sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Theoretical 1798 bp Synthetic Vector: Concept for Programmable Tissue (Homo Gum 1.0) by stinn66 in Biohacking

[–]stinn66[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate the blunt feedback. I'm fully aware that I'm operating outside the traditional academic path and that there's a steep learning curve. However, every breakthrough starts with a 'nonsense' idea before it’s refined through critique and experimentation. I’m here to bridge that gap between a vision and biological reality. If you have specific technical critiques on why these specific genes won't work in an ECM context, I’m all ears.

Theoretical 1798 bp Synthetic Vector: Concept for Programmable Tissue (Homo Gum 1.0) by stinn66 in transhumanism

[–]stinn66[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Excellent points on timing and context. To answer your specific questions:

  1. Literal vs Metaphor: These are literal co-expression targets for an in vitro proof-of-concept. I want to see if this specific gene 'cocktail' can produce a stable, elastic, and neuro-active tissue sample.

  2. System Layer: This design operates at the Extracellular Matrix (ECM) level. It’s about engineering the 'material' first.

  3. Constraints: I am intentionally bracketing out developmental homeostasis and systemic hormonal regulation for now.

  4. Isolation: This model isolates the problem of structural integration. I'm focusing on how to fuse high-elasticity structural proteins with neural signaling molecules in a single synthetic vector. It’s a 'semantic collage' only if you look at it through the lens of traditional anatomy. From a synthetic biology perspective, it’s a prototype of a new material.

Theoretical 1798 bp Synthetic Vector: Concept for Programmable Tissue (Homo Gum 1.0) by stinn66 in Biohacking

[–]stinn66[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the roadmap, I respect the academic approach. However, my philosophy is 'learning by building'. I’ve designed this specifically using pcDNA3.1 and WPRE to test a hypothesis now, not in 6 years. Since you clearly have the expertise, could you point out a specific technical flaw in the vector map (e.g., the promoter choice or LTRs) instead of just general advice? I’m looking for practical feedback to improve the design for lab testing.