Scientists may have figured out how life began

[pood]

Very simple chemistry

RNA molecules and amino acids combine to form pre-cell proteins.

Science paper here, in Nature.

 

[pood]

Another article on the subject.

 

[hyzer]

James Tour, are you listening?

 

[pood]

James Tour, are you listening?

Indeed.

Surprised this thread hasn’t gotten traction

 

[bilby]

Well, it's not really very significant, outside the tiny group of scientists who are trying to figure out the fine details.

We already know the broad framework of how life arose. This is an interesting detail, for those who care about the details; But it doesn't change much.

Those who understand that life must have arisen through various chemical reactions in the pre-biotic Earth still understand that, but now in a touch more detail.

Those who deny that life arose naturally from chemistry are still going to deny it, no matter how detailed our understanding becomes.

This news is "Dog Bites Man" - knowing the colour of the dog in question isn't making it more newsworthy.

 

[lpetrich]

That research was done with RNA and amino acids, and while the smaller AA's can be made with prebiotic chemistry without much trouble, RNA's can't. Of the three parts, phosphate ions are obviously prebiotic, and one can make some nucleobases prebiotically, but ribose is difficult to make prebiotically. One has to use the Butlerov formose reaction, and that requires formaldehyde and rather pure formaldehyde at that.

For this reason, I've seen speculation that RNA was not the first replicator, though what preceded it is very unsettled.

 

[lostone]

That research was done with RNA and amino acids, and while the smaller AA's can be made with prebiotic chemistry without much trouble, RNA's can't. Of the three parts, phosphate ions are obviously prebiotic, and one can make some nucleobases prebiotically, but ribose is difficult to make prebiotically. One has to use the Butlerov formose reaction, and that requires formaldehyde and rather pure formaldehyde at that.

For this reason, I've seen speculation that RNA was not the first replicator, though what preceded it is very unsettled.

That's very interesting speculation. PNA or TNA? No expert on the subject, and barely literate on it, I found this:

The RNA World and the Origins of Life - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Swammerdami]

That research was done with RNA and amino acids, and while the smaller AA's can be made with prebiotic chemistry without much trouble, RNA's can't. Of the three parts, phosphate ions are obviously prebiotic, and one can make some nucleobases prebiotically, but ribose is difficult to make prebiotically. One has to use the Butlerov formose reaction, and that requires formaldehyde and rather pure formaldehyde at that.

For this reason, I've seen speculation that RNA was not the first replicator, though what preceded it is very unsettled.

Unsettled, but probably a chain of nucleotides and similar to RNA (perhaps without a phosphate backbone). Even if the RNA-world development is essentially correct, I think peptide chains were around as catalysts; the genetic code may have begun its evolution even before the primitive nucleotide chain was replaced with RNA.

Biochemists have even deduced the details of where and how proto-life evolved: In the micropores of underwater vents with the gradient between alkaline vent water (sourced from serpentinized mantle) and acidic sea water providing a powerful source of free energy. Nick Lane has suggested that if life evolved on other planets, it probably had a similar venue!

And the "magic" doesn't stop there. Splicosomes edit mRNA to remove introns and correct other flaws. Perhaps most amazing of all, some extremely complex multicellular systems synthesize novel tRNA's, e.g. Arginine-UGA, and may inject them into target cells to avoid certain common genetic errors.