8 ms·
Scientists have inserted a GIF of a horse into living bacteria
- nthcolumn 9y agoPay-walled science don't you just love it? Why do they bother - it isn't science until you publish IMHO. This is just showing their rich friends.
- obstacle1 9y agoI suspect that falsely denouncing paywalled research as "not science" isn't going to work in bringing about the outcome that you want. Probably a strategy without so many scotsmen would work better.
- magic_beans 9y agoI read the article, but I'm still quite confused. How exactly did they "insert" a computer image into living bacteria?? Do they mean they have stored binary code in the bacteria?? Or did they just physically create a fine image somewhere in the bacteria???
- sabujp 9y agothey store the data in the dna, they encode pixels using ATGC, and re-sequence. But they only have one population of bacteria that contain all of the same data.
- yazan94 9y agoI don't know much about how DNA works, but by inserting ATGC sequences, does that not mess up the bacteria's replication process or something? How would the cell 'read' this encoded gif in the DNA? Would it try to build a protein because of it, or would it ignore the sequence? Do cells usually have a checksum-type of functionality to detect if their DNA is valid/unmutated? The article itself didn't make any mention, but could there possibly be negative impacts to the cell hosting this data by having its DNA altered?
- detaro 9y agoDNA of many organisms has "dead" sequences that currently don't do anything, but still get copied/replicated. (or are only activated under certain circumstances, which even can be programmed in some sense by adding specific other sequences around them)
- dmoy 9y agoRight I'm no biologist, but my understanding is that there's vast amount of dna that doesn't really do anything (doesn't encode any proteins). I don't remember why... maybe it used to do stuff a long time ago.
- progval 9y agoYou are thinking of introns. Their function is still not very well-known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intron#Biological_functions_and_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intron#Biological_functions_an...
- Chardok 9y agoIn order for proteins to be produced, there is usually a very specific start/stop sequence that has to be present in order for the mechanism to take action. Most likely this is just "junk" DNA that has no physical manifestation. As for reading the picture, it is only seen when they extract the DNA and use methods of sequencing to produce the image, meaning it will only show the little gif when analyzed the way it was designed for.
- maskedinvader 9y agoThey inserted the binary code in the dna using CRISPR and CAS-9
- wyldfire 9y agoInspecting for exfil just got a lot harder.
- ballenf 9y agoSeriously, now border & customs agents will have to require unlocking your DNA as well as your phone.
- sabujp 9y agoso storing data on multiple (billions of bacteria). I assume that you would have populations of duplicates and would piece together your entire original dataset (e.g. a tar) using start and end encoding tags? How do you re-sequence multiple populations of bacteria that you just grab from a sample sitting in a -80c freezer? You'd also have to prevent them from modifying their own genome and messing up your data.
- kingbirdy 9y agoYou could store it redundantly, in a genetic RAID
- detaro 9y agopreviously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14755429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14755429
- epmaybe 9y agoYeah, not to be prude, but this was literally posted yesterday. The actual article, too.
- LeifCarrotson 9y agoHere's the image that was encoded: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muybridge_horse_gallop_animated_2.gif https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muybridge_horse_gall...
- iansowinski 9y agoIt's iconic photography!
- tomswartz07 9y agoAnyone have any info on the amount of data that was encoded? It looks like it was a low resolution image with 5 frames, so I expect it to be about 1 Kb, max?
- searine 9y agoNature paper say 2.5 kilobytes of data, and I guessimate a few Kilobases of sequence.
- alex_duf 9y agoHow likely is it than storing arbitrary data in a bacteria's DNA would allow it to create something dangerous for humans?
- thriftwy 9y agoApproximately like the chance that DNA sequence of a virus, when executed as shell code, will infect your machine.
- piyh 9y agoBuy your subscription to Norton Anti-virus 2030 today!
- unit91 9y agoIf not for yourself, do it for the children.
- alex_duf 9y agoThe reason I ask is that it seems subsequences of DNA are enough to generate proteins, or other molecules. (am I right? if not anyone who knows biology please correct me) It doesn't have to be the whole code that's dangerous, what about a section of it? That still makes it very improbable, but orders of magnitude more than the whole sequence.
- waserwill 9y agoThe encoding used by these sorts of projects avoids 'ATG' (start site), and possibly the Shine-Dalgarno Sequence (where ribosomes attach), if they do it right. The bacterial DNA can mutate, but the likelihood of that mutation creating a viable protein, let alone a dangerous one, is very low. Honestly, since these stored data aren't coding, the chances of them surviving for long, even in a population of bacteria, is low. Bacteria tend to favor smaller genomes, with higher percentage of coding DNA.
- cromwellian 9y agoI gloriously await from teenage hackers 10 years from now release CRISPR viruses/worms that insert GIF meme pranks into the human population germ line, eventually triggering the apocalypse. It seems our ability to mess stuff up is growing faster than our ability to defend against bugs. I shudder to think what happens when sloppy engineering practices or "WannaCry" meet biology. Hey, we've encrypted your germ line, and sterilized you, send Bitcoin to XXXXX to restore your fertility.
