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.'"

24 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. Monocerous(sp) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's Monoceros - Unicorn. It's not an adjective with the "ous" ending.

    1. Re:Monocerous(sp) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe the adjective is appropriate if we have panspermia coming from the horny constellation.

  2. "Up for prepublication"? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What does that mean? Has it been peer-reviewed yet? Has it been accepted? Or is it just at the stage where the author's submitted it, and those other steps still need to happen? The linked page only says its "submitted".

    If it hasn't been accepted, posting it here is rather silly on a lot of counts. Not to mention that, with some journals, doing something like that can result in the paper being summarily rejected (e.g Nature, Science).

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by DamienRBlack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      None of this guy's (Godfrey Louis) stuff on the subject seems to be peer reviewed. It is all just up on arXiv. I think he is more interested in getting publicity than getting his facts checked. Now that last statement is an ad hominem, so it doesn't say anything about his research one way or the other. But I think it does give a few clues.

    2. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 4, Informative

      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."
    3. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It isn't really an ad hominem at all. If you say "This guy is a loon, therefore his arguments are crap" then that is an ad hominem, but if you say "This guy's arguments are crap, therefore he's a loon" it isn't. His being a loon doesn't necessarily make his arguments crap, but just saying his arguments are crap or even calling him a loon isn't an ad hominem. An ad hominem is a specific type of logical fallacy, it is not a general insult.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I can't vouch for the following, but.... According to critics, the reason that DNA wasn't seen in light microscopy was because a) he used the wrong kind of stain, which doesn't typically work for algae, b) this is an algae spore, c) the walls of the spore are too strong for most stains to absorb into it, and d) the walls also impede light microscopy, making it even more challenging if he did use the right kind of stain. There is a discussion of that in wikipedia under "criticisms" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala

    5. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 4, Informative
      From the journal's website (http://www.springer.com/astronomy/journal/10509):

      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."
    6. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by wjousts · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it was me, I would make sure that every i was dotted and t was crossed. I would keep it damned quiet, and ask anyone I shared the data with to do the same. I would probably spend six months just running through it all again, and maybe once more after that.

      The one thing I wouldn't do is leak it, or fantastically optimistic interpretations of it to the press. When things appear first in the media and then in peer-reviewed journals or at conferences, people begin to think strange thoughts like "Hyperbole" or, sometimes even "Fraud". Researchers who leave the confines of accepted publishing and announcement practices are taking a big chance that they're going to undermine the whole damned thing.

      But how many times, folks, have we been bit by incredible announcements in the press "New Discovery Will Rewrite biology/astronomy/physics/neurology/whatever" only to find out that the actual paper is considerably more mundane.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by biryokumaru · · Score: 3, Informative

      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!
    9. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is not peer reviewed. I took a look at it and in its current form it is unlikely to pass muster for peer review (at least in a molecular biology journal). There are a number of clear flaws. Cells of some species will often show a characteristic doubling time. In this case, the "cell" population appears to less than double from 30 to 60 minutes. Then from 60 to 90 more than double before any increase in cell number stops. This odd behavior is consistent with micelles treated at high heat breaking apart into smaller micelles before reaching a stable size (which, assuming these data are not falsified, seems to be what is occurring here).

    10. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Somehow I suspect we would not be discussing this if a crackpot was not involved.

      The wiki article pretty much nails it down to spores of a lichen-forming alga belonging to the genus Trentepohlia, plentiful in the area where the red rain was found, as well as many other places in the world.

      Yet, we are now treated to the suggestion that because the same wave lengths of light as are found in some remote part of the galaxy can be induced when samples are bombarded with some (conveniently unspecified) light source..

      The clear implication being that we should all believe that some extraterrestrial life has chosen this particular part of India, (and no where else) to fall in rain for a solid month, totally ignoring high winds aloft.

      I wager my rear end could be made to fluoresce certain shades of red found in other parts of the galaxy given the right form of bombardment.

      Thank you sir, Mr Louis needs another.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    11. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by yyxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The wiki article pretty much nails it down to spores of a lichen-forming alga belonging to the genus Trentepohlia, plentiful in the area where the red rain was found, as well as many other places in the world.

