Yep. Printing a full wooly mammoth genome is the hard part. Inserting it into an elephant egg is tractable now and would probably work.
-
-
As far as I know nobody is anywhere near doing whole genome transplantation in mammalian cells. Significant technological advances required there. It'll be hard enough to avoid simply physically breaking the DNA, and getting it into cells is...¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The three parents article is about whole genome transplantation in mammalian (human) cells. You use a needle. nbd.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
That's nuclear transplantation, which is pretty ho-hum, yes. Been done with mammalian cells since Dolly, and with others even earlier. Naked DNA is a completely different ballgame.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
A company I used to work for is developing, with fair success, a nanoparticle encapsulation of DNA. This can be injected into the cell and gets pulled into the nucleus via GCPR, which unravels it. Different ballgame, yes. We are *so* close though.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I would be very surprised if their nanoparticles were capable of encapsulating whole chromosomes. Lot of nanoparticle delivery systems out there, but nobody (except Craig Venter maybe) is trying to deliver whole chromosomes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I suggest reading the other paper on the single-chromosome yeast. They CRISPR (basically) all the yeast chromosomes together while deleting a bunch of centromeres and telomeres. The same technique can be used to assemble a chromosome from smaller DNA fragments.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It's an interesting idea, but the problem here is scale. Eukaryotic genomes are generally *massive* (though yeast is a notable exception). Getting 3 billion bp of DNA into a single cell is gonna be really, really hard.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Though there's an interesting convergence here with another conversation I was having yesterday, on the feasibility of making, say, a mouse (or human) 'minimal genome.'
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It's likely that 70-90% of the human genome is non-functional, so if you could strip that out, the problem becomes somewhat simpler.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yes. This conversation has convinced me that removing mitochondria outright may be, er, a challenge. I still think we'll have a single-chromosome, printed mammal in five years or less.
-
-
I think that's extremely unlikely, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.