NASA finds new life

[InaVegt]

While this is a leaked source, and might not be accurate, it sounds reasonable enough to be true.

http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life

[Emperor Ing]

So their ability to kill humans is written in their DNA? Awesome. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

Interesting. It does raise some questions about when it spun off-

is it a truly separate evolution of life from "first building blocks",

or an organism that has the same roots as the rest of life, but went a very different way when DNA and RNA were just getting started?

[HalfTangible]

Interesting. It does raise some questions about when it spun off-

is it a truly separate evolution of life from "first building blocks",

or an organism that has the same roots as the rest of life, but went a very different way when DNA and RNA were just getting started?

I'll admit i'm no expert on DNA but i'm pretty sure that once you start with certain building blocks, you don't change those blocks, only how they're arranged =/

[Haruki-kun]

The implications of this discovery are enormous to our understanding of life itself and the possibility of finding beings in other planets that don't have to be like planet Earth.

Heh... well, that puts a hole in a lot of theories, I suppose. Awesome. Can't wait for the actual conference.

[Telonius]

Wikipedia on Mono Lake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_Lake) (where this is supposed to have been found):


Mono Lake is believed to have formed at least 760,000 years ago, dating back to the Long Valley eruption. Sediments located below the ash layer hint that Mono Lake could be a remnant of a larger and older lake that once covered a large part of Nevada and Utah, which would put it among the oldest lakes in North America. At its height during the last ice age, the lake may have been 900 feet (270 m) deep;

Since the combination of water plus super-high arsenic concentration probably wouldn't have existed before the lake did, we're looking at either 760,000 years ago or "older."

[Orzel]

So hot alien space women might have poisonous DNA?

BOOOO!!!

[RanWilde]

{scrubbed}

[pffh]

Although interesting I'm still going to wait until we have an official confirmation before I get excited.

But if it turns out to be true wooo go strange creatures! I wonder if there is a possibility of life on Titan that uses metan like we use water.

[Tirian]

Interesting. It does raise some questions about when it spun off-

is it a truly separate evolution of life from "first building blocks",

or an organism that has the same roots as the rest of life, but went a very different way when DNA and RNA were just getting started?

It's not even necessarily a very different way. Mutations happen during DNA-based reproduction, and it is theoretically possible that one day Susan Bacteria got some arsenic stuck where her phosphorus belonged (and there's no lack of arsenic in Mono Lake) and it just turned out to be a useful mutation that she passed on to the next generation (or at least not harmful). That's amazing, but the development of multicellular life on Earth obviously is already known to have contained quite a few amazing days like this.

[Emperor Ing]

I can't find the link right now but I do believe that there are bacteria on Earth that thrive on H2S instead of H2O in their biological structures. Just a fun fact there.

[The Rose Dragon]

Honestly, maybe I'm just missing something, but I don't see this as particularly useful at the moment. Fascinating, yes, and perhaps useful to biochemists, but until I hear about how this affects the metabolism of the bacterium beyond a few reactions, I'm not gonna jump up and down with joy.

Basically, what I want to hear is: does it affect general DNA duplication? Details of the central dogma? Does it affect their proteins? What about phospholipids and other phosphorus compounds?

Tl; dr: interesting, but needs a fuller article to pass judgment.

[Castaras]

Arsenic instead of Phosphorous? Seems reasonable enough, they're both in the same column of the periodic table, so reactions are going to be similiar.

Very interesting, if this actually is true. If it's not... then eh. Won't get my hopes up until someone like BBC covers it.

[Maxios]

This one is completely different. Discovered in the poisonous Mono Lake, California, this bacteria is made of arsenic, something that was thought to be completely impossible [referring to the DNA structure]

We know this bacteria may be poison resistant if it can be in that lake for who know's how long.

[AstralFire]

We know this bacteria may be poison resistant if it can be in that lake for who know's how long.

"Poison" is a very, very broad category.

