Amino Acids Created in Deep-Space-Like Environment

klevin writes "NASA scientists today announced the creation of amino acids, critical for life, in an environment that mimics deep space. The above link is the press release, with additional details here."

Comments

soo...

[Anonymous Coward]

does his mean my chances for finding an alien hotty, ala kirk, have just gone way up?

Haven't I seen this before?

[!ramirez]

Isn't this similar to what Stanley Miller and Harold Urey found in the 1960's with their spark-chamber experiment? While this seems to be stellar in nature, how much different is UV photolysis from electrical discharge as far as chemical reactions go?

Re:Haven't I seen this before?

[RobertFisher]

The big difference here is that the conditions were taken to be solid ices (ammonia, etc.), whereas in the Miller-Urey experiment, the conditions were taken to be typical of primordinal planetary atmospheres. Astronomers believe such ices commonly form around dust grains in molecular clouds in interstellar space, which are known to act as catalysts for many other types of molecules. Naturally, the densities of the gases and liquids in the Miller-Urey experiment vastly exceed those in interstellar space by many orders of magnitude.

Now, even though it is novel to see amino acids under such conditions, we should hasten before we leap to any conclusions related to life on Earth or other planets. Dust grains live a very harsh life, even in relatively cold, dense molecular clouds. And then every so often, a shock passes by and will tend to strip the grains of their mantles. Finally, if they survive all of that, they may eventually make their way into a protoplanetary nebula around a star, get smacked together to form protoplanets, and eventually planets like the Earth. It is most unlikely that volatile organic molecules would survive that process. On the other hand, they could be incorporated into comets in the outer reaches of stellar systems, and survive relatively intact, though again subject to the harsh conditions of space.

Bob

Re:Haven't I seen this before?

[searleb]

For more information on Miller and prebiotic Earth, here is a quotation from an Angew. Chem. review article by Kay Severin called Hot Stones or Cold Soup? New Investigations on the Endogenous Origin of Organic Compounds on Earth (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2000, 39, No. 20). It pretty much sums up the Miller reactions, why they're wrong, and what people think now:

"The most famous experiment ... was carried out almost fifty years ago by Stanley L. Miller, at that time a PhD student in the group of Harold Urey in Chicago. Miller was able to show that electric discharges in an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water led to the formation of significant amounts of various amino acids. Experiments of this kind were repeated in numerous variants. If reducing gases were employed mixtures of organic compounds of low molecular weight could be detected in many cases. This has led to the popular idea that the primordial ocean resembled a nutritious soup.

"But the possibility that earth once had a reducing atmosphere is questioned. A well known argument against it is the high photolability of methane and ammonia. Because a shielding layer of ozone was missing a high concentration of these gases is believed to be unlikely. Furthermore, several other results point to a neutral atmosphere of CO2 and N2. Given the fact that the atmosphere was based on an unproductive mixture of CO2 and N2 the nutritional value of the primordial ocean drops significantly.

"An alternative scenario has been propagated for several years by [Gunter] Wachterhauser. Instead of a primordial soup he favors hot minerals as the place where organic molecules were initially built as life subsequently emerged. Especially sulfur-containing minerals like pyrite are proposed to have acted as an energy source and catalyst both under the extreme conditions found in hydrothermal or volcanic vents."

Basically, primordial soup syntheses (like Miller's reactions) are out and hot rock syntheses are in. These hot rock procedures have much much much lower yields, but people are slowly figuring out how to build amino acids through them. For instance, people, headed by Wachterhauser, have figured out how to carbon fixate (condense) carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide into organic building blocks for amino acids. For instance, in early 2000, Chen and Bahnemann were able to convert CO2 and water to small organics (acetaldehyde, ethanol, acetic acid) at high pressures and temperatures. Similarly, people have figured out how to take amino acids and convert them into peptides under high temperature and pressure situations.

However, to date no one has been able to actually make an amino acid through these techniques. As a result, the proof that amino acids were delivered by comets or meteorites (true fact, this is not an x-file) and now space dust, becomes much more appealing. Once the building blocks arrived on Earth, these hot rock syntheses could have taken over.

Why?

[geek]

This is mildly cool, but honestly it's done all the time by companies like TwinLab who sell them to body builders in little glass jars.

Why bother growing them in space when you can bring them with you? Sounds like NASA is taking the long way around.

