Slashdot Mirror
DNA Analysis Hints At a Fourth Domain of Life
ecesar writes "The Economist is reporting on a recent paper published in the Public Library of Science, which suggests there might be at least one other, previously hidden, domain of life (besides eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea). Using DNA sequence data generated directly from environmental samples, the authors found sequences not yet seen in any cultured organism."
...they discovered The Jersey Shore?
It's the seeds of life left by the Great Old Ones.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
.. and I am underwhelmed.
First figure does not identify (at cursory look) domains and the second figure shows "unknown" samples mixed up between bacteria and killer plasmids or between different branches of eukaryota.
Frankly, I spent only a minute looking at this paper, so anybody who went deeper please share
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
The Venter approach is something akin to taking a library, putting the whole thing through a paper shredder, and trying to figure out how many languages there were in the library from a statistical analysis of the groupings of the letters on each piece of paper. It is marvelous, but it has its limits.
If there were true aliens among us (microscopic organisms that did not use DNA for genetics), the Venter approach would not see them. I do not know of a good way to luck for such creatures, but I wish someone would figure one out, and apply it to something like Venter's samples.
We do not have a conclusive explanation for the origin of these sequences. They may be from novel viruses. They may be ancient paralogs of the marker genes. Or they may be from a new branch of cellular organisms in the tree of life, distinct from bacteria, archaea or eukaryotes. I think most likely they are from novel viruses. But we just don't know.
Jesus Christ! My eyes! They're burning!
you meen the Ancients?
How exactly are they defining this term? What constitutes an "environmental sample" to a geneticist or evolutionary biologist?
I mean there's life.com, life.net, life.org, life.co.uk...
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
for a lay audience. And did a great write up. Glimpses of the Fourth Domain? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2011/03/18/glimpses-of-the-fourth-domain/
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
I've learned to, very effectively, bring my eyes out of focus before clicking a link from an untrusted source. The result is a heavily lessened impact should the link be, ah, "visually malicious" while I can still recognize patterns without getting the details burned onto my retina.
It is amazing how one can learn to defend themselves mentally while browsing the internet.
fire, air, water, earth?
What if that DNA comes originally from one of the known domains, but was somewhat damaged by chemicals/radiation/whatever sources so it couldn't be recognized as a normal one?
...telling someone to die in a thread about life!
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
i should have known -__-
warning pointless sig
The four domains of life are as follows: eukaryotes, bacteria, archaea, William Shatner.
Let's call it.... a "Memristorganism"
http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2011/03/story-behind-story-of-my-new-plosone.html
They may be from novel viruses. The They may be ancient paralogs of the marker genes. Or they may be from a new branch of cellular organisms in the tree of life, distinct from bacteria, archaea or eukaryotes. I think most likely they are from novel viruses.
I'm going to go with this last opinion as well, it's probably from some virus, which would account for the sequence wackiness. I'm wondering if they can construct some speculative primers and (without isolating the organism) start sequencing outwards from these novel sequences, maybe get enough to tell if it's a virus or a novel organism.
"... the authors found sequences not yet seen in any cultured organism."
Hillbilly DNA. Will wonders never cease?
The four domains of life are as follows: eukaryotes, bacteria, archaea, Chuck Norris.
There - fixed that for ya.
#DeleteChrome
The four domains of life are as follows: eukaryotes, bacteria, archaea, Chuck Norris.
There - fixed that for ya.
No, there used to be 24 forms of life. Chuck Norris solved that.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
The fourth domain of life must be the politicians, they appear to be intelligent but are mostly flat-liners.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
If there where a forth domain of life the method we have used would find it... if and only if.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Instead of researching the possibilities of this new data, possibly giving us insights into how life evolved on Earth, why don't we just clasp our hands in prayer and thanks for the wonders of Intelligent Design?
Plos One, the New Internet Age's online quicker-to-publish-than-verify journal.
Its record: 10% genuine breakthroughs, 50% hype, and 40% bad data. (Caveat: the previous sentence may be bad data.)
Your call on this one.
How'd you manage to type that? Looked like your hands were tied up, and I find it hard to believe that you could even see a keyboard after pulling your head out of that.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
The same system prevents most slashdotters from RTFA.
Take a soil or a skin sample we don't know the correct conditions to grow >%90 of the organisms in that sample you can lob them in jar of nutrient broth but some simply won't grow while others will out-compete everything. Saying found sequences not yet seen in any cultured organism is a bit like saying found paving slabs not seen under any streetlight.
I thought we already have four, in common terms: plants, animals, fungi and bacteria. So if something else is discovered it would be the fifth. No?
...but not as we know it."
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Humans have this notion their science as it is now, is 100% complete, and yet, when I know that there are so many new ways of seeing things, x-ray,ultraviolet,infrared, etc.... which have been developed in the last 50 years or so, you tend to think, there might be a few more spectrums we know nothing about, not even its existence, so why think that all we know is all there is, why not leave some room for discoveries, like this goo, its a 4th type of creation material, but there could be a 5th, 6th, 7th we don't know about, what I dont get is why the science community is so surprised by this, hell sounds like they are not ready to accept there could be more yet to be explained.
Shoot to kill!
Classic Dr. Demento FTW: http://www.quantumnow.com/trek/lyrics.html
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
It's slashdotes, a more evolved life form that does not dwell in basements, nor subsist on Cheetos and actually has real relationships.
No extant forms have been discovered.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
...this should be obvious??
It always irks me when the media gives Venter credit for the first Human Genome, when in fact Jim Kent at UCSC was the first to create a draft assembly.
Wernstrom!!!
Facts are useless, they can be used to prove anything.
No, everyone knows that Chuck Norris is the father of all life on earth. Except for the weak ones: those he merely tolerates their continued existence until such time as he must vent some of his rage through his foot.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Well, now we know where the creature in the black lagoon came from.
Changing the world... one research project at a time.