Slashdot Mirror


NASA Finds New Life (This Afternoon)

While the official 2pm conference should have more answers, most of the internet has decided that NASA has discovered a completely new life form based on arsenic instead of the more traditional organic materials. We'll know more in a few hours.

50 of 405 comments (clear)

  1. It's the Shadow Biosphere Lake by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative
    Mono Lake was mentioned back in 2009 and in March as potentially harboring this 'shadow biosphere.' Felisa Wolfe-Simon, the geobiologist credited with this (Iron Lisa = Felisa, get it?) led me to an interesting PDF that begins:

    If you were asked to speculate about the form extra-terrestrial life on Mars might take, which geomicrobial phenomenon might you select as a model system, assuming that life on Mars would be 'primitive'? Give your reasons.

    At the end of my senior year at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1968, I took Professor Ehrlich’s final for his Geomicrobiology course. The above question beckoned to me like the Sirens to Odysseus, for if I answered, it would take so much time and thought that I would never get around to the exam’s other essay questions and consequently, would be "shipwrecked" by flunking the course. So, I passed it up.With this 41-year perspective in mind, this manuscript is now submitted to Professor Ehrlich for (belated) "extra-credit." R.S. Oremland

    This has been an interesting topic in sci-fi, I recall an X-Files that revolved around silicon based life.

    I certainly hope that we get more details than this teaser (all other news articles seem to point back to Gizmodo). From the sound of this leak I can't tell if the DNA itself is foreign or if it's made of the same Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine with similar hydrogen bonds or if the DNA is similar but different in functionality or if it doesn't create proteins and RNA the same way or if phosphorus component is just switched with arsenic (two very similar elements prebiotic chemically) or if the whole bacteria is made of arsenic. At what point in the chain of DNA to organism does this thing seriously differ? The Gizmodo article is painfully weak on detail.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:It's the Shadow Biosphere Lake by Halo1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to an article by the official Flemish news service, the beans were already spilled this afternoon in a documentary shown by a Dutch broadcast service (VPRO) on this topic. It's indeed about Mono lake and Felisa Wolfe-Simon. The article also contains a small film fragment in which they confirms that it's indeed about a life form that uses arsenic instead of phosphor (it also contains some sound bytes from the researcher, in English).

      --
      Donate free food here
    2. Re:It's the Shadow Biosphere Lake by boristdog · · Score: 2

      First time I heard of Mono Lake was via Mark Twain:

      http://www.monobasinresearch.org/historical/twain.htm

      Sounds like a really weird place.

    3. Re:It's the Shadow Biosphere Lake by the_other_chewey · · Score: 4, Funny

      To baldly go where no one has ever gone before.

      That explains Picard, but what about curly Kirk?

    4. Re:It's the Shadow Biosphere Lake by bluie- · · Score: 2

      "Yes, is the alien carbon-based or silicone-based?"

      "Uh, the second one. Zillifone. Next question."

      --
      life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
    5. Re:It's the Shadow Biosphere Lake by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hey, just wanted to weigh in before you ruin your own vacation this spring. I grew up in Tuolumne County, California, just west of the Mono Lake area (in fact, we have a few historical sites dedicated to Mark Twain in that area). The foothills of the Sierra Nevada were my playground and Yosemite is nothing more than a tourist trap to us locals. If you are going to head up to Mono Lake or the nearby Bridgeport Reservoir or Grant Lake for vacation, don't go in the spring. The snowpack will last well into May and you will freeze your tucus off if you decide to go swimming in any of those mountain lakes that early (essentially you would just be swimming in melted snow...and it really is frackin' cold). If you really want to check out that location, especially for lake activities, I suggest waiting until very late July or, even better August. The drive up there will be hot as all balls, but the lakes will be much more temperate and kind to splash around in.

      Just do us a favor and be careful with your campfires and such that time of year. A lot of us get tired of having half our damn county burn down every summer because of tourists being careless with cigarette butts and such. Dry grass burns fast. Just remember that and you should have a dandy vacation. Enjoy the Sierra Nevada when you get here. =)

  2. Can we finally, finally, finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stop arguing that life on earth is a special, special snowflake, created by a God who looks just like us? If a deity exists, clearly they are just as likely to be made of arsenic.

