Microsoft Wants To Use DNA For Cloud Data Storage (technologyreview.com) 50
Last July, researchers from Microsoft and the University of Washington said that they had successfully encoded about 200 megabytes of data onto synthetic DNA molecules. The company is now planning to take the technology commercial. "Computer architects at Microsoft Research say the company has formalized a goal of having an operational storage system based on DNA working inside a data center toward the end of this decade," reports MIT Technology Review. "The aim is a 'proto-commercial system in three years storing some amount of data on DNA in one of our four centers for at least a boutique application,' says Doug Carmean, a partner architect at Microsoft Research." From the report: Internally, Microsoft harbors the even more ambitious goal of replacing tape drives, a common format used for archiving information. Major obstacles to a practical storage system remain. Converting digital bits into DNA code (made up of chains of nucleotides labeled A, G, C, and T) remains laborious and expensive because of the chemical process used to manufacture DNA strands. In its demonstration project, Microsoft used 13,448,372 unique pieces of DNA. Experts say buying that much material on the open market would cost $800,000. According to Microsoft, the cost of DNA storage needs to fall by a factor of 10,000 before it becomes widely adopted. While many experts say that's unlikely, Microsoft believes such advances could occur if the computer industry demands them.
Better than SongSmith (Score:2)
At least Microsoft Research is doing something more useful than this [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:1)
I watched the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Hope you don't suffer the same fate [youtube.com] again.
So that's how we create the Andromeda Strain (Score:1)
Combining DNA in a near infinitude of combinations is going to require the whole thing be handled like a level 5 biohazard, because you'll be producing prions and sequences of DNA that aren't found in nature, and to which we have zero resistance. Makes a hard disk or an ssd crash look positively benign, since all you'll lose is your data.
It would also be great for making known bio-weapons - just record multiple instances of sequences for, say, smallpox, then break the seal in a populated space.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know their methods, but with a little overhead in your data size, you could probably render the resulting sequence biologically inert.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the junk DNA doesn't seem to have any ill effects against the core programming. If the entire dataset was encoded to be "junk" then it won't do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but would anyone be that surprised if the latest MS install disk encoded to a hyper virulent super Ebola?
Re: (Score:2)
Right now they're on the Extend phase of adopting DNA. Extinguish isn't for another cycle or two.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you need a vector to do something with the DNA or RNA, such as a viral vector. These are all very specific in their targets, and they are used every day in thousands of labs around the world to shuttle DNA and RNA into cells. But it is not a good digital storage mechanism for big data.
This will never be used to store digital information. You could do it much more easily with a much simpler, man made system of chemical 1 and 0 s in any type of medium, silicon or biological. The triplet code in DNA/'RNA r
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For even greater potential hazard, be sure to thoroughly encrypt the data before committing it to strands of DNA.
Worst idea ever. Nice job, Microsoft.
Re:So that's how we create the Andromeda Strain (Score:4, Informative)
More importantly, no to the rest of it.These are not going to be living things, they're going to be dried nucleotides on paper most likely. There is going to be no transcription or translation and creation of proteins. First of all that's much more difficult and doesn't happen on its own. Second that would defeat the point of data storage. Having the DNA doing stuff would cause its degradation and loss.
It's like saying "don't download that encyclopedia on that external hard drive! It might achieve sentience!" Nothing is happening to the data either way, and in both cases, making "life" would be impossible.
Life requires a lot more than DNA. There are some plant viruses IIRC that can reproduce simply by injecting their DNA or RNA sequence into plant cells. But I didn't hear about any such human viruses. Viruses require protein machinery to take over the cell in addition to their DNA. You synthesize the smallpox genome and inject it into your veins, you're not going to develop smallpox.
The smallpox genome is also a 186 kilobase sequence [wikipedia.org]. It's not something that's sure to show up with much frequency even if all the DNA in MS's storage were to get into your cells. If anyone knows a way of calculating how much DNA you'd need to synthesize at random before you came up with those specific 186000 nucleotides, I'd be very interested, but I'm guessing it's a lot.
Finally, synthesizing nucleotides is old hat. The scale and cost is the new thing here. You want to synthesize a smallpox genome? You can do that already. [idtdna.com] There aren't even any laws against it yet! It's going to cost you a lot and again, DNA itself wouldn't do shit besides freak people out, but you can. It'd be much easier just to find smallpox itself. But either way, there's nothing completely new here besides it's now cheap and fast enough to consider doing for data storage.