[ForzaFiori]

Honestly, maybe I'm just missing something, but I don't see this as particularly useful at the moment. Fascinating, yes, and perhaps useful to biochemists, but until I hear about how this affects the metabolism of the bacterium beyond a few reactions, I'm not gonna jump up and down with joy.

Basically, what I want to hear is: does it affect general DNA duplication? Details of the central dogma? Does it affect their proteins? What about phospholipids and other phosphorus compounds?

Tl; dr: interesting, but needs a fuller article to pass judgment.

Mainly this is just showing us that what we thought was "necessary" for life may not be. Before, we thought that phosphorus was a must have to have DNA. Now, it turns out that you can use arsenic instead. Maybe you can use other elements in that family, or even ones outside the family. Suddenly, life on a planet with a different elemental make up doesn't seem as impossible

[Eldan]

Since the combination of water plus super-high arsenic concentration probably wouldn't have existed before the lake did, we're looking at either 760,000 years ago or "older."

That sounds much, much too young for such a radical change.

In any case, that's incredibly fascinating. I'll have to see what I can dig up on this.

[HalfTangible]

We know this bacteria may be poison resistant if it can be in that lake for who know's how long.

That is somewhat like saying humans are poison resistant because we can eat chocolate, which is poisonous to dogs.

[InaVegt]

Update: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html

[averagejoe]

Although interesting I'm still going to wait until we have an official confirmation before I get excited.

I agree. But that is still so cool.

[Flickerdart]

First, arsenic microbes, then, arsenic golems! Tremble in fear!

[TSGames]

CNN has had Bill Nye on. It's too bad that the guy that did the interview was unable to articulate intelligent questions...Bill Nye is awesome.

[Maxios]

That is somewhat like saying humans are poison resistant because we can eat chocolate, which is poisonous to dogs.

Perhaps they're simply resistant to whatever is in that lake. Anything else is still harmful to the bacteria.

[TheThan]

Mono lake is isn’t too far from my house actually. Anyway this is interesting but I don’t see how its life changing to most people, save for scientists in certain fields.

[Asta Kask]

They might also be partly resistant to anything that interferes with replication of DNA, I suppose.

[Worira]

Perhaps they're simply resistant to whatever is in that lake. Anything else is still harmful to the bacteria.

Well... Yes. Arsenic isn't toxic to them. What with their DNA(I know, not actually DNA) being made from it.

[Tirian]

Suddenly, life on a planet with a different elemental make up doesn't seem as impossible

That's apparently the main point, that when you're looking at a faraway planet to see if it is capable of sustaining DNA-based life, realizing that it doesn't contain phosphorus in measurable quantities is not a deal-killer. Of course, for all we know life on other worlds doesn't even consist of strands of deoxyribonucleaic acid in any recognizable sense, so this should just broaden our appreciation of how little we understand about the requirements for life even on our world.

[Joran]

This is the best article I found on the bacteria:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/12/02/mono-lake-bacteria-build-their-dna-using-arsenic-and-no-this-isnt-about-aliens/

I don't see the big deal. It's a novel adaptation sure, but the bacteria still uses DNA and just substitutes arsenic for phosphorus. Despite some news reports, it's not new life, nor is it a second genesis. It''s just regular old bacteria which managed to evolve to use an element we thought was poisonous.

I think the tubeworms on the hydrothermal vents were a more interesting discovery.

P.S. Although, it makes silicon-based life a little less far-fetched, I guess.

[Asta Kask]

Well... Yes. Arsenic isn't toxic to them. What with their DNA(I know, not actually DNA) being made from it.

DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, and that would still be accurate I suppose.



I don't see the big deal. It's a novel adaptation sure, but the bacteria still uses DNA and just substitutes arsenic for phosphorus. Despite some news reports, it's not new life, nor is it a second genesis. It''s just regular old bacteria which managed to evolve to use an element we thought was poisonous.

The reason arsenic is poisonous is that it's bonds are not stable in water. So how do they get around that?

Up until now it has been an axiom that life requires certain elements. Other possibilities have been relegated to science-fiction. Now we find that it is possible to go from one of these elements to another, similar element. This shows us that life is much more flexible than we gave it credit for.

