Anthropic says Claude has discovered a previously unknown enzyme system in the DNA of viruses that infect bacteria. Earlier studies had recorded the enzyme at its core but appear to have missed what surrounds it.
Anthropic published the findings on September 23. The findings stand as key evidence that AI can now spot patterns human experts overlooked. But what exactly does this discovery mean?
Why Should Anyone Outside a Lab Care?
Many discoveries that changed medicine began with a scientist noticing something odd in nature. Scientists’ use of restriction enzymes, found in bacteria, helped launch the biotechnology industry.
An enzyme from a Yellowstone hot spring became the basis for PCR. That DNA-copying method now sits behind much of modern medical testing.
Claude has now taken that noticing step with only broad direction from Anthropic’s scientists. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei argues this fits a wider pattern. In 2023, AI models struggled with high-school math.
By late 2026, he says, they are beginning to solve some of the hardest open problems in the field. He believes AI for biology is on a similar curve.
If he is right, Amodei says faster discovery could reveal new drug targets and new kinds of treatments. It would not shorten clinical trials, but it could send far more promising candidates into the drug pipeline.
He has previously written that AI could help cure most diseases in 5 to 10 years. He calls that goal just barely possible.
For now, human scientists still run every experiment, and the new system’s function remains unknown.
What Exactly Is CRISPR?
Bacteria face constant attacks from viruses called bacteriophages, or phages. Many bacteria defend themselves with a system called CRISPR.
CRISPR works like a memory bank. Bacteria store short snippets of DNA from past invaders between repeating sequences, and scientists call that stretch an array.
Each snippet is copied into a short piece of RNA. That RNA then guides a protein to find and cut matching viral DNA if the same virus returns.
Scientists noticed CRISPR as an unusual repeat pattern in bacterial DNA. They later learned to swap in RNA guides of their own design, which made the system programmable and turned it into a gene-editing tool now used in medicine.
What Did Claude Find?
The system Claude found is built around a different kind of enzyme called a reverse transcriptase. It copies RNA back into DNA, and bacteria use many such enzymes to fight off viruses, according to Anthropic.
Researchers had already recorded this particular enzyme in a jumbo phage, an unusually large virus that infects bacteria. Earlier studies, however, appear to have overlooked the system’s defining features. Claude seems to be the first to spot them.
One is a partner protein whose job nobody knows yet. The other is a long array of evenly spaced DNA repeats, laid out much like a CRISPR array. CRISPR mostly sits in bacteria, while ART turns up mainly in the phages that infect them.
Anthropic calls the three-part setup array-associated reverse transcriptases, or ART. The Claude agent that spotted it logged its surprise as it read the raw DNA.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
How Did The Claude Agent Find It?
The agent was one of roughly 950 Claude agents working on the same search. Anthropic’s scientists launched it with one prompt, asking Claude to find new reverse transcriptases in a massive DNA database.
Over 21 hours, the agents used 210 million tokens, the small chunks of text that AI models process. They gathered more than 200,000 reverse transcriptases and picked out 3,500 new candidate systems.
The agents then narrowed that list to the 20 most compelling candidates and wrote up reports for human review. According to Anthropic, that kind of analysis can take an expert scientist weeks to months.
“While combing through the raw DNA sequence near the RT, the agent exclaimed: “[The DNA next to the RT] is spectacular: I can see by eye a tandem repeat array … that’s a CRISPR-like … repeat array?!”
The agent behind ART worked much as a human scientist would. It counted the repeats, measured their spacing, compared the layout with known systems, and checked the literature for earlier reports.
Anthropic’s scientists supplied only the prompt and did the lab work themselves. The agents used their own judgment to pick which leads were worth chasing.
That lab work took place at the company’s Bay Area facility, which does not handle pathogens that infect humans.
What Has the Lab Found So Far?
The first experiments at that lab offer an early hint about how ART might work. The team found that ART’s repeat array is turned into a set of distinct short RNAs.
That echoes CRISPR, where each short RNA acts as a guide pointing the system at a target. Anthropic says the result suggests something similar may be happening with ART.
ART’s combination of features is also rare. According to Anthropic, only a handful of other known systems share it.
All of them are programmable and can act on DNA, for example, by cutting, copying, or pasting it. Besides CRISPR, several are now being developed as tools.
However, Anthropic has not shown that ART can do any of this. The company says it does not yet know the system’s main function, and further experiments are underway.
What Does Anthropic’s CEO Make of It?
Amodei, Anthropic’s chief executive, said on X that the company suspects ART could be a new gene editing mechanism. In
“It’s easy to dismiss this as a one-off or curiosity, but we’ve repeatedly seen a pattern where AI performance in new intellectual domains goes from weak to superhuman in a matter of a few years,” he said.
Amodei noted that a Stanford team recently found a reverse transcriptase system with a non-coding array. According to him, it is in some ways similar to ART, but the two evolved independently.
Is This the Next CRISPR?
Feng Zhang, a CRISPR pioneer at MIT and the Broad Institute, reviewed the preprint, an early paper not peer-reviewed. He called the RNA-repeat arrays intriguing and worth further investigation.
Kevin Blake, a microbiologist at Washington University School of Medicine, was more skeptical. He told Al Jazeera that CRISPR in nature is very different from CRISPR, the technology.
He also noted that countless CRISPR-like sequences remain uncatalogued, because millions of bacterial species have yet to be studied.
“There’s nothing to indicate this is a rival to CRISPR-the-technology, or could be developed into any kind of therapeutic or practical application,” he commented.
Anthropic says further experiments are underway to work out how ART functions. The results should show whether its repeats point to a new programmable tool or a quirk of phage biology.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
Source: BeInCrypto
