Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab (Read 4976 times)
easel
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3120
Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Jan 13th, 2009 at 2:54pm
 
Quote:
Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab

Robert Roy Britt
Editorial Director

livescience.com – Sun Jan 11, 9:55 pm ET

One of life's greatest mysteries is how it began. Scientists have pinned it down to roughly this:

Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago - perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets - to create biology.

Now scientists have created something in the lab that is tantalizingly close to what might have happened. It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.

The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction.

Know your RNA

To understand the remarkable breakthrough, detailed Jan. 8 in the early online edition of the journal Science, you have to know a little about molecules called RNA and DNA.

DNA is the software of life, the molecules that pack all the genetic information of a cell. DNA and the genes within it are where mutations occur, enabling changes that create new species.

RNA is the close cousin to DNA. More accurately, RNA is thought to be a primitive ancestor of DNA. RNA can't run a life form on its own, but 4 billion years ago it might have been on the verge of creating life, just needing some chemical fix to make the leap. In today's world, RNA is dependent on DNA for performing its roles, which include coding for proteins.

If RNA is in fact the ancestor to DNA, then scientists have figured they could get RNA to replicate itself in a lab without the help of any proteins or other cellular machinery. Easy to say, hard to do.

But that's exactly what the Scripps researchers did. Then things went surprisingly further.

'Immortalized'

Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely. "Immortalized" RNA, they call it, at least within the limited conditions of a laboratory.

More significantly, the scientists then mixed different RNA enzymes that had replicated, along with some of the raw material they were working with, and let them compete in what's sure to be the next big hit: "Survivor: Test Tube."

Remarkably, they bred.

And now and then, one of these survivors would screw up, binding with some other bit of raw material it hadn't been using. Hmm. That's exactly what life forms do ...

When these mutations occurred, "the resulting recombinant enzymes also were capable of sustained replication, with the most fit replicators growing in number to dominate the mixture," the scientists report.

The "creatures" - wait, we can't call them that! - evolved, with some "species" winning out.

"It kind of blew me away," said team member Tracey Lincoln of the Scripps Research Institute, who is working on her Ph.D. "What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting."

Indeed.

Knocking on life's door

Lincoln's advisor, professor Gerald Joyce, reiterated that while the self-replicating RNA enzyme systems share certain characteristics of life, they are not life as we know it.

"What we've found could be relevant to how life begins, at that key moment when Darwinian evolution starts," Joyce said in a statement.

Joyce's restraint, clear also on an NPR report of the finding, has to be appreciated. He allows that some scientists familiar with the work have argued that this is life. Another scientist said that what the researchers did is equivalent to recreating a scenario that might have led to the origin of life.

Joyce insists he and Lincoln have not created life: "We're knocking on that door," he says, "but of course we haven't achieved that."

Only when a system is developed in the lab that has the capability of evolving novel functions on its own can it be properly called life, Joyce said. In short, the molecules in Joyce's lab can't evolve any totally new tricks, he said.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090112/sc_livescience/lifeasweknowitnearly...
Back to top
 

I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO.
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Reply #1 - Jan 13th, 2009 at 3:32pm
 
Impressive, but the explanation is incomplete. There is some conjecture that nanobes may reproduce using RNA. They are too small for DNA replication.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 40742
Gender: male
Re: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Reply #2 - Jan 13th, 2009 at 3:47pm
 
yes, good going for sure.
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6048
Re: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Reply #3 - Jan 13th, 2009 at 3:52pm
 
It is wrong to call "DNA the software of life". In analogy with computers it is more like a hardware with  embedded code similar to BIOS chip.
Back to top
 

ישראל חיה ערבים לערבים
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Reply #4 - Jan 14th, 2009 at 9:18am
 
There was a paper published a few years ago that demonstrated self replication of peptides - these are just fragments of proteins. I'll see if I can dig it up. Here we are:

Commeyras A, Taillades J, Collet H, et al.
Dynamic co-evolution of peptides and chemical energetics, a gateway to the emergence of homochirality and the catalytic activity of peptides
ORIGINS LIFE EVOL B 34 (1-2): 35-55 FEB 2004

ALSO:

Lee DH; Granja JR; Martinez JA; Severin K; Ghadiri MR

Department of Chemistry, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California 92037, USA.

Nature 382: 525-8 (1996)

Abstract
The production of amino acids and their condensation to polypeptides under plausibly prebiotic conditions have long been known. But despite the central importance of molecular self-replication in the origin of life, the feasibility of peptide self-replication has not been established experimentally. Here we report an example of a self-replicating peptide. We show that a 32-residue alpha-helical peptide based on the leucine-zipper domain of the yeast transcription factor GCN4 can act autocatalytically in templating its own synthesis by accelerating the thioester-promoted amide-bond condensation of 15- and 17-residue fragments in neutral, dilute aqueous solutions. The self-replication process displays parabolic growth pattern with the initial rates of product formation correlating with the square-foot of initial template concentration.