Quit getting spooked by biology.
Microscopic elephant in the room: nucleases (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your DNA is out in the open collecting dust and microbes, you're asking for it to be contaminated. DNA is more than stable enough to work on without using so much as gloves. Consider that Lincoln's DNA from when he was assassinated is still readable despite having been stored at room temperature for over a century in non-sterile conditions. [cleveland.com] RNA? Sure, that would
Re: (Score:2)
Given that this could in theory produce DNA more dangerous than anything found in nature, you'd damn well better have a level 5.
There are some plant viruses IIRC that can reproduce simply by injecting their DNA or RNA sequence into plant cells. But I didn't hear about any such human viruses
The flu virus hijacks your body's cells to reproduce pretty much the same way. Surely you've heard of the flu virus.
Prions also aren't living, just chunks of protein, but they cause mad cow disease, and they can be distributed by eating infected meat, by blood transfusion, and experiments have show that it can be distributed and successfully infect mice in aerosol form.
Re: (Score:2)
The flu virus hijacks your body's cells to reproduce pretty much the same way. Surely you've heard of the flu virus.
Citation needed. Yes influenza has DNA, but it also has an envelope in order to get into the cells. DNA just floating around in the air isn't going to get into a cell. DNA floating around in your bloodstream even is going to get shredded by your immune system. So please, prove to me that naked DNA outside of cells can cause viruses inside the cells.
The suggestion that there should be a biosafety level 5, higher than an intact ebola virus, for DNA by itself is patently absurd.
I'm not sure what prions
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, the DNA isn't going to be spraying everywhere any more than computing using a hard drive involves platters and magnets flying all around the air.
Viruses and bacteria evolve because they're much more than nucleotides, and because they duplicate their own nucleotides with some degree of error. DNA by itself
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First, viruses are not alive, they're just DNA or RNA with a protein coating. Neither the DNA, RNA, or the coating are produced by the virus - they're produced by the host cell. Viruses are like bricks - they're inert objects made in a factory.
Viroses neither "eat", nor "excrete". No metabolism. They cannot move on their own. They literally go wherever the environment carries them.
We know what ebola is, and how to treat it - and people can survive without treatment, same as some (a very few) survive for d
Nonsense, DNA is tasty (Score:2)
DNA will be eaten in short order. other than RNA or writing it on sand on a tidal flat, they could not have picked a less viable long term storage media.
They should create a whole new company for this (Score:2)
They can name it The Umbrella Corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
Or Weyland-Yutani. This is how you get weaponized xenomorphs.
No jokes about wanking? (Score:2)
No jokes about wanking yet? This place isn't what it used to be.
Re: (Score:1)
Only 200 megabytes? I once stored more than 8 petabytes in DNA in a cloud in the bathtub! Should have filed a patent, I'd be rich now...
Re: (Score:2)
That was YOU?! I couldn't use that bathroom for 45 minutes after you were done! Next time try a courtesy spray, you insensitive clod!
:B
/ damn green clouds hanging around...
talk about virus vulnerabilities... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
retroviral indeed.
Re: (Score:1)
Um, yes, it gives the concept of viral data a whole new meaning. Be careful with your data patterns so that none of them generate a killer disease in the Microsoft cloud in 2072.
{^_-}
Viruses? (Score:2)
Success depends on simplicity (Score:3)
Using DNA for data storage is a real possibility but what they need to do more than anything is to simplify the encoding and decoding so that it is both speedy and more importantly, costs next to nothing. What this really means is building complex molecular machines which is something we have yet to manage. It might take 50 years before we manage to figure out how make complex molecular machines but the result will be amazing in the same way that graphics rendering thought up 50 years ago is amazing on modern GPUs.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm wondering, what do you feed it (Miracle-Gro?), and how often you have to water it.
Unlikely?? (Score:2)
I am not here to debate the ethics of such a thing, but to hand wave it away as if it will not happen is likely to be hubris.
DNA as data storage but still no safe OS (Score:2)
This sounds familiar (Score:2)
Microsoft has finally caught up to Johnny Mnemonic.
But does it compile? (Score:2)