    1. Re:Can we finally, finally, finally by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2

      I'd argue that life is more likely where we are for the simple reason that this is where we exist. I would have thought there's a lot more potential for encountering harmful radiation, among other things, closer to the core.

    2. Re:Can we finally, finally, finally by asadodetira · · Score: 2

      Except that may be this saves us from deadly gamma rays from the core

    3. Re:Can we finally, finally, finally by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now, now...

      Galactic suburbia isn't quite so bad. Nice and stable. Helps to keep those planetary orbits from changing too much or too quickly. I mean a good wallop a long time ago to create the moon is all well and good. But after a while you just want to settle down. We really don't to get pelted with comets and planetoids all that often.

      Things are a lot tougher closer to the core. It's simply much to busy. Nearby stars bustling together. Everybody taking these whiplash commutes around the central black hole. Pesky neighboring stars who keep perturbing your Oort cloud sending debris down on you regularly. Many young stars just cannot handle it. Oh they seem successful; the get nice and big. But they just explode. And let me tell you, you just don't want to live where you could get shot up every few million years or so.

    4. Re:Can we finally, finally, finally by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's also assuming that certain lifeforms wouldn't be resistant (or possibly even immune) to such radiation.

      Keep going with that line of reasoning - the next step would be lifeforms that are dependent on it.

    5. Re:Can we finally, finally, finally by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 2

      No one said anything about looking like us. "In his image" means being the highest form of life on this planet, possessing the power to both create and destroy on a level far beyond anything else we know of.
      For that matter, nothing that I know of in the Bible precludes the existence of life elsewhere, man's arrogant interpretations of it do.

      --
      Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
  3. Re:I think that's a stretch. by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Funny

    No... Don't you understand?

    This is bigger than NASA's ammouncement...

    THE INTERNET AGREED ON SOMETHING!

  4. Re:Why not wait ? by pedantic+bore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not wait until 2pm before posting the article then ?

    Anyone can comment on facts, but conjecture is more fun.

    --
    Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
  5. Re:Is it on another planet? by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ::facepalm::

    If what's being reported is accurate, they've discovered a life form whose DNA was previously thought to be completely, unequivocally, no-exceptions impossible. Not just "we haven't found it", but impossible.

    HOW IS THAT NOT AWESOME???

  6. Contradictory statements by flogger · · Score: 2

    NASA has discovered a completely new life form that doesn't share the biological building blocks of anything currently living in planet Earth.

    This makes it seem as if extraterrestrial life was found. But this was found in Mono Lake, California? So is it Life, as in living? ore life as in "was" living? I'll be tuning in at the conference.

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
    1. Re:Contradictory statements by Pojut · · Score: 2

      The point was that it means that life could exist in ways we haven't even conceived of yet. It's not the finding itself that's important, but rather confirmation that we don't know dick. The confirmation of such a thing widely expands the possibility of finding life elsewhere, because it is a direct example of how much we could potentially have wrong.

      Again, it's not the finding itself that's important, but rather the implications of this type of discovery.

    2. Re:Contradictory statements by farble1670 · · Score: 2

      the environment is mono lake is so different (and hostile to life as we know it) that it might as well be ET.

    3. Re:Contradictory statements by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      the environment is mono lake is so different (and hostile to life as we know it) that it might as well be ET.

      No, you're thinking of Los Angeles.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  7. Better stock up on Head & Shoulders by Dark+Fire · · Score: 4, Funny
  8. Re:Just wondering.... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is carbon a deadly posion for an arsenic-based life form?

    Such an arsenic-"based" life form would still be made up mostly of carbon, the arsenic would replace phosphor instead. So, carbon would be most likely harmless to them while phosphor might indeed be toxic, in a reversal of the toxicity mechanism of arsenic, which works, among other mechanisms, by replacing the phosphate groups in adenosine triphosphate.

    The really interesting question is how an arsenic-based bacterium would avoid the effect of arsenic binding to sulfhydryl groups in proteins.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  9. Re:Great by Pojut · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Combined from two other posts I made:

    If what's being reported is accurate, they've discovered a life form whose DNA was previously thought to be completely, unequivocally, no-exceptions impossible. Not just "we haven't found it", but impossible.

    The point is that it means that life could exist in ways we haven't even conceived of yet. It's not the finding itself that's important, but rather the implications of having hard confirmed evidence that what we have long thought was wrong.