[Eldan]

Well... Yes. Arsenic isn't toxic to them. What with their DNA(I know, not actually DNA) being made from it.

It might actually still be toxic to them. And what he meant was probably that drugs that interfere with RNA/DNA replication (as certain antibiotics do), might not work on them, as theirs is different.

[Worira]

No, it wouldn't. Ribonucleic acid, deoxy or not, has a set structure, which does not include arsenic. In fact, this isn't, by current definitions, a nucleic acid at all.

[Fawkes]

"Poison" is a very, very broad category.

Well, if they're arsenic-based, their poison is obviously selenium.

Quick! Somebody get me David Duchovny, Julianne Moore, Orlando Jones, a fire truck, and a truckload of Head & Shoulders!

[Eldan]

Well, if they're arsenic-based, their poison is obviously selenium.

Quick! Somebody get me David Duchovny, Julianne Moore, Orlando Jones, a fire truck, and a truckload of Head & Shoulders!

Truly, the greatest movie ever made. But those aliens weren't arsenic based.

[The Rose Dragon]

Suddenly, life on a planet with a different elemental make up doesn't seem as impossible

That's cool and all, but how does it help the life we know exists on our planet? Mostly humans, who don't have arsenic in their genetic material?

Like I said, at the moment, it is interesting, but mostly useless except on a theoretical level. It is kind of like the Euler's identity of biology, really.

[Joran]

No, it wouldn't. Ribonucleic acid, deoxy or not, has a set structure, which does not include arsenic. In fact, this isn't, by current definitions, a nucleic acid at all.

Right, but all these bacteria do is replace the phosphate group with an arsenic group. The structure and I presume the function remain the same.

Also, the bacteria still use phosphorus, it's just that they can substitute arsenic and they need either phosphorus or arsenic to function.

[vertebrae8]

This is not an alien, nor has it really mutated. It was manipulated by scientists to use arsenic instead of P. It didn't die- it thrived. It was unexpectd, and indicates that life does not necesarrily have to be structured the way we think it does. This was not a natural occurence or mutation as far as I can find.

"To be clear, the scientists made this happen in a lab. They removed phosphorus from the bacteria’s environment and enriched it with arsenic. It was a complex game of chemistry that yielded strange results."
Source:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-12/nasa-announces-strange-bacterial-behavior-raising-questions-alien-life-hunters

[Asta Kask]

It's like finding a tribe of humans who could live entirely on rocks. Sure, they could be omnivores but if the need arises... *mmm* granite...

[Telonius]

This is not an alien, nor has it really mutated. It was manipulated by scientists to use arsenic instead of P. It didn't die- it thrived. It was unexpectd, and indicates that life does not necesarrily have to be structured the way we think it does. This was not a natural occurence or mutation as far as I can find.

"To be clear, the scientists made this happen in a lab. They removed phosphorus from the bacteria’s environment and enriched it with arsenic. It was a complex game of chemistry that yielded strange results."
Source:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-12/nasa-announces-strange-bacterial-behavior-raising-questions-alien-life-hunters

Aww, now that's a bit disappointing. I was hoping for a total rethink of evolutionary history. Guess I'll have to settle for some cool (and possibly mad) science.

[Mando Knight]

CNN has had Bill Nye on. It's too bad that the guy that did the interview was unable to articulate intelligent questions...Bill Nye is awesome.

It's hard to beat someone who's known by the title "The Science Guy."
BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL!
Bill Nye the Science Guy! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXyYbQ0SmDQ)

[Fawkes]

Truly, the greatest movie ever made. But those aliens weren't arsenic based.

Of course, how silly of me.

Let me just check the ol' table here...

Somebody get me some polonium.

[Eldan]

That's cool and all, but how does it help the life we know exists on our planet? Mostly humans, who don't have arsenic in their genetic material?

Like I said, at the moment, it is interesting, but mostly useless except on a theoretical level. It is kind of like the Euler's identity of biology, really.

