Weeknote #31 (w/e 19/12/10)

I delayed this week's note until the details of a couple of publications were confirmed.

The first has resulted from Naomi's work on our NanonInfoBio project, and concerns the "problem" of interdisciplinarity. A lot of interesting and important contemporary research occurs where the boundaries between academic disciplines become blurred (synthetic biology being a good example), and we decided to investigate how it might be encouraged. The resulting paper (written largely by Naomi, with a relatively minor contribution from me) has been submitted to a journal, and is now available as a preprint. The title and abstract are as follows:

---

Removing Barriers to Interdisciplinary Research
Naomi Jacobs and Martyn Amos

A significant amount of high-impact contemporary scientific research occurs where biology, computer science, engineering and chemistry converge. Although programmes have been put in place to support such work, the complex dynamics of interdisciplinarity are still poorly understood. In this paper we interrogate the nature of interdisciplinary research and how we might measure its "success", identify potential barriers to its implementation, and suggest possible mechanisms for removing these impediments.

---

I'm also delighted to announce the second instalment of the Synthesis Lectures on Synthetic Biology that I edit for Morgan and Claypool. Within this publishing model, libraries pay a one-off subscription charge, and are then given perpetual access to a growing list of lectures (in this context, "lecture" means a short book, in the region of 100 pages), although they may also be bought individually, either in electronic form, or as paperbacks.

The first lecture was published by Natalie Kuldell and Neal Lerner of MIT in 2009, and has already been downloaded nearly 300 times.

The second lecture has just been published, and is titled Bacterial Sensors: Synthetic Design and Application Principles. It's written by Jan Roelof van der Meer from the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, and is an in-depth treatment of the engineering of living cells for the purpose of biosensing.

The first two lectures have got the series off to a flying start, which I hope I can maintain as the third runner in the relay (my own lecture is due next year). I'm also happy to consider proposals for lectures, so if you work in synthetic biology and would like to consider writing a short book, do please drop me a line.

That's it for the blog for 2010, so I'll just wish you a happy and peaceful holiday, and a productive new year.

Weeknote #24 (w/e 31/10/10)

Last week we held our synthetic biology event as part of the Manchester Science Festival. Over 130 people turned up for Artificial Life: Perils and Pitfalls, and we heard from Ron Weiss of MIT, Maureen O'Malley from Exeter, and Steve Yearley from Edinburgh. Gerry Kelleher, our Deputy Vice-Chancellor, also said a few words at the start. The overall feedback from the audience was excellent, and I think we can class it a success, although I might have hoped for a little more intellectual "argy bargy" (the audience members who asked questions were generally already quite sympathetic to the synbio "cause"). All in all, a great evening, and we thank the panelists, audience members (and, of course, our sponsors at the EPSRC) for making it so.

I was also booked in to talk at another event over the weekend, but found myself double-booked (my own silly fault). A fifth birthday party regretfully trumped a fourth Teawitter Party, although my Ph.D. student, Pete, came to the rescue, for which I am eternally grateful. His talk on crowds was, by all accounts, very well-received, so maybe he's one to watch in the public engagement stakes...


It was also, of course, Halloween this weekend, so no post would be complete without a picture of our very own little witch. She's been super-cute in the last few days; we're big fans of The Cube, and she solemnly informed us, while we were watching it yesterday, that if she won £25K she would give it straight to daddy, because she's "not big enough to have pounds." Awwww. Like I'm any better with money!

Weeknote #21 (w/e/ 10/10/10)

I've been a little remiss in terms of weeknote updates. Last week was mainly spent getting into a reasonably high teaching gear for the new term. I have a few good project students this year, so I'm hopeful that we can continue the trend of working on papers together.

Last Monday I spent an enjoyable evening at the Wilmslow Guild, giving a lecture on synthetic biology as part of their Science Matters series. The turnout was good (over fifty people), and I was asked some incisive questions. I was rather flustered on arrival, however, as I only just made it, due to the "navigation" software on my new phone insisting that I was actually driving around Wimbledon (London!), instead of getting increasingly worried in Cheshire. Do not trust the navigation software on the Samsung Galaxy Europa (it's an absolutely lovely little phone otherwise).

Speaking of all things to do with public engagement, we've finalised the line-up for our forthcoming event at the Manchester Science Festival, and it's absolutely cracking. We have Ron Weiss, one of the leaders in the field of synthetic biology coming from MIT in the US, Maureen O'Malley from Exeter, who works at the intersection of the humanities and life sciences, and Steve Yearley from Edinburgh, who's the Director of the ESRC Genomics Policy and Research Forum.