Re:Why?

[soulsteal]

It's not about use with space exploration. It's about being prepared for what's to come during said exploration. If amino acids can form in deep space, then the conditions might also be right for things like proteins to assemble. Basic building blocks of life could be right around the celestial corner. They could even be leading to life forms.

I'm just hoping there's nothing out there that demands that we call it Xenu\Linux.

I can create them here

[Anonymous Coward]

I can create them there.
I can create them anywhere!

I will not evolve them in a house
I will not evolve them with a mouse
I do not like space genes of man
I do not like them Sam I am.

Re:Big deal

[smoondog]

Amino acids, so what? I will be excited when the explain how amino acids assemble themselves into something as complex as DNA.

So would I. Perhaps you should read your own signature. Nucleic acids assemble to DNA; amino acids make proteins.

-Sean

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Llywelyn]

Prefix: I am not a Creationist.

"I think this is proof against one of the arguments creationist wackos have been making for quite a long time"

Actually this does nothing of the sort.

What this shows is that the basic components of life--Amino Acids--/can/ be generated in a deep space environment. Whoop de do. The argument against abiogenisis (chemical evolution) stems from the following:

1) Probability versus chance of creating functional proteins. We don't know what this is, but we do know that it is incredibly small. The probability is so small, in fact, that no number of trials that could have occurred within the lifespan of the universe would be sufficient.

2) The number of mutations it takes to create a functional allele (what gives us different characteristics) is a *massive* number. The number of mutations it takes to make a functional allele "nonfunctional" is *one*.

3) It takes millions of mutations to create a hox gene. The number it takes to take one out is *trivial* by comparison.

This does not make the creationist argument correct, but it doesn't mean that this evidence of where Amino Acids can or cannot form lends credence to abiogenesis to the degree or diversity of life that we see.

Similar, more important

[Llywelyn]

There is a great deal of doubt whether the mixture of gases used in this experiment actually existed on earth: it assumes a reducing atmosphere, among other things that geology does not tell us.

More than one geologist, in fact, has noted that the only reason that they believe that there ever was a reducing atmosphere on Earth is because life is obviously here and the basic building blocks couldn't form in the presence of Oxygen.

At the same time, however, those amino acids couldn't form without the presence of an ozone layer--which requires free oxygen.

This is interesting and intriguing because it shows how these blocks could form in deep space and then arrive on Earth--since we already know that they can remain intact in their descent through the atmosphere.

It still doesn't even come *close* to answer the criticisms levied against abiogenesis (the formation of proteins, functional alleles, &c), but it is interesting and extremely significant over the Urey-Miller experiment.

Re:Similar, more important

[BlackGriffen]

If you had amino acids forming in deep ocean, then the lack of ozone layer wouldn't be a problem, would it? (honest question, sorry it can be read as rhetorical) As for the high oxygen levels in our atmosphere, is it possible that life is necessary to do that? I'm no chemist, but it's my understanding that oxygen is highly reactive, and thus incredibly good at 'oxidizing' (pun intended) things. It strikes me as odd that any planet would have a significant amount of O2 without some process putting it there (just like Cl2 isn't abundant). Thus it would stand to reason that on possible reason life spent so long in the oceans was because that the life in the ocean had to liberate enough O2 to get an ozone layer set up. It's my understanding, also, that the organism's work would simply be undone as the chemicals were released when it died. Thus, the formation of large carbon deposits (read: coal, oil, natural gas, and that methane impregnated ice) may have played a critical role in cooling the planet down; that is, assuming that the sun's temperature hasn't varied a whole lot over the past billion years or so (unlikely).

Just the musings of a college student who really should be sleeping.

BlackGriffen

Re:NASA these days

[Skeld]

What do you expect NASA to do? The only people who aren't pissed at them for wasting tons of money are the people pissed at them for not doing anything they're interested in.

It's like this: You give them 40 billion, and we'll go to Mars.

A bit of relevance... This does not disprove God. Christianity is based on faith. The whole system is based on faith. Were we to have ANY proof that God exists, we no longer need faith, and so the system would fail. Therefore, if God exists and He is all powerful, He would have hidden all traces of his existence and acts in order to preserve the need for faith. So there will always be a rational explanation. Case in point: amino acids formed.

By the way, I'm an agnostic communist with Zen and Tibetan Buddhist sympathies. Thought that might be interesting.