Potentially? Fantastic. A lot of things that could be tested, mainly hypotheses about the origin of life, and about whether or not earthly DNA is the only possible makeup. That was a theory for a time: our DNA is so optimized, that not many other ways for the biological storage of hereditary are possible, not even code changes, really. Entirely new biochemical pathways.

[Eldan]

Of course, how silly of me.

Let me just check the ol' table here...

Somebody get me some polonium.

Now that will very likely kill them. It's radioactive.

[The Rose Dragon]

Potentially? Fantastic. A lot of things that could be tested, mainly hypotheses about the origin of life, and about whether or not earthly DNA is the only possible makeup. That was a theory for a time: our DNA is so optimized, that not many other ways for the biological storage of hereditary are possible, not even code changes, really. Entirely new biochemical pathways.

Tell you what, if the ethics committees around the world let you experiment with humans trying to introduce arsenic into their DNA instead of phosphorus, I'll make you my sole heir. :smalltongue:

[Joran]

This is not an alien, nor has it really mutated. It was manipulated by scientists to use arsenic instead of P. It didn't die- it thrived. It was unexpectd, and indicates that life does not necesarrily have to be structured the way we think it does. This was not a natural occurence or mutation as far as I can find.

"To be clear, the scientists made this happen in a lab. They removed phosphorus from the bacteria’s environment and enriched it with arsenic. It was a complex game of chemistry that yielded strange results."
Source:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-12/nasa-announces-strange-bacterial-behavior-raising-questions-alien-life-hunters

Well, I'd say the mutation was there to begin with, or to be more precise, the foundations of the mutation were there. I doubt you'd be able to take any other bacteria except the ones from that lake bed and feed it arsenic and hope it survives.

So, the bacteria themselves are a natural occurrence; the environment that this experiment took place in was not.

[Eldan]

Tell you what, if the ethics committees around the world let you experiment with humans trying to introduce arsenic into their DNA instead of phosphorus, I'll make you my sole heir. :smalltongue:

Deal. I mean, it's an interesting idea, though the logical approach is to first try different bacteria, then simple eukaryotes, then perhaps worms, fruit flies, mice... might take quite some time till we get to humans.

[averagejoe]

Mono lake is isn’t too far from my house actually. Anyway this is interesting but I don’t see how its life changing to most people, save for scientists in certain fields.


This is the best article I found on the bacteria:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/12/02/mono-lake-bacteria-build-their-dna-using-arsenic-and-no-this-isnt-about-aliens/

I don't see the big deal. It's a novel adaptation sure, but the bacteria still uses DNA and just substitutes arsenic for phosphorus. Despite some news reports, it's not new life, nor is it a second genesis. It''s just regular old bacteria which managed to evolve to use an element we thought was poisonous.

I think the tubeworms on the hydrothermal vents were a more interesting discovery.

P.S. Although, it makes silicon-based life a little less far-fetched, I guess.


That's cool and all, but how does it help the life we know exists on our planet? Mostly humans, who don't have arsenic in their genetic material?

Like I said, at the moment, it is interesting, but mostly useless except on a theoretical level. It is kind of like the Euler's identity of biology, really.

Good lord there are some cynics here. If nothing else this is important in the same way that discovering a bunch of hitherto unknown works by Michelangelo would be important. Pure functionality is for those who take no pleasure in life.

[Mando Knight]

That was a theory for a time: our DNA is so optimized, that not many other ways for the biological storage of hereditary are possible, not even code changes, really. Entirely new biochemical pathways.

There's still the possibility that DNA is optimized for general circumstances, with arsenic-laced pseudo-DNA being better than DNA only for the limited case of an area with a high arsenic concentration, such as the only known location for the microscopic organisms that bear it. Much like arthropods vs vertebrates, it may just not work for sufficiently large organisms.

I'd also imagine that the arsenic compounds are less stable than DNA: as it's a larger element, its "grip" on the valence electrons is weaker than that of phosphorous, causing its compounds to break down with less energy added and releasing less energy when its compounds are created.

