Honestly, I expected this to be empty hype, but reading through the press release it's genuinely impressive.
"The study’s approach resulted in a genetically encodable RNA nano-device that can perform an unprecedented 12-input logic operation to accurately regulate the expression of a fluorescent reporter protein in E. coli bacteria only when encountering a complex, user-prescribed profile of intra-cellular stimuli. Such programmable nano-devices may allow researchers to construct more sophisticated synthetic biological circuits, enabling them to analyze complex cellular environments efficiently and to respond accurately."
Pardon the crude analogy, but is this like using computers as dominoes to knock a door closed, or is it more like programming a computer to run a servo to close the door?
What I'm asking, because of my lack of knowledge on the subject, is this close to how RNA functions naturally or is this more of a brute-force approach?
There is a property of electricity that enables us to path it and observe the results which can be made Turing complete. The RNA computer is similar but utilizing the properties of RNA sequencing or restructuring.
Take the above with a grain of salt because I'm not an expert by any means.
RNA is extraordinary because it can encode information in a way it can be replicated AND perform chemical reactions like a protein would. It does both of these things way less efficiently than DNA for storage and proteins for enzymatic reactions.
How long before you can buy an "RNAduino" kit online?
You plug into your USB and launch the RNAduino IDE, import some receptor nucleotide patterns, some expression nucleotide patterns, type in a little glue code, hit "compile", and you're off to the races with something innocuous to turn your pet mouse fluorescent green or a simple virus that can wipe out half the planet.
The clock cycles on these "computers" are measured in milli- or micro-Hertz and the error rates are huge... They're likely to be useful despite that, but the "computer" metaphor creates some unreasonable performance expectations.
I think you're missing the point. I'm not looking to have a computer in RNA that rivals a even a 6502 in instructions per second. I'm not looking to play Doom on it. "Performance expectations" don't even apply.
I'm talking about making biological modification and hacking as easy as the Arduino has made computer hacking. I'm talking about being able hack biological systems from your desktop by creating cellular machines that could be injected into living beings.
One day, enterprising hackers might use such tools to attempt to cure their own diseases, combat aging, etc. Who knows how people would want to use this kind of technology... add some THC producing RNA to yeast samples and make beer that produces a pot-like high?
The initial hobbyist community will make THC beer. Then about five months/minutes/seconds later, the cartels will have E. coli with opioid production rates to rival even the healthiest poppies. And even if bacterial opioid yields never rise very high, comparatively, it's a lot easier to hide a brewing operation or other microbial growth platform than it is to grow large fields of poppies in the open.
Although it's apparently not illegal to grow opium poppies openly as decorative and culinary plants in the US. No, the laws make absolutely no sense.
The kinds of problems these machines might be able to solve are of a completely different type than current computers, so the way their "speed" is measured will be different. For example, a biological system might be able to perform calculations in a few seconds which we simply don't have the techniques or methods to solve with modern computers in any reasonable amount of time.
14 comments
[ 191 ms ] story [ 732 ms ] thread"The study’s approach resulted in a genetically encodable RNA nano-device that can perform an unprecedented 12-input logic operation to accurately regulate the expression of a fluorescent reporter protein in E. coli bacteria only when encountering a complex, user-prescribed profile of intra-cellular stimuli. Such programmable nano-devices may allow researchers to construct more sophisticated synthetic biological circuits, enabling them to analyze complex cellular environments efficiently and to respond accurately."
Some earlier work in the area, it's just an AND gate, but it demonstrates an application.
Molecules A and B correlate with a psoriasis flare up, molecule C is a psoriasis medication. If A and B are present, the bacteria produces molecule C.
What I'm asking, because of my lack of knowledge on the subject, is this close to how RNA functions naturally or is this more of a brute-force approach?
There is a property of electricity that enables us to path it and observe the results which can be made Turing complete. The RNA computer is similar but utilizing the properties of RNA sequencing or restructuring.
Take the above with a grain of salt because I'm not an expert by any means.
It's an excellent starting point.
Furthermore, its very cheap to transcribe by cells. Translation is very expensive.
You plug into your USB and launch the RNAduino IDE, import some receptor nucleotide patterns, some expression nucleotide patterns, type in a little glue code, hit "compile", and you're off to the races with something innocuous to turn your pet mouse fluorescent green or a simple virus that can wipe out half the planet.
Exciting and scary times.
Edit: rnaduino.com is still available! Go for it!
I'm talking about making biological modification and hacking as easy as the Arduino has made computer hacking. I'm talking about being able hack biological systems from your desktop by creating cellular machines that could be injected into living beings.
One day, enterprising hackers might use such tools to attempt to cure their own diseases, combat aging, etc. Who knows how people would want to use this kind of technology... add some THC producing RNA to yeast samples and make beer that produces a pot-like high?
Although it's apparently not illegal to grow opium poppies openly as decorative and culinary plants in the US. No, the laws make absolutely no sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papaver_somniferum
I wonder if it's possible to get bacteria to produce amphetamines.