-Skeld

Re:Big deal

[spike hay]

Amino acids don't make DNA. Amino acids make protein. Check your facts.

Here is how protein is made:

Base pairs (adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine) self-assemble into DNA. If you put base pairs together, they will assemble, all completely by themselves. Base pairs are 2 bases (adenine and thymine, or guanine and cytosine) connected to eachother by hydrogen bonds. These base pairs are connected to other base pairs by alternating deroxyribose and phosphates.

Now, BTW, I haven't mentioned this important bit: DNA and RNA are divided into sections called codons. These are 3 base pairs that code for a particular protein.

DNA can catylise single-stranded mRNA. The DNA splits, and an RNA molecule forms on each strand of DNA. RNA is the same as DNA except it is single stranded and instead of Thymine it has Uricil. Now when the RNA molecule forms on the DNA, it makes a perfect anti-copy of the DNA.

They split, and the 2 single DNA strands recombine. Then the mirror-image mRNA binds to tRNA codons, and this creates a perfect copy of the original DNA, at least in respect to protein coding.

Now, if you have digested that, I will talk about how the protein is actually made:

Now the tRNA is at the ribosome, which is the protein manufacturing organelle of a cell.

Amino acids from around the cell then bind to their respective corresponding codons. This eventualy forms a protein chain. All our DNA does is make protein. That is how all life is made.

Re:Great trick, but I won't be impressed...

[cDarwin]

When they do *create* that single-celled organism, will they have proven evolution?

The manufacture of a de novo organism by human beings will simply provide further demonstration that divine influence is not necessary to explain the origin of life on earth.

Notice the key word there - "created." In essence, those scientists will be "god," and if anything, they will have disproven evolution.

The point here is not that these scientists are god(s), but that the existence of a god is not a prerequisite for the existence of life.

People seem to have the mindset that creationism = religion, and that anyone who argues creation rather than evolution is a religious zealot. I think its safe to say most aren't; I certainly am not. Creation science has nothing to do with religion.

What language would you use to characterize a person who clings to a notion despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Re:Big deal

[searleb]

Nope. The point is gone. Proteins are just lots of amino acids, connected by single bonds. The hard part is getting all those constituent atoms to form into the relatively complex amino acids.

As a protein/organic chemist, I say to you: why don't you try making that single bond? It's quite hard when you don't have a ribosome to do all the work for you.

Stanley Miller has been making amino acids (granted, the wrong way) since 1955. And he didn't even have his doctorate yet. Raw amino acids are easy- what's difficult is selecting the proper stereochemistry (amino acids have mirror images which are chemically identical but structurally different- life only uses one of the two mirror images (enantiomers)). If you condense the wrong enantiomer, or both enantiomers simultaneously, you get garbage out. Same problem with nucleic acids to DNA. In the end, this report is plagued with the same problems that Stanley Miller faced in 1955, sorry kids, deep space (or almost every other non-biological natural chemical synthesis) doesn't care about symmetry.

If you're interested in a brief history of Miller, why he's wrong, and what we think now, see my other post.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[On Lawn]

It is ridiculous to debate the existence of evolution today.

Somehow I doubt that will stop you from doing it anyway.

We see it all around us, with bacteria and such becoming resistant to antibiotics. The fossil record supports it, genetics supports it, as does virtually every other realm of science.

Congradulations. You slayed a strawman by lumping several different empirical datasets that record several different kinds of changes in several different kinds of organisms into one very vague term, "evolution". Empiricaly all one can probably grasp from that is that things change, but I suppose that doesn't stop you from reaching for so much more.

In some bacteria, generations can be measured in seconds, or less. Within a few generations - a few seconds - they can evolve to become resistant or immune to antibiotics or certain bacteriophages.

Bacteria have many mechanisms to support change, mostly from incorprating or jumping genes more than random "mutation", but that isn't important now. The poster is pointing out the statistical probability of the random production of the building blocks of life. Since it is not alive, it does not take advantage of the intelligent (although not entirely controlled) gene splicing that Bacteria and viruses use to propegate changes.

Life on Earth is said to have began around 4, to some estimates as far back as 5, billion years ago.

Again, I think you jumped off the mark early and throught your post. He's talking about the mechanisms that existed to create life, not change it.

As per 2, couldn't it also be said that it only takes one gene to create a functional allele from a nonfunctional one?

