Slashdot Mirror
DNA-Less 'Red Rain' Cells Reproduce At 121 C
eldavojohn writes "A new paper up for prepublication from the controversial solid-state physicist Godfrey Louis claims that the cells Louis collected from a Keralan red rain incident divide and produce daughter cells at 121 degrees Celsius. While unusual, this is not unheard of as the paper recalls cells cultivated from hydrothermal vents are known to reproduce at 121 C as well. Of course, caution is exercised when dealing with the possible explanation surrounding the theory of panspermia but the MIT Technology Review says researchers 'examined the way these fluoresce when bombarded with light and say it is remarkably similar to various unexplained emission spectra seen in various parts of the galaxy. One such place is the Red Rectangle, a cloud of dust and gas around a young star in the Monocerous constellation.'"
That's Monoceros - Unicorn. It's not an adjective with the "ous" ending.
arxiv.org is a non-peer-reviewed preprint repository widely used by the physics community. "Submitted" means exactly what it says: it's just listing the date that article was submitted to arxiv.org. This work will undoubtedly be submitted elsewhere also. For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arxiv.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
None of this guy's (Godfrey Louis) stuff on the subject seems to be peer reviewed.
Incorrect. Quoting from the linked article: "Louis published his results in the peer-reviewed journal Astrophysics and Space in 2006, along with the tentative suggestion that the cells could be extraterrestrial."
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
It looks like more recent publications have resolved this: "The alga was identified as a specie belonging to the genus Trentepohlia. The region in Changanacherry from where the red rain was reported was found to be densely vegetated with plenty of lichen on trees, rocks and lampposts. Samples of lichen collected from there also were cultured in the microbiology laboratory of TBGRI. The study showed that the lichen collected from the site gave rise to algae similar to the ones cultured from the spores obtained from the rain water samples. The spores in the rainwater, therefore, most probably are of local origin." http://web.archive.org/web/20060613135746/http://www.geocities.com/iamgoddard/Sampath2001.pdf
The official investigation concluded that they were spores from local algae, and that the initial DNA tests were flawed. Wikipedia has the details, as usual.
To go from "our test found no DNA" to "there is no DNA" to "they must be extraterrestrial" to "they look like the dust clouds in Monocerous" is a series of leaps that go wayyy ahead of the available evidence, in my view.
It would be very interesting to be proven wrong, however.
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
Astrophysics and Space Science publishes original contributions and invited reviews covering the entire range of astronomy, astrophysics, astrophysical cosmology, planetary and space science and the astrophysical aspects of astrobiology.
Note the last one: astrobiology is within the scope of that journal. Given that, the editors are certainly knowledgeable about who else works in that field, and can find appropriate reviewers for an astrobiology article.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Your standard flamethrower is capable of operation at well above 121c. Should be no big deal...
Yeah, seriously. Somebody mod the parent up here. An astrophysicist fails to extract DNA? Well how about letting a Biologist have a go. It's kinda there thing.
Besides (according to Wikipedia), the official report said they cultured them already. They are alga spores belonging to the genus Trentepohlia.
I think Occam's razor applies here.
Sorry, should be "It's kinda their thing."
What you're referring to is called a cell membrane which is formed by lipid bilayers. Cell walls are usually more rigid and are located outside of the cell membrane.
However, the parent is still confusing because algae, plants, protozoa, etc. all have different structures of cell walls. He doesn't really specify which specific one(s) are hard for us to explain.
Indeed. And you probably have a bottle of suitable short-chain molecules, hydrophobic on one end, hydrophilic on the other end sitting on your kitchen sink. You probably know it better as "dish soap".
I am a microbiologist and this claim in my opinion is very weak. Remember, extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof to be accepted. This guy is a physicist, not a biologist, so that already raises many red flags.
In the arXiv blog linked, it says that Godfrey collected numerous samples of the "red rain". Since he is not a microbiologist, I doubt he took the necessary precautions to prevent contamination with terrestrial microbes, though it is debatable whether this is even possible. This alone is the biggest stumbling block to his claims. The blog also says that the cell "reproduce" at 121C yet also states that it has no DNA (all form of nucleic acids?). This flies in the face of all known life on earth. Even red blood cells initially have a nuclei before losing them as they mature. The point of reproduction is to pass on your genetic code to your offspring. This suggests to me that we might be looking at a abiological/chemical process. Did Godfrey try to detect the production of metabolite byproducts from his sample? Reproduction is a very energy intensive biochemical operation and should produce detectable metabolites. My research field is hyperthermophilic Archaea that grows at 90C or more and I know the existence of microbes that can grow at even higher temperatures, so this part of the claim is feasible. Overall, I caution extreme scepticism until Godfrey can provide extraordinary proof of his claims.
You may also note that the guy who did use the right stains and looked for algal DNA made certain it was clear that he could not make a solid determination one way or the other.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Funny, I just read the paper and the spores didn't divide at all. After being cooked in an autoclave, small spherical particles started forming inside the spores.
Emphasis mine. He proved no such thing. Not even close. Did the particles continue growing? Were they viable? Did they have any internal structure? No need to answer these questions. There were round red things inside other round red things. Clearly extraterrestrial life.
The reason to call this guy a crackpot is that he's making grand claims of certainty for patently absurd hypotheses.