home.social

#spudcell — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #spudcell, aggregated by home.social.

fetched live
  1. Great summary of #SpudCell from @[email protected]. I had only read a secondary article (heavily based on the press release) on it, and despite the enormous hype inside could not figure out from that article whether it was even a top-down or bottom-up approach! www.science.org/content/blog...

    Behold the SpudCell

  2. Leyendo en el #ScienceMediaCentre y otros sitios sobre ese anuncio de la creación de #Spudcell, un a modo de célula artificial.
    sciencemediacentre.es/cientifi
    Me interesa mucho lo que dice Ángel Raya del ICREA:

    "No voy a opinar sobre resultados que no han superado revisión por pares. Publicar en prensa antes que en revistas científicas es marketing, no ciencia. (...) Este equipo ha optado por saltarse el mecanismo que la comunidad científica ha escogido desde el siglo XVII para validar el conocimiento: su publicación en revistas especializadas. Y la revisión por pares desde luego no es perfecta, pero es el único sistema por el momento que ha demostrado ser eficaz para filtrar errores, sesgos y exageraciones antes de que un resultado se convierta en noticia. Publicar un documento de 190 páginas en una web propia y convocar a la prensa (incluidos medios de gran alcance como The New York Times o la CNN) antes de que ningún experto independiente haya evaluado el trabajo no es transparencia; es una estrategia de marketing bien ejecutada. Lo grave es que esta dinámica normaliza que los resultados científicos se presenten directamente al público sin filtro, como si fueran tweets o comunicados de prensa. Preocupantemente similar a las realidades alternativas y fake news que el trumpismo ha contribuido a legitimar: la sustitución del método por el titular, del consenso por la inmediatez. Los periodistas científicos deberían ser el filtro que protege a la ciudadanía de este ruido. Pero, como demuestra este caso, muchos han preferido el clic al contexto."

  3. RE: spore.social/@yoginho/11685077

    Yes, the PR is overselling it a bit... as it always does.

    I still find #SpudCell very interesting: trying to build a cell from the bottom up might teach us what is most important in a more easily understandable way than removing as many genes as possible from the smallest bacterium while keeping it viable (the previous approach).

    Here, perhaps not surprisingly, ribosome aging is a big problem because this synthetic cell cannot produce new ribosomes. But even when it will be able to produce new ribosomes, it seems like having no protein quality control, refolding and degradation systems will be the next barrier. Too much old denatured protein floating around eventually becomes more "sand in the gears" than the cell machinery can tolerate, and everything stops again.

    I wonder at which step the absence of DNA repair machinery becomes the main problem. It probably depends on how much mutagenic and selective the environment is.

    #Biology

  4. #SpudCell is an impressive technological achievement, but NOT a living cell:

    biotic.org/research/spudcell

    It does not have a proper metabolism.

    Instead, it is "fed" liposomes whose lipids lead to membrane growth and "food" that includes pre-synthesized ribosomes & enzymes.

    It suffers an error catastrophe after less than five "generations." So: not really "reproducing" (no sustained completion of the life cycle).

    The authors know that. But "synthetic cell" sounds good for marketing, I guess.

  5. 🚀🥔 Oh, the "revolutionary" #SpudCell is here! A synthetic cell that runs a full cycle, just like a real one—because apparently, we needed a molecular potato to remind us how life works. 🙄🔬
    biotic.org/research/spudcell/ #SyntheticBiology #Innovation #MolecularPotato #LifeScience #HackerNews #ngated