Slashdot Mirror


Physicists Find Clue as To Why the DNA Double Helix Twists To the Right

New submitter Annanag writes Most organic molecules have left- or right-handed versions, mirror images of each other, just like gloves. For some reason, life always seems to favor one version over the other — the DNA double helix in its standard form always twists like a right-handed screw, for example. But why this preference for left or right happens has always been a mystery. Now, in an experiment that took 13 years to perfect, physicists have found hints that this asymmetry of life could have been caused by electrons from nuclear decay in the early days of evolution.

120 comments

  1. Man oh man by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nowadays it seems like almost everything is twisting to the right...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Man oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more we let you have the less that I'll be keeping for me...

      OT: I always thought it could have been down to the characteristics of the molecular machinery (e.g.: shape, size, assembly) responsible for holding it open and copying / reading it. Interesting idea.

    2. Re:Man oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowadays it seems like almost everything is twisting to the right...

      Except the truth.

    3. Re:Man oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please don't share details about your penis here.

    4. Re:Man oh man by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nowadays it seems like almost everything is twisting to the right...

      Including the iPhone 6....

    5. Re:Man oh man by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Dog is right-handed of course.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:Man oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's the right-wing government that tends to be conservative and backwards.

      Mix with DNA of other species to create a new species? God forbid! That might even end up in e-vo-lu-tion.

    7. Re:Man oh man by quenda · · Score: 0

      It simply proves that God is right-handed.

    8. Re:Man oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowadays it seems like almost everything is twisting to the right...

      Including the iPhone 6....

      Nah, it just means the Republicans and the Tea party were right about everything all along...

    9. Re:Man oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still wearing mine to the left though.

    10. Re:Man oh man by SpzToid · · Score: 2

      You must be holding it wrong.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    11. Re:Man oh man by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Dog is right-handed of course

      Dude, dogs don't have hands. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    12. Re:Man oh man by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      There's a right way to use "then," and another way that makes the world laugh at you.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    13. Re:Man oh man by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      This has nothing todo with politics. It has everything to do with logic:

      If left was right, then right would be wrong, which is obviously not a good thing to base life on. Clearly it has to be that right is right, and left is wrong.

      Now in USA politics, it is usually the case (as with AGW, labelling GM "food", etc) that left is mostly right and too far right is clearly wrong. But that is because USA politics is mostly on the other side of Alice's looking glass.

      --
      Will
    14. Re:Man oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you rewrite history, since over 90% of money is created out of thin air by the private sector, yet the tea party thinks deficits and national debt matters. Even though Reagan proved the opposite!

    15. Re:Man oh man by sconeu · · Score: 1

      No, he's putting it into his pocket wrong.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    16. Re: Man oh man by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Putting money in your pocket is so 90s. That is doing it wrong.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    17. Re:Man oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why Fox shows NASCAR. They have to turn left very fast for a few hours every Sunday to undo the spin to the right from the rest of the week...

    18. Re:Man oh man by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      Better Decide Which Side You're On

      All you downtrodden people
      Always bear the brunt
      Just sit back on you fat backsides
      Till you have to face the Front
      Waiting till the bullyboys get you
      Don't make no kind of sense
      And pretty soon there'll be no room
      For sitting on the fence

      You better decide which side you're on
      This ship goes down before too long
      If Left is right then Right is Wrong
      You better decide which side you're on

      Too bad for the gay revolution
      This is as far as we get
      And if you think you're free, well listen to me
      You ain't seen nothing yet
      We're all gonna feel the backlash
      Of puritannical power
      And kicking us down into the ground
      Gonna be their Finest Hour

      You better decide which side you're on
      The chips go down before too long
      If Left is right then Right is Wrong
      You better decide which side you're on

      Too late, trendy thinkers
      Your time is running out
      Ain't no time to wonder why
      Ain't no time for doubt
      Joseph, Reed and Whitehouse
      Are out to get your guts
      You better decide which side you're on
      Forget those ifs and buts

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    19. Re:Man oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowadays it seems like almost everything is twisting to the right...

      Right hand rule!

  2. Which side is upwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just flip it, it twist to the left, isn't it?

    1. Re: Which side is upwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no.

    2. Re: Which side is upwards? by LocutusOfBorg1 · · Score: 1

      no.

    3. Re:Which side is upwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nope. A helix has an intrinsic twist direction invariant from the point of view.

      Check it yourself. Get two identical springs and put them side by side, flip one and voila you have the same configuration than before.

    4. Re:Which side is upwards? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh yeah? We'll soon see about -

      Hmm. Maybe one of these is broken. I'm getting more springs.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:Which side is upwards? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      And then a step to the right?

