+Eric Rounds Often you seen buzz terms used like hoverboard and find the results to be an 'interpretation' of the words, but in this case it really is DNA robots.That is amazing.
the necklase chain (which presents the ssDNA) is still moving after fixation with the staples ... It does not work that way. The staples only bind to specific regions. That paper-chain presents the (ssDNA and the staples) better. But usually the staples bind to around 3 bases on both sides and not just one base.
First I thought what is (or who is) the donor for that DNA? then it stated on paper "To test the method, circular genomic DNA from the virus M13mp18 was chosen as the scaffold." Well, imagine the future : we could make chicken DNA from scratch (like from virus donor). well, maybe the term "robot" and "nature" would not so much different then at that time.
Wonderful Video! I am just starting master's degree course with DNA nano structures. There are many different design tools in the video. Could anyone recommend good design tools? Best wishes to all!
+Sylvia Huang Yes of course - since DNA is capable of binding as seen in the video, DNA could potentially bind either your genomic DNA, hindering transcriptional processes, or even bind RNA molecules, but this can be prevented, at least with chromosomal DNA binding, by only allowing the DNA structure to float in the cytoplasm, and not in the nucleus :)
As far as I understand DNA structures need to be deliberate designed to be harmful. (Same for protein structures). All of the shown examples (e.g. the DNA bunny) would most likely be edible in very large quantities (by the full spoon). Taking proteins as sufficiently close example: Toxic proteins (often deliberately produced by life forms for self protection) can often be destroyed by cooking. The cooking sufficiently randomizes/denatures the protein structure to become non-toxic. The other way around creating toxic protein structures by heating (randomizing) never happens. This is because the ratio of toxic structures to non toxic structures in the set of all possible structures is extreme. "one to one gazillion". So if one makes just something random out of DNA than it should be safe to assume that it's non-toxic. In case of DNA even for large quantity ingestion. AFAIK DNA is easier and quicker degraded than proteins. So even when by odd chance a structure turns out to be toxic it might not stick around for long enough to cause much harm. The story is different for artificial foldamers though. Foldamers are chain molecules that predictably fold. Just like DNA but out of other constituent monomers. Basically they are very special plastics. In case of some artificial foldamers the human body may not know how to efficiently break their bonds and thus cannot break them down. This is often desired for medicine. If beside the human body no abundant life-form on earth is capable of breaking the stuff down (and thereby feeding it back into the biosphere) then the new compounds can be considered a persistent organic pollutant (POP) and release of it in very high quantities into nature should be avoided. High pileup of POPs that often/sometimes would be almost nontoxic in small amounts can become a serious problem for life on earth (especially sea life) and via the food chain it can become a problem for us. Artificial foldameres are still in the labs though far from the level of frightening severity we already have with the geat pacific garbage patch out of conventional plastics.
First off.. you would have to design some sort of hydrophobic capsid in order to drive the origami past the cell membrane. Cells don´t just eat DNA floating around..... otherwise you woud be dead from eating a piece of raw meat. So no. If you ment injecting this things by IV... you would still need to design the capsid. This is the reason viruses need an outter shell that attack a specific membrane protein in order to get in... Its hard to get in.
Almost impossible because the code would need to accidentally do that (and also penetrate your usually quite sturdy defenses). Another thing would be if the DNA was intently and smartly designed to be harmful and woul have the corresponding protein structures to aid its propagation as well, i.e. a designed virus. We are probably not there yet: although bacteria-like organisms have been built from scratch, one thing is making something that roughly approximates a real bacteria and another very different thing is to make a bacteria or virus that works exactly as you intend. We just don't understand well enough how DNA encodes bio-programs to do that yet, we will probably be there in decades from now but not yet.
Then why does Nature use proteins rather than DNA for actual cell machinery and reserves the DNA for mere coding? I'm pretty sure Mother Nature knows something that we don't.
+subh1 I think it's because they are like Lego, 4 different pieces , which can shape build into many different structures and you can control it with sensors
+Sylvia Huang Honestly you could attempt building with peptides and amino acids, but the repertoire is so much more complex that I think the nice and easy 4 nucleotides in DNA/RNA are much easier to design at this early stage.
Yeah, proteins probably are better at machine-like behavior, that's what Mother Nature actually uses. However proteins are very complicated in many ways (their shape particularly, and they can get very complex) and ultimately proteins are encoded by DNA. There's a lot to learn yet, humans are just beginning to "toy" with all this stuff... one step at a time.
Oh nos. This is either the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning of the human race and it's current level of evolution. He is to hoping we evolve with this tech and not weaponize it.
Messing with DNA, to create new life, is beyond dangerous. When the bible says each thing was made after it's own kind (7 times in the book of Genesis) then I think God settled the DNA debate. He knows what He's doing and He owns it all. You have no idea what mad science you're playing with. I wish people would focus on helping others and stop trying to play god.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Bigger In Texas [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QxTkZTLWdo4/mqdefault.jpg)
Whoa, it's incredible how simple ideas can grow so much!
mind blowing technology, gives you a vision of how technology is going to be in future.
+GUNPREET SINGH RAHEJA Yes, and it is kind like scaring as everything new is.
Amazing video!!!! So simply described such an incredibly difficult and breathtaking topic! Thanks to creators for that! :)
wow how have I not heard of it? this is so amazing
This is incredible!
+Eric Rounds Often you seen buzz terms used like hoverboard and find the results to be an 'interpretation' of the words, but in this case it really is DNA robots.That is amazing.
+GadgetAndKite yes, it really is engineering on a microscopic level. Incredible.