- ohyes 9y agoGenecoin, cryptocurrency implemented in the human genome. We take a blood sample to check your balance. edit: putting the bank in blood bank
- ghostbrainalpha 9y agoSo vampires would suck your blood.... as a way to rob your bank account? I think we may have a good (trashy) sci-fi novel here.
- amyjess 9y agoThen again, I know a lot of childfree people who would pay good money to have CRISPR sterilize them. I'd say "myself included", but my gender transition will take care of that. Hmm... I wonder if a future version of CRISPR could get my body to produce its own estrogen.
- dragghnet 9y agoAre you just here to brag about being transgender?
- rubatuga 9y agoAren’t you just afraid because you don’t really understand how CRISPR works? It’s not a virus or anything, nor is it airborne.
- 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- cabalamat 9y agoThey should encode some music on it and then watch the RIAA go apeshit trying to track down and kill all the copyright-infringing bacteria.
- positivecomment 9y agoIf someone finds some protected data as controversial as AACS encryption key[2] and creates a "fork" of HIV which contains that information, I'm optimistic that we will get a cure for it in a few years. On a more serious note, I'm not sure, with this kind of power, if we are quickly approaching a Great Filter[4] or not. [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controvers...
- cabalamat 9y ago> I'm not sure, with this kind of power, if we are quickly approaching a Great Filter or not We're approaching several. We -- or rather, some members of our species -- are clever enough to build amazingly powerful technologies (nuclear weapons, biotechnology, maybe strong AI), but as a species we seem to often use them unwisely, either because political leaders are power-obsessed (in the case of nuclear weapons), or because some technologies might become able to be harnessed by individuals/groups without much resources (DIY biotechnology). It's like toddlers playing with matches on a petrol-soaked carpet.
- jrs95 9y agoThe next big leap: putting Pepe memes in a frog
- danso 9y agoIf I hadn't seen this tweeted around earlier, I would've guessed this title/story generated by the HNSimulator markov bot.
- ineedasername 9y agoSo, eventually we can look forward to getting rickrolled by a bout of food poisoning. And maybe get sued for piracy afterwards, for unauthorized duplication and distribution. Unless consideration of fair use is updated to include involuntarily crapping out copies.
- vortico 9y agoWhat does this have to do with the GIF image format? Wouldn't using something other than LZW compression give them a much faster converging restoration rate?
- rubatuga 9y agoCan we stop with the slippery slope arguments? No, CRISPR will not be used be teenage hackers in the future to infect humans and keep them hostage. CRISPR can’t be “spread” or “transmitted” and is a local technique to introduce DNA snippets into the main genome of the organism. And to anyone who thinks that CRISPR could be potentially used to infect humans, this technology is nothing new: viruses have already had DNA editing machinery for millennia, search up retroviruses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus
- positivecomment 9y ago> No, CRISPR will not be used be teenage hackers in the future to infect humans and keep them hostage. CRISPR can’t be “spread” or “transmitted” and is a local technique to introduce DNA snippets into the main genome of the organism I think most people, if not everyone, already got this. > viruses have already had DNA editing machinery for millennia But humans never had it. That's probably what creeps everyone out.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Analemma_ 9y agoNote that when the popular press worries about the destructive potential of "CRISPR", they don't mean CRISPR specifically. They're using the word as a stand-in for the general trend of the exponentially decreasing cost of genome sequencing and editing techniques which probably, eventually, will reach the level where they can be done by teenage hackers. And that is something that requires concern and attention, even if I don't think it merits panic. I think you are much too sanguine about this, which I've noticed is a tendency among programmers in general. We're used to a world where bugs always have fixes, and can be patched and the fix spread worldwide instantly, for free. None of these things are true in epidemiology, and it causes us to make really bad metaphors that don't apply in this world. For starters, "responsible disclosure is good" and "security-by-obscurity is bad" are obvious truisms in software but not even remotely true in epidemiology. > viruses have already had DNA editing machinery for millennia, search up retroviruses. But viruses are subject to evolutionary pressure that puts a ceiling on how bad they can be. Most of the worst human viruses have a "pick two" of 1) airborne 2) highly infectious 3) fatal, because a virus with all 3 burns itself out and can't survive. Engineered organisms do not have this ceiling.
- nvr219 9y agoOkay great, but how did the scientists pronounce it?
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoWhat are the odds this is being used for exfiltrating sensitive data? (Reminds me of a Culture novel, I think Excession, where one character tries to sneak information out of a ship by encoding it into the DNA of bacteria on, essentially, packages.)
- ballenf 9y agoZero right now, but the future where borders agents require you to unlock your DNA as well as your phone makes for a great sci-fi dystopia.
- netheril96 9y agoDNA of which organs should the border agents examine in that future?
- gremlinsinc 9y agoWhen did techcrunch get bought out by Buzzfeed? 'did your head just explode' is such a link-bait-douchy title
- Lagged2Death 9y agoLook at my horse. My horse is amazing.