    6. Re:Which side is upwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about a nut on a bolt. From the top, I want it to go down, so I rotate it clockwise. From underneath, to get it to go in the same direction, I rotate it counterclockwise.

      Say I want to open a valve on a propane canister. If I'm facing the valve, I rotate it counterclockwise. If I'm behind the valve, I rotate it clockwise.

    7. Re:Which side is upwards? by As_I_Please · · Score: 1

      Rotating the nut clockwise always moves it away from you; rotating it counter-clockwise always moves the nut towards you. You're flipping your position axes (looking from the top/bottom) but keeping your velocity axes the same (moving in the same direction), hence the direction of rotation flips.

  3. Twisted left by SeeingMole · · Score: 1

    When will they find out why certain part of male anatomy seems to be twisting to the left for majority of us?

    1. Re:Twisted left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am lefthanded and mine twists to the right - my theory is it will usually point opposite of your prefered hand and my reason is furious masturbation.

    2. Re:Twisted left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hint: It's related to most of us being right-handed.

    3. Re:Twisted left by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      my reason is furious masturbation

      While there's something to be said for angry make-up sex, maybe you ought to calm down a bit before taking care of business. You could hurt yourself, lad.

    4. Re:Twisted left by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      When will they find out why certain part of male anatomy seems to be twisting to the left for majority of us?

      Most of us are right handed? ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Twisted left by dave420 · · Score: 1

      What about for those of us who are ambiwanxtrous?

    6. Re:Twisted left by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      What about for those of us who are ambiwanxtrous?

      LOL ... assuming my bullshit hypothesis is true ... if you do them equally, no twist at all, if you preferentially use the left hand, twist to the right.

      You'd probably need accurate statistics on if you have a greater, um, usage with one or the other over your lifetime. Frequency, duration, and ... er ... grip strength/technique probably play a factor.

      Now, please do us all a favor, and keep the answer to yourself. ;-)

      Because, too much fscking information.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  4. Random chance more likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Mutations happen randomly. A mutation occurs in Right-Version that's beneficial and so the right version becomes the dominant version, nothing to do with right or left, its simply the version that got the beneficial mutation.

    So evolution would drive nature to choose left or right versions of every little enzyme, molecule and so on, simply because it grows from benefitial branches and they are either left or right but not an even mix of both.

    1. Re:Random chance more likely by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      It seems more likely than the electron decay postulation (though butterfly effect and all, I guess). It's not unlike the whole "toilet flushing in the opposite direction in northern/southern hemispheres" urban legend where it turns out that other factors far outweigh the Coriolis effect.

  5. alternative selective force than early-universe el by elleard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They forgot a simpler and perhaps more prominent selective force for one enantiomer over another: average experienced twist on the earliest nucleic acid chains from ocean currents. It should be slightly one way, due to Coriolis forces. Did life start North or South of the equator?

  6. So evolution possibly already happened ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    ... before there was life?

    1. Re:So evolution possibly already happened ... by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Depending on how you define "life", yes. In fact, almost certainly, regardless of which definition of "life" you choose. Selection can occur in any kind of chemical or physical process in which produces similar but not always identical results. There's nothing special about the particular chemical processes we call "life", nor some magic line in the sand you can draw and say "this is life, and this isn't" -- it gets rather fuzzy on the edges, and the distinction between life and other chemical processes is as arbitrary as the distinction between which celestial bodies we decide to call "planets" and which we decide don't qualify. Nature doesn't care much for our arbitrary distinctions.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:So evolution possibly already happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love you.

    3. Re:So evolution possibly already happened ... by itzly · · Score: 2

      Evolution happens as soon as you have a simple molecule that can replicate itself, or at least catalyse some reaction that leads to more copies of itself. If your definition of life does not include self-replicating molecules, then there was evolution before life.

    4. Re:So evolution possibly already happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't buy that it's as arbitrary as you say it is. And in any event, everything is arbitrary, including 2+2=4. It's arbitrary in the sense that I could have said 2+3=5. So you're making a useless argument. But the relationship between 2+2=4 and 2+3=5 is not arbitrary, because mathematics as a system isn't arbitrary by any definition of the word.

      If your definition of life is replication, then you have a point. Prions, for example, replicate. But that definition is so 19th century. That definition is "arbitrary" because it also happens to be wrong.

      A more modern definition of life, and one that I prefer ('cause I thought it up myself before realizing it was already a thing), is based on entropy. A living chemical system is organized to continually minimize local entropy. That's actually quite a rare phenomenon as far as I can tell, and it well circumscribes all the things we understand to be "living", as well as things we expect to discover.

    5. Re:So evolution possibly already happened ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 2
      A living chemical system is organized to continually minimize local entropy.

