Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage Earth Education Media Microsoft News Science Technology

UW, Microsoft Successfully Encoded 200MB of Data Onto Synthetic DNA Molecules (seattletimes.com) 46

An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Seattle Times: Researchers from Microsoft and the University of Washington said Thursday that they had successfully encoded about 200 megabytes of data onto synthetic DNA molecules. The information included more than 100 books, translations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a high-definition music video from the band OK Go. Previously, the record was 22 megabytes encoded and decoded on DNA, said the researchers. Microsoft's lead researcher on the project, Karin Strauss, said DNA storage of the type demonstrated in the UW lab could, theoretically, store an exabyte (one billion gigabytes) of data in about one cubic inch of DNA material. "Our goal is really to build systems to show that it is possible," she said. DNA is also very durable. If stored in the right conditions, data encoded on DNA could be readable for thousands of years, compared to typical hard disks or flash drives that can fail in a few years.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UW, Microsoft Successfully Encoded 200MB of Data Onto Synthetic DNA Molecules

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...

  • Déjà vu (Score:4, Funny)

    by Yvan256 ( 722131 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @04:33PM (#52466259) Homepage Journal

    The Fifth Element [wordpress.com]

    • Say what you want about that movie (and I've met a few people that genuinely didn't like it at all, from a plot standpoint I can't say I blame them...)...there are so many things that movie got right that seemed way outlandish even to me at the time.

      Leeloo is 3d printed for crying out loud, I think most people can see at the very least replacement body parts and organs 3d printed in the next 10-15 years. Pretty exciting time to be alive really...i'm willing to bet people will be living an extra 100++ years

      • Haha, I can see it now, there will be people against synthetic or hybrid cybernetic parts but consider the organic ones ok, or something akin to people preferring a more "natural" or homeopathic solution like they do today.

        Sure they're going to be against the hybrid parts- Don't forget who's working on this stuff.

        Do you really want "Upgrade now to Microsoft Cornea 15" popping into your field of vision when you're trying to control your flying car?

        God help us if they bring Clippy back: "I see you're trying to perform intercourse with a defective pecker- would you like to upgrade?"

      • people will be living an extra 100++ years

        So... 101 years?

      • Replacing body parts is still a risky procedure. Being able to grow body parts will more likely help get people off of donors lists. And having to make decisions on if someone is worthy of a treatment or not. So it may help out a bit. But in terms of immortality. We don't see someone living long times by taking parts that fared better off their identical twin who had experienced an "Accident". Because there is other ways of getting useful body parts without printing them.

    • by stooo ( 2202012 )

      Now inject this MS software into a sheep's DNA....
      Hmm, in fact that's not new, MS is already making software for sheep since 30 years.

  • by ilsaloving ( 1534307 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @04:38PM (#52466285)

    Why do people always feel the need to give such ridiculous longevity estimates? Especially when you factor in the real world, that sort of longevity simply doesn't happen unless you're etching into a plate of metal (gold?) that doesn't corrode readily.

    • Yeah it doesn't really make any sense. PCR works because you have millions of copies of DNA, and if it is 10% decomposed it is in different areas so on average you get the information. Is the thing in the article making more than one copy?
    • Actually, the best way we could store data would be optically, and use the benefit of storing data into diamonds and other hard materials (such as topaz and corundum).
      • Actually, the best way we could store data would be optically, and use the benefit of storing data into diamonds and other hard materials (such as topaz and corundum).

        My eyes already have Property of Cybertron encoded on them

      • The best is when you're in a prison cell guarded by deadly visible lasers, and your girlfriend smuggles in a storage diamond. You route deadly laser into the diamond and you get a 3D hologram showing you the escape route displayed in the air, right from the diamond.
        It must have been a very special kind of diamond too, as it didn't catch fire.

