Two New Papers: Anthrobots and Embryo Communication
- Two papers published: One on “Anthrobots” (human-cell-based biobots) and one on “Cross-Embryo Morphogenetic Assistance” (CEMA) where embryos help each other develop.
- Common theme: Understanding biological information sources and collective decision-making in biology, beyond just the genome.
Anthrobots (Gizem’s Paper)
- Anthrobots are self-motile constructs made of *adult* human tracheal cells (not genetically modified – “wild type”).
- Represent a shift: Viewing nature as a *design medium* (synthetic biology). Biology offers self-construction, healing, carbon negativity.
- Challenge to traditional synthetic morphogenesis: Usually focuses on genetic editing, but anthrobots show epigenetic factors are also key. No genetic modification is used.
- Process: Human airway epithelial progenitor cells form spheroids. Cilia (hair-like structures) normally face inward. The key was flipping them *outward* for motility. Achieved by removing matrix and using retinoic acid.
- Key properties: Fully cellular (no wiring or mechanics), self-constructing from single cells, programmable anatomies (“biobots”).
- They can perform useful work, namely, inducing repair in damaged human neuronal tissue *in vitro*.
- Anthrobots demonstrate the plasticity of adult human cells, not just embryonic cells (like Xenobots, made of frog cells).
- Distinct “morphotypes” (shapes) and behaviors emerge, despite identical DNA, showing epigenetic influence. A relationship exists between shape/structure and resulting movements/motility.
- Medical potential: Personalized medicine; using patient’s own cells, potentially avoiding immune rejection. Could target inaccessible tissues, deliver drugs, clear plaques, etc. *Future* research needed for in vivo testing.
- Lifespan of weeks to months in cell-culture medium, ending with biodegradation.
Cross-Embryo Morphogenetic Assistance (CEMA) (Angela’s Paper)
- Embryos (Xenopus laevis, frog) in groups are *more resistant* to teratogens (development-disrupting substances) than single embryos.
- Addresses a knowledge gap: Lateral interactions between *whole organisms* influence development, not just cell/tissue/DNA level interactions.
- Significance: If the communication mechanisms, also named as “instructive cues” by the researches can be understood/harnessed to give instruction to cells on repair or growth, leading to huge potential future application in medicien
- Contradicts “genome-centric” view: Genome alone doesn’t determine everything; the *social environment* of embryos matters.
- Crazy because everything held constant except number of embryos but result show large difference/discrepency.
- “Wisdom of the crowds” effect *but*: Mixing teratogen-exposed and unexposed embryos doesn’t help. *All* embryos must experience the challenge for the protective effect.
- Robustness increases with group size: Survival *increases*, defect frequency *decreases*. Single embryos almost never survive.
- Important implications for toxicology studies: Many studies may *underreport* teratogen effects due to group correction.
- Current research: The ‘wave of information” between emryos is hypothesized to be by: an injury on a single cell within the collection of embryos which induces a calcium response to itself; calcium then induces an ATP to release into the media. nearby cells absorb this and themselves emit a calcium response.
- Mechanism: Communication is likely via calcium and ATP signaling. Blocking these *reduces* survival, mimicking singleton embryos.
- Inter-embryonic communication (signaling molecules) vs. inter-embryonic interaction (embryos growing together, allowing communication).
- Not limited to genetic homogeneity: Different frog lineages (wild-type and albino) show similar effects.
- Wildtype refers to natural or typical genetic information as they exist in the natural world with no modiciations from labs or scientists.
- Transcriptional changes (changes in RNA levels) are observed, indicating different coping mechanisms in large vs. small groups.
Broader Implications and Future Directions
- Biobot applications go beyond medicine (as described above) may also find applicatin for construction/architecture; biology can be scaled up.
- Medical potential to be faked, emulating signal inducing development and applying it “at-will” and by force, in patience that may have needs which relate.
- Basic research: Studying “basal cognition” and “diverse intelligence” in anthrobots (memory, learning, preferences).
- Understanding the “cognitive glue” that scales up individual intelligences (cells) to larger collective intelligences.
- Bioelectricty may hold importance.