[Eldan]

Well, of course. But the general theory that only ribonucleic theories work is busted with this.

[CrimsonAngel]

Wikipedia on Mono Lake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_Lake) (where this is supposed to have been found):



Since the combination of water plus super-high arsenic concentration probably wouldn't have existed before the lake did, we're looking at either 760,000 years ago or "older."

It looks like a big skull.

[Telonius]

It looks like a big skull.

It's also next to an extinct volcano. I think we need to monitor these scientists very carefully for any signs of trying to take over the world.

[Joran]

Good lord there are some cynics here. If nothing else this is important in the same way that discovering a bunch of hitherto unknown works by Michelangelo would be important. Pure functionality is for those who take no pleasure in life.

My major issue was the hype. The first article I read was a hyperbolic piece written by someone who didn't understand the science. He treated it as the second genesis, proof that life arose twice in different circumstances, when it was clearly no such thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120203102.html?hpid=topnews

There's quite a few caveats in the research and it was an incremental discovery on top of someone else's research. Someone discovered two years ago that this bacteria could breathe arsenic; this scientist went further and discovered how deeply the arsenic penetrated into the bacteria. This isn't to minimize Dr. Wolfe-Simon's work, this is groundbreaking stuff and changes some of the assumptions we have on life, but this is not "LIFE ON MARZ" type news. If it wasn't attached to NASA and if NASA didn't tease it two days ago with a tag of exobiology and keep the news embargoed, it wouldn't have gotten this much press.

There was a lot of hype and in my opinion, the discovery didn't warrant it.

[The Rose Dragon]

Good lord there are some cynics here. If nothing else this is important in the same way that discovering a bunch of hitherto unknown works by Michelangelo would be important. Pure functionality is for those who take no pleasure in life.

No, pure aesthetics is for art. Biology is not art, therefore needs to be functionally relevant.

Also, Eldan, I can't see a way this can work with multi-cellular organisms at the moment, especially with animals that have a pregnancy stage, since the development of arsenic-substituting organisms seems to require a phosphorus-poor, arsenic-rich environment, which extant animal bodies are not.

((Also, you missed zebrafish in your model organism cascade.))

[Maxios]

They just announced on the news.

It's official now, not a hoax :smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

Honestly, I don't even see much of a reason why we should try. Arsenic poisoning is, in all likelyhood, not all that common anymore. Any benefit from interesting biochemical pathways coming out of it will most likely be used in bacteria producing some compound, not in humans. If anything ever comes from it, other than expanded theories on the origin of life.

And yeah, zebrafish. Also, Xenopus frogs.

[AtopTheMountain]

Very interesting, if this actually is true. If it's not... then eh. Won't get my hopes up until someone like BBC covers it.

You were saying? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11886943)
A ton of other news networks have covered it now too, in addition to directly from NASA.

[ForzaFiori]

Of course, for all we know life on other worlds doesn't even consist of strands of deoxyribonucleaic acid in any recognizable sense, so this should just broaden our appreciation of how little we understand about the requirements for life even on our world.

Unfortunately, we only have a single sample size for life (Earth), so we must base our theories on what we have. Obviously though, when/if we find new life, we will re-evaluate said theories. Much like we did with solar system formation. We used to have radically different ideas about how it happened, when we could only look at our solar system. Having found new planetary systems, we revamped the model. We'll do the same for life, but until then, we have to go on what we have. This discovery (man made or not) has already caused that to happen, as we realize that it is possible to have a form of DNA like material without phosphorous.


No, pure aesthetics is for art. Biology is not art, therefore needs to be functionally relevant.

I'll go tell scientists to stop creating any prototypes or new ideas, since they're not functional at the beginning then. We'll just go ahead and stop advancing in all fields, since you don't want anything that isn't workable right away.

Seriously though, having something that shows an idea without being perfectly functional or needed yet is how we advance. The first fire probably didn't go that well for humans, and it most likely took several tries before we got the hang of it and could control it. But we had to go through the "not functional, but possible" phase before we could get to "everyday use". the same is true for almost every invention and idea humans have had.

