Göpfrich’s research focuses on the construction of an artificial cell with its own molecular hardware, in order to produce a functional cellular model system: “We don’t proceed like an archaeologist, who tries to piece together the existing parts of a jigsaw puzzle – we’re looking for tools and materials that we can use to focus on the functional aspect, to recreate something de novo that has the same function as life as we know it.”

Microfluidics serves here as a tool for creating minute channels on chips, with about the thickness of a human hair. Cell envelopes can be sent through these small channels in a solution, Göpfrich continued, and components can be introduced into these artificial cell compartments to emulate a kind of cell cycle. 3D printing is used as a further tool to solve the “ship in a bottle” problem encountered in synthetic biology: “Once we have a cellular envelope – the so-called lipid vesicle – it is then very difficult to position components within it spatially and temporally. But light can in fact penetrate the envelope of the compartment into its interior,” said Göpfrich, explaining her approach of printing within artificial cellular vesicles using laser light. This is not just about structure, but also function. For example, small channels can be printed that enable the exchange of information and substances between vesicles and their environment.

With regard to the materials used to construct an artificial cell, Göpfrich pointed to proteins, which enable the machinery and dynamics of a natural cell, but have a major problem: “Unfortunately, proteins cannot reproduce. If you were to construct an artificial cell based on proteins, it wouldn’t be able to self-replicate. But life means reproduction.” Nature solves this problem by means of information transfer, which starts out with DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) as a store of genetic information, translates this into RNA (ribonucleic acid) and in turn translates the RNA into proteins. “We call this the ‘central dogma of molecular biology.’ No form of life on our planet known to us can duplicate proteins: They need this flow – from information to function,” Göpfrich emphasized.

Another way of constructing life from scratch would be to search for simpler molecules with the inherent ability to copy themselves: “Yes, these exist: DNA and RNA.” The scientific field that uses these molecules as building materials is DNA/RNA nanotechnology. Göpfrich made it clear, however, that “this is not about genetics: We don’t really care about the genetic information contained in this DNA; it’s all about the art of building in the nanoworld.” To assemble complex structures such as an artificial cytoskeleton from DNA, we use a technique known as DNA origami, in which DNA molecules can be folded in any desired way to create various shapes.

The use of these technologies and the division of DNA-filled vesicles have now been mastered, Göpfrich continued. “But what is still needed for life is the coupling of cell division and information: This is what would make evolution possible. We need to genetically encode our DNA structures – the functional hardware.” RNA origami is also used here in addition to DNA origami. These structures can be encoded in DNA, and the functions can then be carried out with RNA origami. If we can succeed in encoding the division of vesicles in DNA, it will be possible to harness evolutionary processes in order to improve the artificial cells. “And that brings us closer to our goal,” which Göpfrich described in conclusion as “the bottom-up construction of a living model system with the ability to self-replicate and evolve using our own molecular machinery, which we would emulate with DNA and RNA origami.”

But what is the point of constructing a cell? The focus here is on exploiting the phenomenal medical opportunities offered. However, it is important to discuss the risks this entails together with ethicists, philosophers, and the public at large in order to come up with regulations, such as those for genetically modified organisms, that would protect us against the uncontrolled spread of these artificial cells. “Actually, our artificial cells – which don’t even exist yet – are so fragile that they would probably lose out in a competition with natural cells – which can be much faster, as they are based on proteins,” Göpfrich assumed. Finally, she ventured a look into the future: “I wouldn’t be doing this kind of research if I didn’t believe that – at least during the course of my career, which is yet to begin – science will succeed in producing life or an artificial cell.”