Quoted By:
fragility of rna is also a factor i imagine ( it would mutate and break the gene expression), and the lenth of the viral rna/dna wouldnt be long enough for too many genes.
Wonder if it could be done at a molecular nanotech level not using DNA but DNA binding nanostructures, xeno nucleic acids i guess, ie DNA like molecules that trick ribosomes into protein encoding specific ways, there are lot of nasty chemicals that can bind to dna base molecules, granted all the ones i know about cause cancer as they fuck with dna encoding.
>XNAs have shown complementarity with DNA and RNA nucleotides, suggesting potential for its transcription and recombination.
And we technically know of about half a dozen xeno nucleic binders that can replace ATGC, so thats non classified information in the public domain, id imagine bioweapons research using non dna/rna genetic encoding would be highly classified, but theoretically possible.
>experiments in the model bacterium E. coli have demonstrated the ability for XNA to serve as a biological template for DNA in vivo
they can theoretically code genetic information to encode for genes without even using dna/rna.
And they've done it, not just theoretically but admitted experimentally with ecoli, and thats non classified information.
So if they are perhaps 25 years ahead of this in the classified domain, they might very well already have non dna/rna bioweapons that could hijack your cellular mechanisms for god knows what kind of gene expression.