  • So then what does that make us? Nothing but merely exobytes of data in a sack of liquid, filled with billions of much smaller exobytes of data in sacks of fluid? If we really find a way to manipulate DNA, we've unlocked life itself. Haven't we?
    • The human genome has about 3.2 billion base-pairs, each of which can be in one of four configurations. So, that's 6.4 billion bits, or about 800 megabytes. And that doesn't even consider the fact that the vast majority of "values" those bases can take on do not make a viable organism.

      You might be able to encode information in the inert portions of the human genome, but exabyes worth? Not a chance.

      • Sure you can, you just need to encode a different "genome" in each cell. However, I'd imagine that to have an effective multi-cell encoding technique you would store the data in RNA instead of DNA.

      • Does the human genome even fit in 1 cubic inch of DNA?
    • by slew ( 2918 )

      So then what does that make us? Nothing but merely exobytes of data in a sack of liquid, filled with billions of much smaller exobytes of data in sacks of fluid? If we really find a way to manipulate DNA, we've unlocked life itself. Haven't we?

      FWIW, we *already* have a ways to manipulate DNA (e.g., CRISPR/Cas9). However, we don't fully understand the code yet...

    • You seem to be a bit behind. We have already found a way to manipulate DNA. Look up CRISPR.

    • We have been for Generations that we have been on the cusp of understanding it all. The further we go the more details we find, causing more questions.

  • The article misses important information like which OK Go video this was. (Hopefully "This Too Shall Pass") given how Rube Goldberg this is...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • This sounds just like the Bio-neural Gel Packs from Star Trek
  • Junk DNA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bluegutang ( 2814641 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @04:52PM (#52466399)

    If you put your data into an organism's "junk DNA", then the data will last forever... (barring mutations)

    • by Yvan256 ( 722131 )

      What do you think we are?

    • by kshort ( 1017266 )

      If you put your data into an organism's "junk DNA", then the data will last forever... (barring mutations)

      Very little "Junk DNA" is junk. miRNAs, gene regulatory regions, histone folding and regulation systems, chromatin folding hotspots. Anyway, if there is true Junk DNA, it will be under less selective pressure and very quickly become riddled with mutations and errors. Moreso than protein encoding regions. The best way to do it would to be to place an index somewhere in the genome containing references to locations within the existing coded/exome areas -- which already contain a pre-existing massive dictiona

  • by swm ( 171547 ) <swmcd@world.std.com> on Thursday July 07, 2016 @05:24PM (#52466575) Homepage

    The information included [...] a high-definition music video from the band OK Go.

    Sounds like copyright infringement.
    Maybe the BSA should get on the case.

    • Well, not much copyright infringement if anything - 200 MB, is only about one empty MS Word document.
  • I think I could do better than 200 meg. It doesn't sound like a significant enough jump and nor is it a huge improvement over the previous proof of concept. Plenty of companies (particularly asian ones) to long/large scale custom synthesis. The reading of the code isn't difficult these days. Assembly of the sequences into meaningful files is probably the trick. I think a true advance would be making synthetic or highly modified polymerases which can incorporate synthetic pyrimidines/uridines into a "hyper
  • Maybe I should hurry up and file a patent... ;^)

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Could you imagine spy's using this technology to encode data into moles on their skin. Would be pretty hard to detect.

  • Virus (Score:5, Funny)

    by manu0601 ( 2221348 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @07:56PM (#52467597)
    Now, we are going to see DNA-based computer virus!
  • HYPE METER AT 11 (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Cost of writing information: 200 MB data = 20 Mbp DNA = $200,000 USD @ $0.01 /bp. The cost was $0.30/bp for the past decade, and it's recently dropped to $0.07/bp for short fragments with the latest scale-down improvements. Some serious scale-down innovations need to occur before they drop further -- DNA synthesis costs do NOT follow a Moore-like law because DNA oligos are still produced via chemical reactions on solid supports and scale-downs have led to poor kinetics and poor yields. Cost reductions are

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Working...