Tumor cells, do they have same DNA?
the necklase chain (which presents the ssDNA) is still moving after fixation with the staples ... It does not work that way. The staples only bind to specific regions. That paper-chain presents the (ssDNA and the staples) better. But usually the staples bind to around 3 bases on both sides and not just one base.
goodness, has it really been that long?
First I thought what is (or who is) the donor for that DNA? then it stated on paper "To test the method, circular genomic DNA from the virus M13mp18 was chosen as the scaffold."
Well, imagine the future : we could make chicken DNA from scratch (like from virus donor). well, maybe the term "robot" and "nature" would not so much different then at that time.
Great cartoon! Just for my Saturday lecture.
Wonderful Video! I am just starting master's degree course with DNA nano structures. There are many different design tools in the video. Could anyone recommend good design tools? Best wishes to all!
greeting, can nature vedio provide me Link of research paper on it . kindly
that's why I love science!
i appreciate you trying to help me put i just don't understand
Is there any possibility that this created DNA structure can do harm to your body by interact with one's original DNA?
+Sylvia Huang Yes of course - since DNA is capable of binding as seen in the video, DNA could potentially bind either your genomic DNA, hindering transcriptional processes, or even bind RNA molecules, but this can be prevented, at least with chromosomal DNA binding, by only allowing the DNA structure to float in the cytoplasm, and not in the nucleus :)
As far as I understand DNA structures need to be deliberate designed to be harmful. (Same for protein structures). All of the shown examples (e.g. the DNA bunny) would most likely be edible in very large quantities (by the full spoon).
Taking proteins as sufficiently close example: Toxic proteins (often deliberately produced by life forms for self protection) can often be destroyed by cooking. The cooking sufficiently randomizes/denatures the protein structure to become non-toxic. The other way around creating toxic protein structures by heating (randomizing) never happens. This is because the ratio of toxic structures to non toxic structures in the set of all possible structures is extreme. "one to one gazillion". So if one makes just something random out of DNA than it should be safe to assume that it's non-toxic. In case of DNA even for large quantity ingestion.
AFAIK DNA is easier and quicker degraded than proteins. So even when by odd chance a structure turns out to be toxic it might not stick around for long enough to cause much harm.
The story is different for artificial foldamers though.
Foldamers are chain molecules that predictably fold. Just like DNA but out of other constituent monomers. Basically they are very special plastics. In case of some artificial foldamers the human body may not know how to efficiently break their bonds and thus cannot break them down. This is often desired for medicine. If beside the human body no abundant life-form on earth is capable of breaking the stuff down (and thereby feeding it back into the biosphere) then the new compounds can be considered a persistent organic pollutant (POP) and release of it in very high quantities into nature should be avoided. High pileup of POPs that often/sometimes would be almost nontoxic in small amounts can become a serious problem for life on earth (especially sea life) and via the food chain it can become a problem for us. Artificial foldameres are still in the labs though far from the level of frightening severity we already have with the geat pacific garbage patch out of conventional plastics.
First off.. you would have to design some sort of hydrophobic capsid in order to drive the origami past the cell membrane. Cells don´t just eat DNA floating around..... otherwise you woud be dead from eating a piece of raw meat. So no.
If you ment injecting this things by IV... you would still need to design the capsid. This is the reason viruses need an outter shell that attack a specific membrane protein in order to get in... Its hard to get in.
Almost impossible because the code would need to accidentally do that (and also penetrate your usually quite sturdy defenses). Another thing would be if the DNA was intently and smartly designed to be harmful and woul have the corresponding protein structures to aid its propagation as well, i.e. a designed virus. We are probably not there yet: although bacteria-like organisms have been built from scratch, one thing is making something that roughly approximates a real bacteria and another very different thing is to make a bacteria or virus that works exactly as you intend. We just don't understand well enough how DNA encodes bio-programs to do that yet, we will probably be there in decades from now but not yet.
Then why does Nature use proteins rather than DNA for actual cell machinery and reserves the DNA for mere coding? I'm pretty sure Mother Nature knows something that we don't.
Good one...
Amazing!
Do you know why my channel name is NjmK?
Why just tiny robots? 🤔
Ok, that was too much cowbell.
Nice. Who would have thought we'd get here, from smiley faces?
links are not working
why DNA? Can't there be other molecules that do this better?
+subh1
I think it's because they are like Lego, 4 different pieces , which can shape build into many different structures and you can control it with sensors
+Sylvia Huang Honestly you could attempt building with peptides and amino acids, but the repertoire is so much more complex that I think the nice and easy 4 nucleotides in DNA/RNA are much easier to design at this early stage.
* simpler in behavior than proteins/peptides
* easier to synthesize than artificial foldamers
Yeah, proteins probably are better at machine-like behavior, that's what Mother Nature actually uses. However proteins are very complicated in many ways (their shape particularly, and they can get very complex) and ultimately proteins are encoded by DNA. There's a lot to learn yet, humans are just beginning to "toy" with all this stuff... one step at a time.
wow
Oh nos. This is either the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning of the human race and it's current level of evolution. He is to hoping we evolve with this tech and not weaponize it.
കൊള്ളാല്ലോ
Way to much time on their hands. lol
Could have some interesting insights though.
Messing with DNA, to create new life, is beyond dangerous. When the bible says each thing was made after it's own kind (7 times in the book of Genesis) then I think God settled the DNA debate. He knows what He's doing and He owns it all. You have no idea what mad science you're playing with. I wish people would focus on helping others and stop trying to play god.