Here is another example of over-reaching pseudo-science. This is not a symetrical relation between a one-away allele and a functional allele. Assuming that a non-functioning allele is one gene away from functioning, the probability of out of all the random gene changes that it occurs is astronomicaly low. However, the likely hood out of all the possible changes of making a change in a functioning alelle to render it non-functioning actually pretty high.

But taking away a gene doesn't always destroy a nonfunctional allele. It sometimes makes a variation, a mutation, that works. And that is how evolution works.

I've not seen any flying pigs over Chernobyl, super-humans, or new species for that matter. As was brought to my attention long ago on Slashdot, there have never been any observed beneficial random mutations. Subjecting thousands on thousands of grasshoppers to radiation never once produced a beneficial mutation. Changes occur, and mutations occur, but only when they occur along certain natural laws do they produce a limited beneficial result. Check out the "Observed Speciation" page and with some luck you'll find out what the common thread is.

Now, lets end this with my favorite non-sequiter...

Also, your whole post can be discredited based upon the fact that you know not what abiogenesis means. Abiogenesis is the spontaneous formation of life from a primordial soup. Not evolution. Abiogenesis is not factual, but it holds a great deal more credence than creationism, or any other theory for that matter. But evolution, sir, is an empirical fact.

Yet the person you are disagreeing with (as far as I can tell) was talking about the [p]robability versus chance of creating functional proteins. . Sounds like he understood quite well.

Re:Big deal

[searleb]

However, recent research suggests that there is an excess of L-amino acids (the specific enantiomer used in life-proteins) in amino acids found in space, which further suggests that the shuttling of amino acids from space via meteorites and comets could have led to pre-biotic proteins on planet Earth.

From the article:
Recently it has been discovered that an excess of L-amino acids is present in the Murchison and Murray meteorites indicating that a preference for L-amino acids existed in solar system material before there was life on Earth. This supports an idea, first proposed by Rubenstein et al. (1983, Nature 306, 118), for an extraterrestrial origin for homochirality.

In this model the action of circular polarized light on interstellar chiral molecules introduced a left handed excess into molecules in the material from which the solar system formed. ...

If our own solar system formed in such a region of high circular polarization, it could have led to the excess of L-amino acids which we see in meteorites and to the homochirality of biological molecules. It is possible that without such a process operating it would not be possible for life to start. This may have implications for the frequency of occurrence of life in the universe.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[Kaiwen]

If scientists manage to create amino acids, or life in a test environment, you will have proven creation not evolution.

I'm not sure. If science manages to create a very artificial environment within which they're somehow able to coax life into existence then, yes, you might be right. But if if it can be demonstrated that those were precisely the conditions and circumstances that existed on a primordial earth, I'm not sure I agree. In that case, scientists would not be creating artificial conditions, simply carefully reproducing conditions that had already occurred naturally.

In essence, the scientists are then the trancendent entity that created life.

The problem is we needed to use the word "create" with greater precision. "Creation" can be understood in two senses: 1) creatio ex nihilo, or creation by fiat from nothing. And 2) a derivative creation, in which something is created from previously existing materials. Human beings are masters of the latter; only God is capbable of the former.

Assuming humans eventually succeed in producing life by reproducing the conditions under which it (presumably spontaneously) originated doesn't de facto disprove intelligent design. Scientists are not trying to disprove God; they're simply trying to better understand the conditions and processes that led to the emergence of life.

I suspect that once science manages to create life, we'll simply be right back at ground zero in the whole creationist debate. Non-theistic evolutionists will claim they've disproven God. Creationists and theistic evolutionists will continue to argue that reproducing the primordial conditions does not in itself prove that those conditions could have arisen as simply a product of chance plus time. I.e., that we've simply managed to reproduce conditions and processes which required the direction of an Intelligence.

Re:Another blow against creationists

[JetJaguar]

I don't have the references handy, but IIRC, recently a whole class of organic, self-replicating molecules has been found, and they aren't that hard to make under the conditions most scientists believe the primordial earth had. The argument posited is that these simple molecules could easily have been the chemical starting point, eg. there was enough raw material for these molecules to form, and to reproduce themselves. They also have a relatively high probability of mutation and some of those mutations are non-destructive...

Now, they may not be functional proteins, nor DNA, or even genes, but it sounds like these molecules just might be the chemical starting point.