|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nasa news conference (re: Arsenic-based life form?) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
...but as PZ Meyers said, its just an extremophile that can be coaxed into using arsenic in place of phosphorus. Big whoop. I profoundly disagree with PZ Myers on this. I think he is massively underplaying how big a bit of biological news this is. That a bacterium has successfully evolved a means to substitute one of the absolutely fundamental building blocks of every key cellular mechanism and structure is most certainly a "big whoop". The only thing that is a bit disappointing about the announcement is its billing as having major significance for astrobiology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Disclaimer: not read the paper yet hopefully have time tomorrow.
As I understand it: they found arsenate in place of phosphate everywhere. Although they were looking at it by fractionation rather than isolating the particular molecules involved which makes the result less certain than it could be.
That's pretty cool, but is there evidence of arseneylation of proteins, for instance? If it's correct that the phosphate groups in ATP are being replaced by arsenate, at the researchers claim, then this would mean that proteins are being arseneylated.
I'm not trying to be all up on PZ's dick about this (hometown shout-out, yo!) but I think he's mostly right - this is probably going to merit little more than a sidebar in most biochemistry texts. It's cool, but not really a game-changer. Yeah, it'll be a sidebar at most because, in the end, it's an extremophile living in a pond; it's just not that relevant to life as a whole.
Most people studying biology or biochemistry already kind of assume that the only inviolable rule is that there are no inviolable rules. I'm astonished by this. And I would put good money that if you'd asked the world's molecular biologists last Tuesday whether this is something we'd find they'd have lumped down pretty heavily on the "not on this Earth" side of the fence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
We're not talking about merely tolerating or incorporating arsenic, we're talking about using it in place of one of the most fundamental building blocks of life and using it in key roles in absolutely central molecules.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Yeah, I still think PZ Myers is hugely underplaying this.
It's true, Arsenic is only just below Phosphorous in the periodic table, but then it's also true that Phosphorous is just below Nitrogen and Silicon is just below Carbon - neither can be substituted by the element below. Arsenic and Phosphorous are similar, but this doesn't mean their differences are unimportant. Arsenic-containing analogues of biological phosphorous-containing compounds are radically less stable, which has two consequences: firstly, molecules that should be stable (such as the DNA) will simply hydrolyse and, secondly, whereas the energy release involved in the detachment of phosphate groups is retained, the spontaneous detachment of arsenate would not allow this energy to be retained for useful work. Since this management of energy is the central plank of metabolism this is a massive issue and even if the stability issues of the arsenate can be controlled, the release of arsenate from ATA to form ADA is going to release a slightly different amount of energy to that released by the conversion of ATP to ADP. As well as the stability problem there's also the issue of molecular size; now, Arsenic and Phosphate are similar in size to each other, but they are not identical. A DNA strand made with arsenate, rather than phosphate, linkage will have a slightly different length, with each base pair a slightly different distance apart which means the helix will be a different shape which means that the normal highly sensitive DNA-binding enzymes won't quite match up. If this bacteria is really substituting arsenic for phosphate, the biochemical implications are huge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
The press is claiming that the experiment showed that arsenates were incorporated into the phosphate backbone of the DNA strands, but that's not what the paper stated. The paper does say that their data suggests that arsenate is being incorporated into the DNA backbone. The couch it in cautious terms but they do say it:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
But they're couching it because they didn't actually show it. Their experiments are highly suggestive, but they didn't actually look at the DNA strands directly. Instead, they examined the amount of phosphates compared to arsenates, saw that the phosphates went down while the arsenates went up, and made a very logical conclusion. Sure. But you seemed to be saying this was something the press was saying rather than something the researchers were saying. The researchers are saying its in the DNA backbone, they just don't have very strong evidence of this.
A lot more work needs to be done and it is very promising. But again, the press has this amazing habit of reporting things above and beyond what was actually said when it comes to science. If you're simply saying that the press is reporting it as more certain than it deserves - then, yes, I agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Much more gory detail at the source, but it sure seems to me that the bacteria were not "thriving" but rather were struggling to survive. If they had been surviving and reproducing using arsenate in key biological molecules that would still be a finding of staggering biological importance. And as the paper itself says (emphasis mine):
quote: That said, having spent some time looking at the paper and reading what other, more qualified to comment, folks have said about the actual science in the paper it seems to me that it profoundly fails the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" test. There doesn't seem to have been the testing required to rule out the notion that this bacterium is merely using mechanisms to survive high arsenic and low phosphorous conditions rather than actually substituting arsenic for phosphorous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
this would seem to be pretty much a slam-dunk on the idea that the bacteria is actually using arsenate in its DNA backbone.
The skinny: an arsenate backbone should be unstable in water. The researchers theorise that the bacteria uses some unknown means to stabilise it. However, the extraction process they used effectively suspends the DNA in water if it truly had a Arsenate backbone then this should have resulted in it breaking up but their results show it didn't. Disappointing. Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
If you want my idle speculation, I think this is a case of confirmation bias writ large. I've just been reading an earlier paper from Felisa Wolfe-Simon (et al), published last year* - it's basically a paper arguing for the plausibility and existence of life doing pretty much exactly what her group claim to have found. I suspect that because she was already strongly of the position it was possible and would be found, they looked and saw what they wanted to see.
* - F. Wolfe-Simon, P.C.W. Davies and A.D. Anbar (2009). Did nature also choose Arsenic? International Journal of Astrobiology. 8: 69-74.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Also, if you listen to what Wolfe-Simon actually said at the press conference she does flat out say that the bacterium is substituting Arsenic for Phosphorous even if the paper is more appropriately circumspect.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024