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

[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.