Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SpielbrecherXS t1_j0yvxqk wrote

Well, glowing gmo plants have already been engineered a couple years back. Not sure they are commercially available yet tho.

On the other hand, using plants to store data sounds like a strange idea. Pretty unwieldy and fragile for a memory stick, I'd say.

106

stealthdawg t1_j0z1uwn wrote

iirc the idea was storing the data in DNA, not in the plant structure, so-long as the plant has any viable cells the data would be intact, theoretically. DNA is supposedly extremely data-dense.

24

Paradox68 t1_j0zde63 wrote

How is this better for protecting your data than a solid metal stick?

8

NotShey t1_j0zj5e4 wrote

Hm. Just spit balling, but if you wanted to store data for a really REALLY long time (thousands of years or longer) embedding it in the DNA of a really resilient plant or fungal species is not the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

Has some fairly obvious advantages over a diamond disk or something along those lines, particularly in terms of redundancy.

15

Illuminaso t1_j10h56g wrote

DNA is a pretty lossy system though. I mean hell, that's how evolution happens. If you wanted to preserve some data in DNA for thousands of years, when you came back to it it may have evolved into something completely different.

​

If you were to store it on a USB stick or a hard drive it would last forever provided it was stored properly.

6

NotShey t1_j11hmtx wrote

>DNA is a pretty lossy system though

Depends on the species, and on a time scale of thousands of years, DNA can be very stable compared to most other storage mediums. On a timescale of millions of years everything is pretty lossy.

5

Suekru t1_j10m09c wrote

I figured they write it on a plant that could live thousands of years, like a tree. That way they could access the same DNA.

USB sticks, if not plugged in once in a while will eventually lose their data. The time for this is about 10 years or a bit more.

Hard drives might be a better option than a USB stick for long term storage, but they use magnets to store data and eventually they will deteriorate. With that said I have like a 20 year old hard drive that the data on it is still readable, so they can last a while. But I doubt data would be readable after a 100 years. Not impossible, depends on the quality of the drive.

But multiple generation data storage like 1000 years, you’d need to switch the data to a new drive every so often and keep plenty of backups. So the DNA method would be an interesting work around to this problem.

1

SpielbrecherXS t1_j0z28vv wrote

Ah. that makes a bit more sense. Bit still unpractical for most purposes, imo

4

tvfanatic1337 t1_j0zjczb wrote

It’s practical for a lot of reasons. DNA takes 1000s of years to degrade vs digital devices which constantly have to be replaced every few decades.

It is multithreaded, DNA can be read at any entry point in parallel along the strand.

It’s cheap: every living thing on earth can store DNA, it’s dirt cheap.

It’s compact and dense.

It can be expanded past base 4 to any arbitrary base with synthetic nucleotides.

https://news.microsoft.com/innovation-stories/hello-data-dna-storage/

14

alakeya OP t1_j0ywdg6 wrote

Do you have any article/research I can read about the glowing plants? That sounds amazing!

21

SpielbrecherXS t1_j0z0bdg wrote

Well, this is the original publication, I guess: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-020-0500-9.epdf

But you can literally google "glowing gmo plants" for less in-depth text and more pics.

I think I've seen some ads for commercial plants like that, but I can't find it now. Maybe it was a crowdsourcing project that failed later.

15

alakeya OP t1_j0z28h8 wrote

Thank you so much!

4

meanogre t1_j116ed2 wrote

Glo-fish are a genetically modified fish species that glow neon colors under black light (UV heavy light). They’ve been on the market around a decade or so now. These fish have been modified with jellyfish DNA to produce fluorescing molecules in their skin. Here’s a link:

https://shop.glofish.com/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=FY22

4

mjconver t1_j0z006j wrote

Just because they glow doesn't mean they're good for power. It's the same process as fireflies, and it's cold.

6

alakeya OP t1_j0z27m9 wrote

Yeah I figured but it’s still so cool!

3

U-N-C-L-E t1_j0z7uwx wrote

You're not allowed to be excited about things on this subreddit.

10

alakeya OP t1_j0zdjkw wrote

I keep getting downvoted and I don’t understand what I said wrong TT I genuinely think that glowing plants are cool

14

warthog0869 t1_j0zh44z wrote

here, take my upvote

because glowing plants are cool

some say even cold

5

alakeya OP t1_j1017m4 wrote

Thank you, kind stranger. I’ll cherish it!

