DNA backup

[sobrique]

So, DNA - it sort of degrades as you age, and that's mostly why you get old and die, and is a cause of cancer and stuff.

So... how difficult is it to make a copy of it, like 'right now' for the sake of say - future organ cloning?
If you could replace failing body parts with 'you aged 20' would you have a substantial improvement on quality of life?

And give that, does it make sense to take backups _now_ despite not necessarily being able to make use of them? Such as exhaustive DNA sequencing, and saving a copy in an archive somewhere, in the hope that in 30 years time, you'll be able to 'load' it, and grow a heart transplant or similar.

And even if this is utter hokey nonsense, does it sound plausible enough that someone is already running it as a scam?

Comments

[fearmeforiampink]

I'm no expert but you'd still run into the problem that there's some stuff you can't so easily replace – bone marrow, skin, lungs, muscles. While it might mostly be stuff that's less likely to go cancerous, that'd mean you'd have longer before it went.

Also, for it to work you have to would have to replace organs before they go cancerous, otherwise you have to deal with the metastasised bits of the cancer as well.

[queex.livejournal.com]

Caveat- I've only learned this at one remove as part of my genetics work.

When DNA gets copied, the molecule that does so can't copy the very ends of it. The telomeres on on the ends are repeating segment of junk data, padding the DNA so nothing important is lost because of that. One of the aging mechanisms involves this padding running out.

Stopping this duplication and keeping a 'clean copy' with a large telomere might be feasible- but the same duplication process also repairs any damage to the DNA so your exemplar may degrade in ways that 'live', gradually shortening DNA wouldn't.

(Incidentally- unnatural ways of lengthening telomeres often occur in some cancer cells.)

[forest-rose.livejournal.com]

Yes - I'm pretty sure that you'd end up with a lot of cancerous cells because of the telomere problem.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Hmm, so the backups would corrupt themselves, maybe even faster than the source.
Does sequencing it, storing it as an electronic copy, in the hope of future recreating as-was make sense?
Or if we're ever in that position, it's irrelevant anyway, as your actual DNA is probably more useful anyway?

[4givensins.livejournal.com]

I should probably be more confident with this answer than I am, but I am almost certain that accurately synthesising a whole DNA sequence is something we're not likely to be able to do in our lifetime. I am also almost certain that if you could, then it would be useful. Make of that what you will.

My biology training ended over a decade ago, so I'm not an expert.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

I expect the DNA sequence of a whole mammal to be synthesized in the next five years, ten at the outside. Venter recently created the first artificial genome, albeit one of a bacterium with a very small genome.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

"Yes - I'm pretty sure that you'd end up with a lot of cancerous cells because of the telomere problem."

I don't think so. Cells turn cancerous because of multiple mutations which usually includes activating telomerase, but simply re-introducing cells whose DNA has the full original complement of telomeres wouldn't be likely to cause cancer, since this DNA wouldn't be carrying the cancerous mutations.

[forest-rose.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I was half asleep when I wrote this - I was referring to Queex's ponderings about keeping a cell with a large telomere which. But, re-reading, I think he meant a normal, complete telomere rather than an extra-long one which would give the opportunity for more mutations, so I take back my warnings of doom.

DNA! Get choor DNA! Now with extra telomeres!

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

Ah, gotcha. Yes, an extra-long telomere wouldn't help.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

Oh, and current sequencing tech is pretty bad compared to the accuracy of DNA replication (by about 3 or 4 orders of magnitude). And the synthesise of DNA even less accurate so there's a good chance that back up and restore would actually create more errors than just being alive would.

[purp1e-magic.livejournal.com]

Don't know much about it (or rather I know as much about it as your other comments include) but it sounds to me like cryogenics: freeze my body and hope they work out how to defrost me.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Sort of, but not exactly. I think it's plausible that we be able to use "good" DNA to clone organ replacements. DNA also degrades with time, and mutates, and shortens. So yes it's a bit like that but to my mind liable to be ... less about freezing and resurrection, and more about preemptive maintenance.

[dj-rws.livejournal.com]

Technically making a copy of your DNA is plausible and then regrowing bits of you by as yet undeveloped technologies will probably be possible in our lifetime. However what biologically makes you, you is not enitrely down to "genetic" information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
(Explains things to degree level chemistry/biology)

There are more complex biological factors such as protein-protein interactions, post-translation genetic modifications such as methylation (methyltransferases), (de)/acylation (HDACs) and protein (mis)/folding (thought to be involved in Alzheimer's and other neurodegenerative disorders).

Life is more than just a box of chocolates.