-
-
-
doesn't actually replace the mtDNA but rather does the opposite thing of replacing the DNA, but, gimme a sec....
-
https://www.sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research/mitochondrial-mutations … rejiggering mtDNA locations is an active project for at least one org, though they have an Interesting approach.
-
It's fairly astonishing how quickly this is developing. We may have mammals with a single printed chromosome and no mitochondria in a matter of years.
-
I really don't think we'll be able to do away with mitochondria like, ever. There are serious functional constraints. We sequester the metabolic stuff they do for very good reason, you get a lot of nasty radicals which we don't want damaging our DNA.
-
exactly why mitoDNA ought to be sequestered from the mitochondria itself, though.
-
Right, but how the hell are you gonna do that? It's basically trying to make a genome-free bacteria, that still replicates itself.
-
The rest of the organelles are made via nuclear template, I don't see an a priori reason why the mitochondria can't be as well. This might call for engineering at a level of subtlety we're not capable of, yet. Or maybe the ribosome will just build it given RNA
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
In general mitochondrial DNA mutation rates are significantly higher than nuclear DNA mutation rates. Two fold or greater.
-
yes, partly because the mtDNA lacks the protection and support of the nucleus.https://twitter.com/AmbrosialArts/status/1040703076691144704 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.