Smallest self replicating organism
fatherdes at eircom.net
Mon Sep 3 17:27:53 EST 2001
"Rich Cooper" <richcooper1 at mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9n0ho7$msl$1 at mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk...
> Mary, your reference to
> was very interesting. One quote from that news item caught my attention:
> "Further work will explain those functions and create a more exact number
> the minimal genes required to create life in the laboratory, the scientist
> said. New organisms bearing only the fewest genes needed to survive could
> have major commercial, social and ethical implications."
> Suppose software existed to model Mycoplasma Genitalia (MG). Suppose
> it represented what is presently known about which genes produce which
> proteins, and which proteins have what observable effect. Given the life
> cycle of an MG cell stored in a database, and simulation of the known
> biochemical processes, would that software be useful? If so, who would
> use it, and what goals would they have for using it?
A real software model of any organism would be enormously useful and
everyone would use it. The problem tends to be that it is extremely
difficult to simulate even a small part of what really happens inside a
cell. We are no where near being able to make even a crude model of M.g.
> The quote indicates that people would like to design organisms that could
> efficiently deliver drugs to the right places. Would this kind of
> explore what genes to knock out, possible what other genes to put in? Or
> this just not useful regardless of the pretty words?
> Rich Cooper
> > On 31 Aug 2001, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> > > Mycoplasma, and this is an understatement; one species seems to
> > > have 517 genes.
> > OK, I am pretty sure this is considerably less than
> > what I recall about methanococcus.
> > Cheers,
> > Dominic
> > North 59 37' 30"
> > East 17 48' 10"
> > ---
More information about the Mol-evol