      Actually, it's not. If your body tried to minimize its entropy, you'd end up frozen or your body separated into its constituent atoms.

      I guess you're trying to describe the concept of homeostasis, which is in fact part of the "official" definition of life. One thing living things do is use energy to keep their internal state constant even against outside influences. This is different from trying to minimize entropy.

    6. Re:So evolution possibly already happened ... by itzly · · Score: 1

      A living chemical system is organized to continually minimize local entropy

      A refrigerator lowers local entropy. Is it alive ?

    7. Re:So evolution possibly already happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a good definition. Both prions and fire fit that definition. Yet both will burn out and extinguish themselves, and neither can evolve in a Darwinian sense.

      There are far better definitions out there, and they don't necessarily involved replication at the macro level. For example, Earth. Don't get me wrong--I'm no tree hugger--but Earth itself displays the salient characteristics of life--homeostasis, "negative entropy" (which is not literal, but a way of stating that the system performs work to minimize the entropy of it's constituents systems in order to perpetuate itself; obviously global entropy increases), etc. But Earth can't replicate.

    8. Re:So evolution possibly already happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an interesting definition, but I'd prefer it if my freezer wasn't alive.

    9. Re:So evolution possibly already happened ... by itzly · · Score: 1

      That's not a good definition

      I didn't state a definition.

      Yet both will burn out and extinguish themselves, and neither can evolve in a Darwinian sense.

      Unfit replicators will die out. That's one aspect of evolution, and it happens all the time. I wouldn't classify fire as a molecular replicator, by the way.

    10. Re: So evolution possibly already happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can your refridgerator harvest the energy it needs, on its own, or does it need to be hooked up to an engine, designed and built by something alive?

    11. Re: So evolution possibly already happened ... by itzly · · Score: 1

      A refrigerator just needs some electricity. Whether that is provided by something alive or not doesn't matter. The sun wasn't designed and built by something alive, and yet it provides energy for plenty of life forms on Earth.

    12. Re: So evolution possibly already happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sun wasn't designed and built by something alive,

      Again, depending on how you define "life". (As possibly-living-user osu-neko said: "nature doesn't care much for our arbitrary distinctions.")

    13. Re: So evolution possibly already happened ... by itzly · · Score: 1

      Well, the sun not organized to continually minimize local entropy, which was the definition I was going by in this tangent.

    14. Re: So evolution possibly already happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can your newborn harvest the energy it needs, on its own, or does it need to be hooked up to an outside fuel source?

      I guess your newborn isn't alive. Go make it stop crying.

    15. Re:So evolution possibly already happened ... by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      But Earth can't replicate.

      Who says?

    16. Re:So evolution possibly already happened ... by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      ...as arbitrary as the distinction between which celestial bodies we decide to call "planets" and which we decide don't qualify. Nature doesn't care much for our arbitrary distinctions.

      Pluto, is that you ? Don't be bitter, you knew it was inevitable.

    17. Re:So evolution possibly already happened ... by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. 'Oh yes,' one would think. However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition; consequently, she does not understand me, for how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic, if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder?

      http://www.montypython.net/scr...

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    18. Re:So evolution possibly already happened ... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      So Pluto is alive? Settled!

    19. Re: So evolution possibly already happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The refrigerator doesn't harvest the energy it needs by itself. Life forms on earth that get energy from the sun figured out how to do that by themselves, thus they're classified as alive. A refrigerator isn't alive because if left alone, it can't get power from the sun. Now if a life form hooked it up to a solar-powered engine, but again that requires the intervention of something that's alive.

    20. Re: So evolution possibly already happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it kind-of is. Without the layering internal to the sun there would be insufficient radiation pressure to keep it from collapsing gravitationally into a much higher entropy state *and* insufficient gravitational self-binding energy to keep the gas from dispersing into a much higher entropy state. Almost all stars are in many ways at the peak of a Mexican Hat potential for much of their billions-of-years of life, with the trough conforming to various higher entropy states. The configuration of different stars produce different feedback mechanisms (meta-)stabilizing the star near the low-entropy peak, and a change in its environment that alters its configuration often disrupts one or more of those mechanisms.

  7. Does that apply to the entire universe ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    Because there is a right way

    TFA mentioned several possible scenario - spin-polarized electrons, circularly polarized light that is produced by the scattering of light in the atmosphere and in neutron stars, and so on - which should have been taking place in similar fashion all throughout the universe

    Would this mean that if there are lifeforms elsewhere in the universe, would their physiology (whether or not they have DNA) be similarly affected by the polarized action of electron and/or photon around them?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re: Does that apply to the entire universe ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If there's anything I learned from Star Trek TOS, is that no matter what planet you land on, you can always hook up with the local humanoid females.