  10. Re:2 fundamental question by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 2

    Don't worry, I'm sure you'll still fit. ;-)

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  11. Obligatory Kent Brockman by swb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I, for one, welcome are new arsenic-based overlords.

  12. Obligatory by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.

  13. most important is whether this new life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    has a common ancestor with us, or if it emerged entirely separately. If it did emerge separately from the 'spark' which started our family off, then it makes it incredibly more likely that the universe is absolutely teeming with life.

    If we find any signs of common ancestory, however far back they are, it would suggest that life only 'began' on this life once, and leaves open the possibility that we are on our own.

  14. Re:Just wondering.... by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The really interesting question is how an arsenic-based bacterium would avoid the effect of arsenic binding to sulfhydryl groups in proteins.

    Which brings up the question of just how different this life is. Did evolution just find a neat little way to avoid the problems with Arsenic or is the biochemistry substantially different at every level? Basically, is this just a new branch off the tree of life, or is it a completely new sapling the next field over?

  15. Re:Still carbon-based by tgd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's nothing to see here if it can be shown that there is a sequence of changes that can go directly from point A to point B (A being "life" -- without a firm definition, but "life" using phosphorus, and B being identical "life" using arsenic instead) where every step of the path between forms a viable chemistry that continues to be "life".

    If you can't do that, then there's pretty significant reason to think that along with the handful of times life likely arose on Earth with a chemistry that *can* be linked that way to now, it arose a time using a completely different chemistry.

    That latter would mean two VERY important things -- the conditions that life could arise in is a lot broader than we believe AND, if its got similar genetics and use of amino acids, that the opportunistic use of amino acids (which are known to be extremely common in space) isn't a rare thing.

    This are staggering, dicipline-changing insights unless someone can show a path from A-B.

  16. Re:I think that's a stretch. by Idarubicin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This still doesn't explain the information embargo...

    It does if this is being published in a respectable, peer-reviewed, scientific journal concurrent with the announcement. Scientific journals will generally provide advance copies of 'interesting' upcoming publications to members of the media, on condition that the news be embargoed until a particular time -- generally around the time that the full publication becomes accessible to the journal's readers. Journalists get advance copies so that they can start writing their articles early, so they can get quotes from relevant experts, and so that there is at least a faint hope that their coverage will be well-researched, thorough, and accurate, and bear at least a passing resemblance to the actual science being presented.

    That's the right way to do a scientific announcement, by the way. (The wrong way is exemplified the Pons and Fleischmann's 'science by press conference' cold-fusion debacle, where you make the public announcement before your scientific peers have a chance to review your work.

    --
    ~Idarubicin
  17. Re:Why NASA? by leptechie · · Score: 2

    One of the core goals of NASA is to discover more about the universe in which we live and how it impacts us. Obviously the search for extraterrestrial life is part of that mission, but if we assume all life (and the planets harbouring them) are identical to our systems then we're going to ignore avenues that might be evident or even more prevalent.
    What was a patent clerk doing contemplating the nature of space/time?

  18. Why this is important by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Taking the speculation in the article at face value, and thus assuming that NASA has found an arsenic-based lifeform in a shadow biosphere on Earth, here's why it's important:

    All life on Earth that we know of is related. It all uses the same basic DNA/RNA mechanisms (including the same four base pairs), uses the same specific molecules that prominently feature carbon as the basic assembly blocks of the cell, etc. To use the ever-popular car analogy, cars can look quite different from each other, but they're all still essentially made out of the same things: bolts, gears, copper wiring, etc.

    Well this other kind of life is completely different. It's so different that we know it cannot possibly be related to all of the other Earth life that we've known about thus far, as there is nothing in common. That means abiogenesis (the spontaneous generation of life from precursor non-living materials) happened at least TWICE on just this one planet.

    So while this isn't extra-terrestrial life, it does have all sorts of potential ramifications on the potential existence of extra-terrestrial life. Before today, it was possible to speculate that one solution to Drake's Equation was simply that spontaneous generation of life was so rare that it only happened once, ever. But if we now found that it's happened multiple times just on this one planet ... then hell, it could be happening everywhere, all the time.

