Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!demiurge.uucp!brucec
From: brucec@demiurge.UUCP (Bruce Cohen)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: DNA mutation elimination
Message-ID: <8905040522.AA11919@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 2 May 89 01:11:34 GMT
References: <8903230413.AA09060@athos.rutgers.edu> <8904180627.AA19469@athos.rutgers.edu> <8904260543.AA26866@athos.rutgers.edu>
Sender: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR
Lines: 32
Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu


In article <8904260543.AA26866@athos.rutgers.edu> peb@SUN.COM (Paul Baclaski) writes:
>How to eliminate mutations of DNA in a Human: ...

... Discussion of using nanbots with a DNA checksum to catch mutations ...

> ... Then, instead of repairing cells, cells could
>either be destroyed outright or they could be tagged for later, heavy
>weight robots that move more slowly, but can carry more capability for
>repair (and can zero in to the tagged cells with external equipment in
>the loop). ...

While this sounds like it would work in principle, there's considerably
more to it than this for two reasons:

    1) There is more than 1 chromosome per human cell.  I think you would
have to keep a separate checksum for each chromosome.  And germ cells
(sperm and ova) would have to be treated specially, as would developing
fetuses for that matter ...

    2) The genetic material for the symbiotic cell organelles like
mitochondria is not in the cell nucleus along with the chromosomes.  The
variety of genetic material to deal with makes the pattern recognition
problem much harder.  Wouldn't want to blast a cell because a nanobot
spotted a strand of DNA for a mitochondrian and mistook it for
a malformed gene. On the other hand, I believe there are occasional
malfunctions in the transmission of organelle DNA.

Bruce Cohen
brucec@orca.wv.tek.com
Interactive Technologies Division, Tektronix, Inc.
M/S 61-028, P.O. Box 1000, Wilsonville, OR  97070