[AshDesert]

Of course, how silly of me.

Let me just check the ol' table here...

Somebody get me some polonium.

I don't think you wanna mess around with that stuff, unless you want cancer.

Also, this thread title is misleading, when I saw it my first thought was "We found life on Mars/One of Jupiter's moons!" Not that this isn't cool, indeed, it's now more likely that we'll find life out there now that we know it doesn't need the "big six".

[averagejoe]

No, pure aesthetics is for art. Biology is not art, therefore needs to be functionally relevant.

I was being metaphorical. I obviously don't think this is neat because I want to look at it.

It is possible for one who doesn't take joy in knowledge to become a scientist. But it begs the question, "Why?" This is awesome because we've discovered something that we previously thought was impossible. Functionality is very relevant when applying for grant money, but this stuff also enriches our culture, in the same way art does. That's why we have museums for knowledge as well as art, and why going to either sort is an awesome thing to do.

*pedantic digression*

Your statement is logically wrong anyways. It doesn't follow that, since art is the only field that would be concerned with pure aesthetic (a statement I'm not sure I agree with, but will concede for simplicity's sake), no other field is concerned with aesthetic. Even setting aside the "What is art" discussion, which nobody really agrees on, and whether or not art is functional (because things like, "Enriching my life," "Making my day better," and, "Making me feel things," are both the sorts of things that art does and well-defined functions that have an effect on my life) "Not art" --> "Functionality is the only worthwhile value" just does not follow.

And even that ignores the fact that functionality largely depends on time. Few people before the 1900's would have thought that linear algebra had any sort of practical use (who knew what it was, that is) but then quantum mechanics came along and fit quite well into a linear algebraic format. Making the statement, "This has no function," on basically the day it's discovered is premature, at best.

[Serpentine]

No, pure aesthetics is for art. Biology is not art, therefore needs to be functionally relevant.Since when? :smallconfused: Last I checked, biology was about understanding life. You might often need "functional relevance" in order to scrape up a grant from non-scientist funders, but biology in itself is, or at the very least can be, knowledge for knowledge's sake. If you want pure "functional relevance", go see engineering - and I doubt even they will agree with you on the lack of aesthetics in that field.

[doctor_wu]

I have actually been to Mono lake.

I think this is awesome.
I did not take any pictures.

[Trog]

Whoa. Very cool stuff.

So it looks like the "primordial soup" that life can build itself in can come in different flavors now. Given the composition of the earth it's clear why this only exists as an extemeophile life form here, of course. But it has broader implications for conditions in which life might develop on other planets. If a whole planet had a composition much more like that lake than earth's seas then it's now a possibility that life like this could develop there. Or perhaps something more complex. Fascinating.

And, really, all life needs a complex soup of conditions to live in. Heck, we do. Take us out of that mix and we cannot live because we are endemic to Earth's conditions. Other life might be likewise endemic to its own conditions on other planets with a different elemental mix.

I'm curious if this discovery expands the so-called "Goldilocks zone" around stars where the temperatures are just right to support life. Does the elemental switch broaden this range?

[averagejoe]

I'm curious if this discovery expands the so-called "Goldilocks zone" around stars where the temperatures are just right to support life. Does the elemental switch broaden this range?

I'd speculate not, though I know little of biology. I believe that one of the ways cold kills cells is by freezing the water inside the cell and destroying it, so at least on the cold end of the spectrum I wouldn't think this would affect much. They would have to be non-water based, or something, and there are probably other dangers.

I don't even know how too much heat kills you. It makes you radioactive or something.

[Asta Kask]

Heat denatures your proteins. Make them coagulate.

[Lord Raziere]

YEEEAAAAH!!! this is awesome!

[Asta Kask]

Although arsenic probably won't be very useful on Earth (except in very special circumstances), the lability of the arsenate ion may be very useful at lower temperatures. A system that uses ammonia rather than water and functions at -50 degrees C, for instance.