    1. Re:Why this is important by pesho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Arsenic replaces phosphorus and the rest is carbon based it is still very likely for it to be related to the rest of the life forms on Earth. In my view the most significant implication of this is that it can be the base of huge branch of the biotech industry - genetically enginieered bugs that make nasty stuff like biofuels or are used to detoxify industrial waste. The advantage is that it will not grow outside the very limited environment that provides the necessary arsenic. So if you accidentally spill the toxic tank the bug is not going to propagate and contaminate the rest of the world.

    2. Re:Why this is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      All life on Earth that we know of is related. It all uses the same basic DNA/RNA mechanisms (including the same four base pairs), uses the same specific molecules that prominently feature carbon as the basic assembly blocks of the cell, etc.

      Hate to bring you down, but from everything I hear, the life isn't "arsenic-based" in the same sense that we're "carbon-based". Instead, all indications are that it's "simply" arsenic replacing phosphorus in the DNA backbone.

      As a biochemist, I can almost assure you that the rest of the DNA looks the same. That is, these organisms have the same A/T/C/G DNA bases. I'd guess the (deoxy)ribose sugar part of the sugar-phosphate backbone is the same. It's just the phosphorus in the phosphate has been replaced by the chemically similar arsenic. Anything more extensive would be the selling point, and arsenic would be a secondary (but still important) consideration.

      This means that biogenesis only happened once. You aren't going to convergent evolve A/T/G/C with a (deoxy)ribo-chalconide backbone. (That's why they would be the bigger news items.) Instead, what probably happened is that the bacteria started out using phosphorus, and then the enzymes which use phosphorus got "sloppy" and started to use arsenic compounds instead. Since there was more arsenic than phosphorus where they were living, they gradually evolved to use arsenic instead of phosphorus.

      Really, really cool. Mind-blowingly awesome, in fact. But not evidence for a seperate abiogeneis, unfortunately.

  19. Re:Just wondering.... by gilleain · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps its proteins use selenocysteines? Or it produces lots of de-arsenating enzymes, like bacteria that live in very hot temperatures (100 deg, say) produce more HSPs.

  20. Re:and? by Combatso · · Score: 2

    they do if they wanna create hype to get the public interested in supporting a bigger budget

  21. oh come on by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    That's hard to believe. If a life form based on arsenic did evolve it would have big bulging eyes and its skin would be gray.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  22. Re:Is it on another planet? by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And more importantly, it would mean end of religions

    No, it would not. What an incredibly stupid comment to make.

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  23. Re:Is it on another planet? by mr_gorkajuice · · Score: 2

    Not really.
    My religious view doesn't even need to be adjusted to cope with this.
    Granted, I'm not saying that Jesus is the son of God, or that Muhammed was a prophet, or that the jews were chosen by God.
    I just consider the idea of the universe popping into existance utterly absurd. Just like you consider it absurd that something beyond our understanding may exist, despite the fact that actual scientists are quite well aware that several aspects of the universe are beyond our current understanding.

    Religious people might claim a lot of funky shit, but the idea that life should be carbon-based... doesn't that come from science?

    Asenic-based lifeforms doesn't shake my faith the slightest.

  24. or maybe by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man walks up to podium: *tap* *tap* *tap* "Is this thing on"

    Man: "We all have 2 hours to live."
    Man walks off stage.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  25. Re:Evolution by Captain+Hook · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thats one possibility, but there is a second possibility which is what I think NASA would be so excited about if true. What if it's not a mutation in Bacteria which used Phosphorus, but a completely seperate lineage of life, with no common ancestor.

    If that were true, it doesn't mean it has to be Extraterrestial, it could be direct evidence that life on Earth started at least twice, under different conditions in different places and times. It would have huge implications in terms of how likely life is to start else where in the Solar System/Galaxy/Universe if the environmental conditions are right.

    --
    These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
  26. Re:If true: Every microbiologist in the world... by SpinyNorman · · Score: 2

    A quick Google for "arsenic bacteria" shows that these bacteria from lake Mono were already known to be special since they have an arsenic-based metabolism, so presumably they're already being studied by plenty of scientists.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14537-arseniceating-bacteria-rewrite-evolutionary-history.html

    Of course having "DNA" (I guess it needs a new name since it's a new compond) based on arsenic raises the interest level a lot, assuming its true!

  27. Re:Why not wait ? by gumbi+west · · Score: 2

    Prevents us from having an article to not read.

