koeng
Joined 7 years ago
Joined 7 years ago
I'm thinking about buying all the strains and pushing them through my automated sequencing pipeline, and building a yeast genotype -> flavor converter. Then, I think it'd be neat if you could have someone try a bunch of wines to get their favorite, and then genetically engineer a yeast strain specifically for their favorite flavors. Think that could be neat.
Right now I just germinated a 4x8 bed with flax for fiber. The plan is to grow it for 100 days or so and then harvest, dry, ret, dry, and spin. I need a lot more to do anything serious, but I think it’d be awesome to have a scarf that I made with linen I grew and harvested myself
I got into creating my own rings, and I’d really like to create one with ore I harvest myself. Gold is too hard and silver can be kinda dangerous, but malachite is pretty safe and I can just drive to Copperopolis to pick some up.
Basically: smelt the malachite with flux and charcoal to get pure copper, flow that into an ingot mold, hammer it into shape. Then I’ll have my own ring, with metal I collected with my own hands
Also do a few others - learned Esperanto (exclusively through listening and speaking with people), beekeeping, woodworking, etc.
There are many times where unblinded experiments are still valid. And unfortunately, n=1 means that you can't have controls. The question: "did this intervention, in one person, cause a greater-than-normal increase in epigenetic changes, above baseline?"
My plan: collect my own sperm samples over time and do whole DNA preps + basic body metrics. Sperm regenerates approximately every 10w, so planning time series over 10w. Next, inject myself to ~10x the average amount of microplastics, directly into the bloodstream. Continue with the sperm collection, DNA preps, and basic body metrics. Nanopore sequence, and see if there actually ARE any epigenetic changes. Eventually I'll go back down to baseline - are there any lasting changes?
Of course, this is an N=1 experiment, but rather than a metastudy I'm directly changing one variable, so I think it is valuable. We should have more people doing controlled experiments on themselves for the sake of all of society - and as a biologist, I actually have the capacity to design the experiments and scientifically interpret the results. In a way, it's part of civic duty :)
They don't use oligo pools - "This capacity may be adapted to use large oligo pools to substantially reduce the cost per construct45 but requires further engineering to account for the formation of the unintended Sidewinder heteroduplexes before assembly and the higher truncation rate of pooled oligos"
This absolutely destroys any unit economics when it comes to DNA synthesis. Oligo pool synthesis isn't 10x cheaper, it's 100x to 1000x cheaper than individual oligo synthesis.
So what they really have is a good way to do DNA assembly from synthesized oligos; fair. But we have that: GoldenGate can do 40 part assemblies, hell it can do 52 part assemblies, and you CAN use oligo pools - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10949349/ (there are a couple enzymatic properties which allow this, mainly that you can use full doublestranded DNA, which you can make with a PCR. Can't make these overhang guys with a PCR).
We've even found that with some GoldenGate enzymes, the biology somehow breaks the current models of the physics of ligation by being so efficient - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.01.31.702778v1
Their gels do look really good, I'll admit. I can imagine circumstances (exception cases) where this would be better. But not only is this kind of thing for 99% of cases has already been available for many years while being orders of magnitude cheaper (plural).
keonigandall.com
synbio25.com
koeng101 X gmail.com
github.com/koeng101/dnadesign