4

tjoe4321510 t1_j0zz0q1 wrote

If you think that's cool then you should check out glow in the dark rabbits.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/13/glow-in-dark-rabbits-scientists

5

alakeya OP t1_j101cf9 wrote

OMG THIS IS AMAZING!! That looks so cool TT It gives me Liv in the future vibes

3

Filip-Kovac t1_j10kul2 wrote

Sorry but your answer gives me the feeling that you didn't even read the article.

After you guys talked about glowing plants, then you seem to be amazed by glowing rabbits, who are used for scientific experiments.

Prove me wrong please. How exactly do you think that is so cool?

−3

Psychomadeye t1_j10xcd6 wrote

Bioluminescent rabbits used to demonstrate a potential technique of intervention in deadly diseases need to justify being cool?

5

Filip-Kovac t1_j113hd9 wrote

I think you dont understand what I meant by my message. I think that it's important for people to understand that the cool part is the as you said: "intervention in deadly diseases". All I meant by my answer is I am getting a feeling from the response by u/alakeya that he/she thinks the cool part is the glowing rabbits and not understanding the real point of curing the diseases

−2

alakeya OP t1_j115hwa wrote

No, I think that you’re misunderstanding something here. Me saying that something is cool does not exclude the scientific and medical research that has been put through and its purpose. Every single medical treatment has a side effect, and honestly, the fact that unlike some other potential treatments that can be a possible cause of death, this one causes bioluminescence, is pretty damn rad. I don’t understand what you’re trying to imply here, you’re bothered that I got excited by two interesting researchers?

5

Filip-Kovac t1_j119ogk wrote

All I did was ask you to explain why you're excited. I thank you for that. Nothing more, nothing less ;)

Have a good day

edit: that is why I said I'm getting a feeling, please explain. Didn't mean no offense by it what so ever.

1

alakeya OP t1_j11d6it wrote

It’s all good, man. Sorry I snapped, seemed like you were trying to portray my thought process as something different. Have a nice day too!

1

Psychomadeye t1_j11bibd wrote

Bioluminescent animals are cool to me by default. Showing someone fireflies for the first time because they're from an area in which they aren't indigenous is like the first time someone sees snow in their 20's. Bioluminescent bunnies are pretty cool little guys to me by default. The fact that we can make them is also kinda cool. As far as if we should be making them, we're not really discussing that. It's intentionally not within the scope of this discussion. To me it feels like this is what bothers you.

2

MPHunlimited t1_j0z4muh wrote

It is kind of sad to he honest. It's a complex chemical process that got solved halfway by a scientist, a startup company then tried to sell that they could figure out the last half and make it a consumer product. They made some progress but locked up a bunch of the work behind a patent, and then failed to make a glowing plant. Leaving the whole process locked legally and not easily picked up by the next person.

Capitalism can only give us avatar on the big screen. R.I.P.

(And the plants were small herbaceous annuals, arabidopsis. Theory was to figure it out there then market and make enough to move on to larger and more useful plants, house plants, etc.)

4

alakeya OP t1_j0zdsno wrote

Oh Gosh, not this. In my opinion, scientific discovery/research shouldn’t be patented. Does this mean that the experiment is now stuck? Or are other companies/universities working on a different method?

1

Kazumadesu76 t1_j13avuj wrote

You could also watch this great documentary about a whole planet of glowy plants/storage devices. The documentary is called Avatar.

3

frantruck t1_j0ziqdc wrote

We already use plants for data storage, it's called paper /s

14

crazypandaex t1_j0z4f5m wrote

Sounds like avatar where they store all those memories in that tree.

3

karma_aversion t1_j110rlm wrote

Sounds like the Game of Thrones where the Children of the Forest store their memories in the weir woods. Dang, avatar ripped off everything.

1

Legojoker t1_j12t3tj wrote

Wasn’t that mechanic technically introduced in the 2011 book? That would mean GoT ripped off Avatar (obviously it didn’t, hiveminds are just a common fantasy motif).

1

lucid1014 t1_j12zjnz wrote

You might argue then that Avatar ripped it off the Speaker for The Dead book series.

1

SCP-Agent-Arad t1_j0z7521 wrote

I mean, glowing GMO animals have been commercially available for 2 decades, so plants can’t be that much harder.

3

W_AS-SA_W t1_j0zdynn wrote

I always imagined that the kittens that glowed would breathe fire when they got big.