The event is titled Artificial Life: Promises and Pitfalls, and full details are available on the website.

The Novel Computation Group lab is now full to capacity, with the arrival of the final Ph.D. student in the current "batch". We also have a new post-doc working on our NIB DNA hash-pooling project, are interviewing this week for a BACTOCOM post-doc, and have two new undergraduate students joining us for the duration of their projects.

Weeknote #15 (w/e 22/8/10)

Lots happening this week, and I've spent most of it at the 12th international conference on artificial life, in Odense, Denmark. I first discovered the field in 1992, when I chose it as the subject of my honours project at University. Steven Levy's wonderful book got me started, and my little creation, titled BugWorld, attracted a moderate amount of attention. I'd have probably gone off into computer security, had I not discovered alife, so I think I owe the field a lot, and it was a surprise to me that this year's conference was the first Artificial Life that I'd attended.

I heard so many great talks that it would be unfair to single out any in particular, but I would point out that MIT Press have made the published proceedings freely available. This is great news.

Actually, I will highlight one talk in particular, in which I should declare an interest. My Spanish friend and colleague, Angel Goni-Moreno, gave a nice presentation based on a version of this paper, and we got some useful feedback.

The conference was great, and brilliantly organised. I was, however, disappointed to learn that this sign referred, not to the creche, but to the language center.



On a related note, I'm delighted to be able to confirm the first two panelists for our Manchester Science Festival event, Artificial Life: Promises and Pitfalls, to be held on October 26th. They are Professor Ron Weiss, from the USA, and Dr Maureen O'Malley, from the UK. We're delighted to have them, and look forward to being able to announce further panelists very soon.

Back in May I contributed to a panel on New Creativity at the marvellous Future Everything conference in Manchester. The video of the panel is now available online, although eagle-eyed viewers could be forgiven for thinking that I only own one shirt.



A recent draft paper I've submitted with Pete was picked up by the MIT Technology Review physics blog. The paper describes a new approach to quantifying levels of crush within crowds, using information theory. The coverage is fairly spot-on, and we're thinking about how to eliminate false positives. I think one of the commentators was a little naughty, though, in not declaring his distinct bias when criticising us for not considering human factors. The problem we address is not that of "why does crush form?", but, rather, "can we automatically detect it when it does form?" While a consideration of human factors may well make a simulation more "realistic", it doesn't address the central issue.

(By the way, Ben, your website could do with an overhaul.)

Weeknote #11 (w/e 25/7/10)

This week we finally submitted our paper on engineered oscillations in bacterial populations. This is something I've been working on with a colleague in Madrid, Angel Goni-Moreno, since he visited us in Manchester last year (in truth, he's been doing most of the work, although any delays have been entirely due to me).

In physics, an oscillator is a system that produces a regular, periodic "output". Familiar examples include a pendulum or a vibrating string. Linking several oscillators together in some way gives rise to synchrony -- for example, heart cells repeatedly firing in unison, or millions of fireflies blinking on and off, seemingly as one.

Oscillators are fundamental to biology, but they are also of interest to engineers, since they form the basis for counting (and synchronisation). Synthetic biology combines both disciplines, so the construction of oscillators within living cells is one of the main topics of interest in the field right now. However, until recently, most work has been restricted to single cells. In our paper, we have shown, in theory, how to engineer oscillations within populations of cells, using the "client-server" model familiar to computer scientists.

Update: the preprint version of the paper is here.

While writing the final draft, I was reminded of my brief contact with one of the founders of the field of theoretical biology. I first met Brian Goodwin in 2004, when I was still at the University of Exeter. He, along with Susan Blackmore, very kindly agreed to speak at the launch of a network I'd set up to encourage the study of complexity theory within the University. Best known in the broader community for his work on the evolution of complexity, Goodwin laid the foundations for recent research in synthetic biology with his seminal 1965 work on negative feedback. His later work focussed on the notion of a science of qualities (on which he spoke at our meeting), and when I first met him he was already formally retired, although still very active at Schumacher College, just down the road in Dartington. We also spent time chatting a year later, while we were both giving lectures at a summer school in Montpellier. I was struck most of all by his gentle nature and generosity of spirit, and we had the chance to discuss in greater depth the topics he'd touched on in his lecture.

Brian died just over a year ago; I first found out about his death while looking up references to give to my current Ph.D. student, who is now applying some of his ideas to the field of architecture. He had a great effect on me, and will continue to influence generations of students to come.

Weeknote #4 (w/e 6/6/10)

I've spent the past week in Madrid, at the Universidad Politecnica. I was a Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Informatics, delivering a series of lectures on "molecular and cellular computing" to their Masters-level students.

