Partially synthetic cell created

Although the ultimate goal of creating artificial life is still far off the achievement described online in the journal Science is a landmark in the effort to control living organisms by manipulating their genes.

“We think these are the first synthetic cells that are self-replicating and whose genetic heritage started in the computer. That changes conceptually how I think about life,’’ said J. Craig Venter, the leader of the project whose self-named research institute has laboratories and offices in Rockville, Md., and San Diego.

Venter and his 24-member team used off-the-shelf chemicals and the known DNA sequence of Mycoplasma mycoides’s genes to manufacture a copy of the bacterium’s genome. They then transplanted the genome into a different (but closely related) bacterial species. The donor genome reprogrammed the recipient cell, which then replicated and divided. The result was new colonies of Mycoplasma mycoides, which Venter terms “synthetic cells.’’

Other scientists, however, characterize the experiment in less revolutionary terms. They note that only the genome was synthetic. The recipient cell was equipped by nature and billions of years of evolution to make sense of the genes and turn them on. Still, they praised the scientists at J. Craig Venter Institute for showing such a transplant was feasible.

“From a technical standpoint, this is clearly a very important advance,’’ said Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“It is a milestone in ‘synthetic biology,’ ’’ said Gregory Stephanopoulos, a professor of chemical and engineering and biotechnology at MIT. “Over the long term it will have an impact, although over the short term, not so much.’’

Steady progress in direct gene manipulation has led scientists and government officials in recent years to worry about man-made microbes that could be used as biological weapons. Initial consensus, however, is that Venter’s project poses no risks that do not already exist with the recombinant DNA technology thousands of scientists use.

“It does not represent an additional threat for biological weapons,’’ said Paul Keim, a molecular biologist at Northern Arizona University who chairs the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity. The 17-member group of academic scientists and federal officials advises the government on “dual use’’ technologies — scientific procedures that can be used for both good and harmful purposes.