2

lt_dan_zsu t1_j0zu3jx wrote

Storing data in plants might make some sense when I think about it. To "read" the data encoded in DNA would require you to consume some of the DNA, which means you only have a limited number of reads of that data before you run out. Putting that DNA into the genome of a plant would allow you to cheaply generate a bunch of copies of that data, and this data could then be stored indefinitely as seeds that could be planted again if more copies are needed.

I'm not sure how the show depicted it, but I think the idea of having a plant flash drive or something sounds unrealistic. However, I could see it being used as a form of cold storage in the future, but it's probably not even close to being a practical solution. There's also the issue of how much data could be crammed into a plant's genome before it starts effecting the plant's ability to be a plant.

2

Lidjungle t1_j103nlk wrote

SO... We could potentially encode data in plant DNA for future generations. They would just have to A) Figure out it's there, B) decode it, and C) speak the language it's encoded in.

Might as well put a message in a bottle and fling it around Jupiter.

2

lt_dan_zsu t1_j1077bc wrote

Cold storage is for cheaply and compactly storing large quantities of information that doesn't need to be accessed often. Yes, in order for DNA data storage to work, we have to have a means of decoding it. I'm not sure how this is a criticism of this specific technology as this would apply to literally anything that we use to store information.

1

Lidjungle t1_j10a8ih wrote

We can store data on anything. Even plant DNA. And every few years someone goes "OMG, what if we stored data in Ocean Waves!!! It's incredibly impractical and almost totally useless, but it's theoretically possible!" And then some BBC talking head runs a special on "Are Ocean Waves the future of data??" And says that within ten years you'll be loading GTA from the nearest beach and talking about data access for poorer landlocked countries.

Since we can store data on anything, the next question to ask is "Is it practical? Is it useful? Should I encode it on a giant gold disk with a huge sign, or embed it in the DNA of plants like a puzzle from a 90's adventure game?" So, what data would we encode this way, and what would we need it for? I'm just pointing out that while it's theoretically possible, it's not really useful.

2

lt_dan_zsu t1_j11de3t wrote

The difference here being that DNA, unlike ocean waves, is a naturally occuring molecule that evolved to store information that is encoded and decoded. How then is it a stretch that this molecule could be harnessed to store digital information? Furthermore, you ask what applications it might be useful for, and I already said in my original comment that cold data storage seems like a possible application. I also stated that there could be issues with the technology that either make it impractical now, and may even make it an inviable technology.

​

You said that encoding information in plant DNA is "like a puzzled from a 90's adventure game" which seems to be a continuation on your idea from your original comment. I'm not sure why this needs to be said again, but yes, for an information storage medium to be useful, you need to know how to decode it. Once again, this is true for any storage medium, be it a vinyl record, a magnetic tape, a CD, or a solid state drive.

​

I'm honestly not sure what you're attempting to criticize about anything I've said. It feels like you read the first sentence of my comment and decided that it needed to be attacked because it showed the slightest hint of optimism about an emerging technology. Would it have been more interesting if I had just said "it wont work?"

2

SpielbrecherXS t1_j100toc wrote

As cold storage, maybe. But I can't imagine it being viable for any immediate use, aside from exchanging secret spy messages.

1

GorillaP1mp t1_j1178c4 wrote

Kind of makes you wonder if that isn’t what all the “useless” sequences in our dna are because this has all happened before

1

lt_dan_zsu t1_j11f33t wrote

It's now thought to be mostly remnants of ancient parasites like viruses and transposons.

1

GorillaP1mp t1_j11gm3x wrote

Oh I’m sure it’s something like that. I just like saying “this has happened before” for dramatic effort.

1

z0mb1es t1_j0zc02q wrote

But then your data can ripen and grow into more nutrient dense data

1

thenikolaka t1_j10gdin wrote

Except that it could potentially pass the data onto future generations.

1

gustavocabras t1_j11osfy wrote

I'm just spitballing here. You can grow a tree and give it a pulse of electric current to somehow alter the ever slowly growing rings in the middle of the tree (the rings you count on a cut down tree to tell its age) that will give it nano changes that can be sequenced into 1s and 0s (microscopic) then to get the data out; you could blast the tree with a sonar device to pick up the microscopic 1s and 0s to pull out the data. All machines in this example only exist in my imagination.

1

BlazedAndConfused t1_j12qctm wrote

It’s not the practicality. It’s the application. Storing data in 200lb 3 feet wide HDDs in the early 70s was a bit impractical. Ideas are magic. Some applications aren’t practical, but the ones that are with the right input can change the world

1