How far are we from producing artificial cells in the lab?

[Aidyan]

TL;DR

I would like to understand how far the field of research of synthetic biology is from creating life from scratch?

Synthetic biology is a rapidly growing field of science that aims at redesigning organisms for medical and agricultural applications, by means of biotechnology, genetic engineering, molecular biology and other methods by chemical, biological or computer engineering. As far as I understand it, synthetic biology was very successful in genome synthesis and cell transformations. But how far are we realistically from a futuristic technology that will be able, not just of modifying, but also of producing living organisms, or at least a single living cell, by means of its constituents in a bottom-up approach? How much is this a realistic and actual science, and how much is this a hype or sci-fi utopia?

 

[jim mcnamara]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390888/
Far? I do not know. The article discusses liposomes.

Simple very tiny fatty acid 'protoballs' with stuff inside is now commonplace in medicine. Liposomes, micelles, and other names. These balls are routinely used to make mRNA vaccines, medicines. Some supplements use them as well.

These things are hollow balls of fatty acids. Molecular payload in the center. So these things are in the "everyday" realm now. Their goal is to improve bioavailability of the payload in the center. Medicines work better when they can waltz on into target cells instead of being hung up in the GI tract because the rate of absorption is very low.

So you could consider these as primitive cell membranes - what the article talks about as a model. So we have made some steps toward synthetic cells.

 

[256bits]

Summary:: I would like to understand how far the field of research of synthetic biology is from creating life from scratch?

or at least a single living cell, by means of its constituents in a bottom-up approach?

Why not take a 'dead' cell and make it 'living' again?
All the constituents are there.

And I don't thing we even know what makes a hibernating cell - one that appears to be dead - able to rejoin the world of the living when environmental conditions are correct.

 

[BillTre]

Summary:: I would like to understand how far the field of research of synthetic biology is from creating life from scratch?

synthetic biology was very successful in genome synthesis and cell transformations.

Yes, that seems to be the case.

Summary:: I would like to understand how far the field of research of synthetic biology is from creating life from scratch?

how far are we realistically from a futuristic technology that will be able, not just of modifying, but also of producing living organisms, or at least a single living cell, by means of its constituents in a bottom-up approach

Liposomes, ...
So you could consider these as primitive cell membranes - what the article talks about as a model. So we have made some steps toward synthetic cells.

This approach would amount to a new independent, lab based, origin of life.
Not going to happen soon. The most recent approach to this is similar to what @jim mcnamara said, little lipid membrane enclosed vesicles. In the world of origin of life research, as opposed to medical uses, these have been made in labs with a variety of amphiphilic molecules (not just those naturally found in today's membranes.
In labs, when supplied with the right resources and also containing something like replicating RNAs they can grow and divide. However, they are not considered alive.
They would need a metabolic system to:

• take in available environmental energy and resources (from the lab dish they live in),
• make cell usable chemical energy chemicals (like ATP)
• be able to make all their molecular components to replace worn parts and to be able to grow and divide
• export waste (probably by diffusion in small simple "cells"

They would also need a starting package of cellular components all ready to go. For example, ribosomes for making proteins would have to be provided to make proteins (which would be needed to make the ribosomes if they were not already there).

This is most easily done by taking an already alive cell and removing and then restoring its genetics.
Venter's company has done this with cells to make the cell's genetics completely controlled (in a sense).
Starting from scratch to build a whole new cell would be a lot more work.

Why not take a 'dead' cell and make it 'living' again?
All the constituents are there.

Dead cells probably have subtle disruptions that could not be reversed without a whole lot of little molecular scale demons to put lots of molecules back in their proper places and keep them there until things get started. This would be a daunting approach.

Modern indicators of dead cells involve using dyes that can not get through intact membranes. Membrane disruption has a lot of consequences like massive influxes of Ca ions, which bind to proteins in the cell and (probably irreversibly) denature them. This is unlikely to be reversed.

Any approach to make some more complex living thing from scratch, would have to start with making a single cell followed by growing it into something larger and more complex.
This would involve giving it either a developmental program (complex) to generate a multicellular thing or would take a lot of time to evolve something more complex.

 

[Tom.G]

Some folks are getting rather close, even if it was by accident.

Self-replicating molecules show signs of metabolism for the first time

Muchowska is hesitant to call the system protometabolic – it is missing the ability to store energy and perform endergonic processes – but says that ‘the fact that they’re recruiting a cofactor to perform catalysis within the self-replicating system is really important, I think, to start looking at the emergence of biocatalysis in a living system’.

(bold added)

above from:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news...metabolism-for-the-first-time/4012152.article

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Godot_]

The answer to your question depends of what you call a cell... ...and what you call synthetic.

...if you absolutely must have nucleated cells, the answer is: way more time.

If you're content with bacterial cells, and content with a genome so heavily edited that nothing not required for cell growth and replication is left over, the answer is "we got there in 2016.":

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aad6253

 

[256bits]

Dead cells probably have subtle disruptions that could not be reversed

there's the rub.
Machinery isn't all that is just needed.
An energy cycle has to be jump started and maintained.

I found this interesting from Nat. Geographic.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/scie...pc=U531&cvid=7496c089e3344868821129ff64e5cf9b

Seems like we know a lot, and then then something pops out for a closer look.