  28. Re:Is it on another planet? by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So why don't you find the idea of a god popping into existence utterly absurd?

  29. "Scientific" press atacks again by Saija · · Score: 2
    --
    Slashdot ya no es que lo era! ;)
  30. Arsenic and old earth / Washington Post by Doofus · · Score: 3, Informative
    The Washington Post has a story on the finding, Second Genesis on Earth?

    quoting:

    But now researchers have uncovered a bacterium that has five of those essential elements but has, in effect, replaced phosphorus with its look-alike but toxic cousin, arsenic.

    News of the discovery caused a scientific commotion, including calls to NASA from the White House and Congress asking if a second line of Earthly life has been found.

    A NASA press conference Thursday and an accompanying article in the journal Science, gave the answer: No, the discovery does not prove the existence of a so-called "second genesis" on Earth. But the discovery very much opens the door to that possibility, and to the related existence of a theorized "shadow biosphere" on Earth--life evolved from a different common ancestor than all that we've known so far.

    --
    If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; ... it invites anarchy. - Brandeis
  31. Organism Laboratory-adapted to Arsenic by Guppy · · Score: 2

    From the New York Times Summary:

    Scientists said Thursday that they had trained a bacterium to eat and grow on a diet of arsenic, in place of phosphorus

    It seems that this organisms was adapted in the lab to substitute Arsenic for Phosphorous, and is not a naturally Arsenic-based lifeform -- and that it will still preferrentially use phosphorous when allowed any.

  32. Re:Is it on another planet? by camperdave · · Score: 2

    And more importantly, it would mean end of religions, unless we want to fool ourselves now on new, grandiose scale.

    It would not end it in the least. Religion is about a person's soul, not their body. "The spirit gives life. The flesh counts for nothing."

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  33. Re:Just wondering.... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2

    I am watching the conference right now, and she just mentioned that they did an elementary analysis of the cells and found not enough phosphorus per cell to have a working biochemistry. So this strongly points to it being more than just impurities, but to a real functional substitution of As for P. Their growth medium was apparently phosphorus-free and the cultures still grew on for quite a while, which again points to a functional substitution.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  34. Just to be clear... by brit74 · · Score: 2
    This isn't a new form of life, as some (including the Slashdot title) have suggested. This is a form of life that can use phosphorus or arsenic in it's DNA and RNA backbone. It evolved from a common type of bacteria that uses only phosphorus. Quotes:

    NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical

    The newly discovered microbe, strain GFAJ-1, is a member of a common group of bacteria, the Gammaproteobacteria. In the laboratory, the researchers successfully grew microbes from the lake on a diet that was very lean on phosphorus, but included generous helpings of arsenic. When researchers removed the phosphorus and replaced it with arsenic the microbes continued to grow. Subsequent analyses indicated that the arsenic was being used to produce the building blocks of new GFAJ-1 cells.
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html

    Reuters:

    The GFAJ-1 strain of the Halomonadaceae grew when arsenic was in the water and when phosphorus was in the water, but not when both were taken away.

    "This organism has dual capability," Paul Davies of NASA and Arizona State said in a statement.

    "It can grow with either phosphorous or arsenic. That makes it very peculiar, though it falls short of being some form of truly 'alien' life belonging to a different tree of life with a separate origin."

    But it does suggest that astrobiologists looking for life on other planets do not need to look only for planets with the same balance of elements as Earth has.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101202/sc_nm/us_arsenic_bacteria

  35. Re:How much you ask by Cytotoxic · · Score: 3, Informative

    It is bigger than that. Firstly, arsenic is more reactive and as such the backbone of the DNA would be very unstable. That's a huge problem - how did this organism solve it? That could be a second Nobel prize right there.

    Also, although adenosine will bind arsenate to make an arsenic based AMP analog (AMA?), it is the final phosphate from ATP that gets bound in the backbone. You have to have lots of machinery altered to get ATP built with arsenate on the terminus and transport that arsenate enzymaticly into the growing DNA chain. It's been about 25 years since I did biochemistry, but there's about a hundred "holy crap" things about this discovery. Each of those little pieces of the discovery will get you the cover of Science or Nature if you unlock it. Really, this is a super-cool finding. Short of putting ET on the dais I don't know what would be more shocking.