open market. Experts on biological weapons are concerned that antibiotic resistant organisms could be engineered either by nations or non-state actors.

Yet this research is crucial for a better understanding of cellular systems and for developing new and beneficial polymers. An encouraging example of openness and opportunity in the world of snybio was recently described in The New York Times Magazine, a 100-college competition called iGEM, the International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition. As part of the contest, over 1,000 students learned how to use the tools of synthetic biology in order to make new products like more powerful pharmaceuticals, new fuel sources, nutrient-rich crops, or even biologically based computer monitors.

But what iGEM is mainly cultivating is the young engineering talent so badly needed at a time when people in their 20s are in danger of falling behind during a recessionary period. Research like that done at the Cambridge lab is the basic science needed for the iGEMers to do their applied work. The lesson here is that the lab doors need to be kept open.

The progressive response to synbio is more, not less, science. The more knowledge that is gained, the better prepared the scientific community is to establish a culture of responsibility, develop practical regulation, impose sanctions and, at the extremes, develop counter-measures for dual-use discoveries.

Jonathan D. Moreno, Ph.D., is the David and Lyn Silfen University Professor of Ethics and Professor of Medical Ethics and of the History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania, and the Editor-in-Chief of Science Progress.

Tags:

Comments on this article

By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the Science Progress Privacy Policy and agree to the Science Progress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.