      Spores don't divide at 121C or 300C.

      Yet, we are now treated to the suggestion that because the same wave lengths of light as are found in some remote part of the galaxy can be induced when samples are bombarded with some (conveniently unspecified) light source..

      Fluorescence doesn't work that way.

      Somehow I suspect we would not be discussing this if a crackpot was not involved.

      Well, what defines a "crackpot"? The people described their materials, methods, and results. Those are not consistent with spores. There are three possibilities: (1) the experiments were carried out incorrectly, (2) the authors deliberately lied, or (3) the experimental results are as described.

      How can one proceed? Peer review may uncover gross errors in their experimental procedures, in which case they would have to go back and redo their experiments.

      If there are no gross errors, there's no reason not to publish the results; they are still implausible, but not obviously wrong.

      The only way to figure out what's going on is to try and replicate the experiments a few times. Once people do that, we'll know. Until that's done, the issue is simply unresolved. There's no need to call people "crackpot" over it, but there's no reason to believe the results either.

  3. Re:Red blood cells also do not have DNA by Pojut · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's what you thin-

    **NO CARRIER**

  4. Re:What? by arkane1234 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cthulhu is resting... :P

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  5. More recent publications... by stagg · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  6. Re:What? by seanellis · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  7. Luckily... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Your standard flamethrower is capable of operation at well above 121c. Should be no big deal...

  8. Re: Old info by KarrdeSW · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  9. Doubtful claims by Chicken_Kickers · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Doubtful claims by smellsofbikes · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I'm in complete agreement with you, but some stuff occurs to me, in reading more about this.

      1. If he's just an attention whore, he could have found some weird bacterium that uses RNA and claim -- and be technically correct -- that there is no DNA. That'd be surprising, but not anywhere nearly as surprising as finding something that appears to be reproducing without nucleic acids.

      2. From other reading about red rain, it appears that his attempts to find DNA were restricted to malachite green and ethidium bromide, and the current theory by people who aren't him is that he's got a bunch of yeast spores, which are going to have cell walls impermeable to both so he's not going to detect DNA even if it's there, or at least not by such relatively crude techniques.

      3. I wonder about metabolites. If the stuff *is* from outer space, it might not have the typical ultra-fast metabolism we see in common Earth bacteria, where energy is plentiful and the only real competitive tool available to prokaryotes is rapid reproduction. Something from outer space might act more like some of the archaea or mycobacteria that take days to reproduce -- or years -- rather than the half-hour cycles we're used to seeing in many bacteria. If this thing has a reproductive cycle measured in days or months, it's going to take a lot of time and quantitative analysis to actually see it metabolising.

      4. While I agree with your statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I do have to wonder: what explanation of the origin of life *isn't* extraordinary? Every theory of earth-bound biogenesis I've read is pretty difficult reading. This one does have the advantage of offloading the origin-of-life-on-earth, in which case you can at least claim that maybe biogenesis only happened once somewhere else and is being blown all over the Universe, rather than having only one planet and only a billion years in which to fit your explanation.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  10. Re:What? by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Funny

    An obvious question is that if these cells divide at 121 degrees Celcius, what do they do in the extreme cold of space, just hibernate?

    Yes. That's how they get from planet to planet. Then, when some of them reach a planet and it gets hot enough, they divide and reproduce, and start growing other, more complex types of cells, and then quickly form intelligent beings who reproduce quickly into an army and take over the planet.

    Now that these researchers have figured out how to activate the seed cells, I expect the red-cell alien overlord army to rise up in a few weeks.

  11. Re:Just sequence them.. by ElektronSpinRezonans · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ah, youngling, you have many years until you have that PhD in your hand. What you're suggesting is a negative results, caused from "not seeing what we wanted to see", which can be rebutted in a million different ways, most of which you probably do not know yet. This is one of the reasons the peer review process exists. I personally do not believe anything I read on a non-peer reviewed paper, unless of course it is coming from well documented, well funded full professors.