In the past, some people have expressed an interest in the material, so I thought I'd make it available here. A lot of it is based on my book Theoretical and Experimental DNA Computation (Springer, 2005), although there's a lot of new material in the second half of the series.

The lectures are as follows (links to PDF versions of the slides):

Day 1: Molecular Computing

1. Introduction and historical motivation.

2. The first experiment.

3. Subsequent work.

Day 2: From in vitro to in vivo

1. Models, lab work, and the transition.

2. Laboratory implementations.

Day 3: Biological Engineering

1. Biological background.

2. Synthetic biology.

3. Synthetic Biology II.


Molecular and Cellular Computing course material by Martyn Amos is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Weeknote #2 (w/e 23/5/10)

It's been a big week for synthetic biology, with the announcement by Craig Venter that he'd succeeded in creating a "synthetic cell". My previous post describes my take on the technical aspects of his achievement; it's not entirely accurate to call it a "synthetic cell", since they used existing cells as the recipients (that is, it was only the genome that was synthetic). It's more like "genomic transplantation" with de novo sequences. Technically challenging, but not the earth-shattering breakthrough that it's being sold/hyped as. They certainly didn't turn "inanimate chemicals into a living organism".

My own little piece of press coverage looked pretty low-key by comparison. I was interviewed ages ago by Louise Tickle for the Education section of the Guardian, and the story finally appeared last week.

This week, members of my group (specifically, Pete and Naomi) contributed to an event hosted by MMU. I'm a Director of ArcSpace Manchester, a Community Interest Company to support creative and ethical exchange, and on May 19th we held a video conference with collaborators in Sao Paolo, Brazil, to discuss "eco-techno" and public engagement. Unfortunately, other commitments meant that I was unable to attend either in person or in the form of an avatar, but my co-director, Vicky Sinclair, wrote up the event.

On the work front, I've been busy marking projects and exam scripts, although I did also submit this conference paper.

Team Venter's synthetic cell, explained

I've been asked to comment on this week's news that Craig Venter's team have succeeded in building a "synthetic living cell" (you can read the full paper, for free, here), so I thought it might be useful to write a short post to explain just what they've achieved.

Cells may be thought of as biological "wetware", in the same way that the physical components of a personal computer (hard drive, processor, memory, etc.) form the "hardware". A computer can't work without an operating system; the central controller program that runs in the background, coordinating the various activities of the machine. Most people use Windows as their operating system, although there are others, such as Ubuntu Linux and MacOS. Similarly, a cell cannot survive without a working genome; the collection of genes that control and influence an organism's internal operation.

The core kernel (ie. the central "brain") of the Ubuntu Linux operating system running on my netbook is (roughly) 4 Megabytes in size, which is about four times the size of the genome of Mycoplasma mycoides. This is a bacterial parasite found in cattle and goats, and it was selected by Venter and his team because (a) it has a relatively small genome that has been fully-sequenced, and (b) it grows more quickly than bacteria they've used in the past.

Venter and his team have created an entirely synthetic copy of the genome of M. mycoides, which they then inserted into a related bacterium, M. capricolum. This new genome was "booted up" by the recipient, which then started "running" the new genetic program.

Importantly, the synthetic genome was completely pristine, in the sense that it had not been physically derived in any way from existing genetic material. Standard genetic engineering splices short synthetic sequences in to existing, "natural" DNA sequences, but Venter's "synthia" genome was created from scratch. It's the equivalent of taking the known binary sequence of a small operating system kernel, typing it into a text editor in small chunks, combining the chunks together into one big file, and then using it to boot up a PC. At no stage was the "new" kernel physically derived (copied) from a version stored on CD, DVD, or downloaded from the 'net.

Venter's team use a DNA synthesizer to piece together the A, G, C and T bases to form brand-new building blocks, which were then stitched together into a single sequence. This is the key technical achievement of the paper - a strategy for assembling an entire genome, from scratch, using synthetic components, and to get it "running" in a host cell. It's important to note that it was only the genome that was synthetic; the recipient cell was a pre-existing, "natural" bacterium.

This breakthrough is significant in that it demonstrates the feasibility of large-scale whole-genome transplantation, which will be an important component of the emerging field of synthetic biology. However, the real challenge lies in gaining a systems-level understanding of how even simple genomes operate, so that they may be fundamentally (re-)engineered.

Science has opened up a forum for posting questions, which will be answered later today by news writer Elizabeth Pennisi and philosopher and scientist Mark Bedau.

Update, 21/5/10, 11:13: Corrected kernel size assertions; Windows kernel is much larger than previously thought.