The latter paper describing the peptide self synthesis was quite ikonoclastic back in the 90's. The peptide is a relatively simple 32 residue fragment, which means a sequence of 32 amino acids join to form a helix shape in this case.

This particular 32-unit chain is an alpha-helix, where hydrogen bonds between different amino acid residues cause the chain to helicize. Under experimental conditions, they were using peptides of 15 and 17 units length in a neutral aqueous solution.

As far as the 32 base peptide self replication, I think you'll agree that it's a long way from self replication from an organic soup. We have a system of catalysis where the two halfs of a peptide can be joined. Although it's a very useful step in understanding the development of the first life, we still have a 3000 piece jigsaw puzzle with perhaps 3 or 4 pieces in place.

A number of researchers are currently investigating the protein origin (enzyme precursors) rather than nucleic acid origin theories, which require a ribose based precursor to RNA.

I'm a bit out of touch with this research nowadays, so there have probably been many other developments since then.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6048
Re: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Reply #5 - Jan 14th, 2009 at 10:28am
 
It would be interesting to know the definition of life that is used as target for lab life creation experiments.
Back to top
 

ישראל חיה ערבים לערבים
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49003
At my desk.
Re: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Reply #6 - Jan 14th, 2009 at 11:30am
 
There is no special definition for labs. There is a general one for biology, but it is hardly universal. I think there is disagreement over whether viruses are alive. The definitions usually consists of a number of criteria that have to be met, like self replication, energy consumption etc.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6048
Re: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Reply #7 - Jan 14th, 2009 at 11:39am
 
freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2009 at 11:30am:
There is no special definition for labs. There is a general one for biology, but it is hardly universal. I think there is disagreement over whether viruses are alive. The definitions usually consists of a number of criteria that have to be met, like self replication, energy consumption etc.


I believe they really need universally accepted (by scientists) definition to test against to make the claim of a lab life form creation.
Back to top
 

ישראל חיה ערבים לערבים
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49003
At my desk.
Re: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Reply #8 - Jan 14th, 2009 at 11:48am
 
Isn't that really just semantics? It is experiments like these that make people question what life really is. It's the knowledge we gain that matters, not some arbitrary goal post.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Reply #9 - Jan 14th, 2009 at 11:49am
 
IMHO Viruses are not alive. They are basically just strands of genetic information. They are not capable of self replication. They replicate only as a result of infecting a suitable host cell.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49003
At my desk.
Re: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Reply #10 - Jan 14th, 2009 at 11:55am
 
I don't think being parasitic rules out being alive. However I think the argument is that viruses themselves do not consume energy. They rely on the energy mechanisms of the host. However that is just an argument of proximity. All parasites rely on the energy obtained by the host in some way. They just step in at different places along the chain.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6048
Re: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Reply #11 - Jan 14th, 2009 at 12:04pm
 
Semantics are necessary to avoid mutual misunderstanding when multiple claims are made as scientific explorers are only humans especially when patents are concerned. But of course it does not belittle the value of the knowledge gained.

Muso, I don't know about biological viruses. How do they replicate?
Back to top
 

ישראל חיה ערבים לערבים
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49003
At my desk.
Re: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Reply #12 - Jan 14th, 2009 at 12:13pm
 
It will not cause misunderstanding between the scientists because they will go by the detailed description of what really happened, not by broad claims and the definition of life. Misunderstanding by the general public is inevitable. The reality is not likely to be black and white, alive vs inanimate. A definition will not solve that problem, only cover up the complexity of reality. Getting the public in on the debate over whether they have created life is a good thing. Spoonfeeding the public broad generalisations is a bad thing. Telling them there are simple answers when there aren't is a bad thing. If the general public understood it all, it wouldn't be cutting edge research.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Reply #13 - Jan 14th, 2009 at 1:46pm
 
tallowood wrote on Jan 14th, 2009 at 12:04pm:
Muso, I don't know about biological viruses. How do they replicate?


Rather than explain it myself, here's a reference:

http://virology-online.com/general/Replication.htm

There is a bit more to it than just being parasitic. Parasites normally have an independent reproductive system, such as spores in the case of some bacteria. Viruses don't have any reproductive or metabolic structures. They don't even have cells or mitochondria.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 14th, 2009 at 1:52pm by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49003
At my desk.
Re: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
Reply #14 - Jan 14th, 2009 at 1:54pm
 
Are cells, mitochondria, or penises a pre-requisite for life?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print