    2. Re: Does that apply to the entire universe ? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Just because it is spun to the right doesn't make it gospel. The shitter flushes to the left below the equator... Everyone meet God...

    3. Re: Does that apply to the entire universe ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmm, hot Horta booty.

    4. Re: Does that apply to the entire universe ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If if spins to the left,. you are on the wrong end of it.

    5. Re: Does that apply to the entire universe ? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      That god has been replaced by Google

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re: Does that apply to the entire universe ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the Horta. Their babes are hot but you'll get burned for sure!

  8. Asimov said it first by Ateocinico · · Score: 5, Interesting
  9. Chirality and Tertiary Structure of Proteins by Champaklal · · Score: 1

    Here's my understanding of the article: In organic chemistry- molecules often have asymmetric shape. Even though their chemical composition is same, their selection of "which bond" about the carbon atom causes "twisted" molecules. So there can exist isomers of compounds (like glucose has, and particularly called as anomer). You can imagine the twisted molecule as a fat roll of putty twisted. So, some parts of putty will be observable from outside (exposed) and some, not that exposed.
    In most of the reactions, one reactant comes near the other reactant to give/ take electron. But to come near that electron rich area (called reaction site), you need that area to be exposed. If the area is not exposed, no reaction would happen there. However, if the reaction happens, and the site is not well exposed (hence less room to accommodate a big fat molecule of reactant, then the bond (if made) will be very weak. A slight collision with anything- (forget an electron) even 5 photons will cause the reaction to happen, and the molecule to dissociate. ( a similar reaction happens in our eyes when as less as 5 photons hit our eyes and supply the energy to one stereo-isomer (cis on 11th carbon to be exact) retinal to convert to all trans retinal) Here's a wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
    Because of this twisting in proteins (Also known as a primary structure of protein), reaction sites are created, but are obfuscated because of secondary, and tertiary structure (too many amino acid units (group of arranged atoms), and their repeated patterns make a protein). Now, whenever a stabler structure is to be made, they can happen in one stable shape in space. for the other isomer, it wouldn't be stable, because of weak bond and less room.
    My understanding is, the slow moving electrons hit the molecules in one of the reaction sites too obscure for regular ones, and this imparted the energy. It's a similar thing like UV rays or very strong electromagnetic radiations do. In case of electrons, when they come, they bring charge, which may throw the poor molecule off balance, and cause breaking due to the imbalance in electrical forces.

  10. It SHOULD bend to the right. by Chas · · Score: 4, Funny

    If it bent to the left, that'd be a bit...sinister.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  11. It's like water in a bathtub by cazzazullu · · Score: 1

    It's due to the rotation of the earth, duh! Those down-under rotate the other way, but they are upside down also, so it compensates.

    --
    int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
  12. But only on the Northern Hemishpere. by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    It's the Coriolis effect. Duh.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  13. Article works with a weak hypothesis by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    The article is rather dubious really.
    There's an underlying assumption that the symmetry braking of the solution requires an asymmetry in the starting condition.
    If you place a pencil upright it is very unstable and it will fall over. In what direction it will fall depends on the 'background noise' disturbances which can be completely symmetrical - on average.
    So you have a completely symmetrical situation but the outcome will be completely asymmetrical: the pencil falls over in one direction. It is not an interesting question to investigate why exactly the pencil fell in this specific direction.
    So what's the deal here, if our dna pencil comes out oriented one way? That electroweak parity breaking causes the pencil to fall over in one direction? That the chances of the pencil falling over in a specific direction are slightly enhanced but the outcome can still be anything - as with a single roll of a dice with 17 'left' faces and 15 'right' faces? Or that the effect will just be drowned by the background noise?
    I think the latter.

    It reminds me of the claims that the bathtub always drains with a rotation that depends on the hemisphere, while in fact the impact of the coriolis effect is completely negligeable..

  14. I know why DNA double helix twists to the right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's because we're all descendent from Derek Zoolander.

  15. Experimental evidence says that is unlikely by Wdi · · Score: 1

    There are now over half a dozen carbon-containing meteorites where a (small) excess of L-amino acids was found, and none where the opposite enantiomer was found to be in excess. Since these meteorites where never in contact with the earth's biosphere (the samples were of course not scraped from the surface), the chance of an evolution of isolated systems into a random chiral direction is already pretty slim.

    1. Re:Experimental evidence says that is unlikely by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Well, I'll need a lot of convincing to conclude that the asymmetry in amino acids was not due to contamination at some stage.

    2. Re:Experimental evidence says that is unlikely by Wdi · · Score: 1

      That is an obvious concern, but also one the examining scientists and their reviewers had... consensus seems to be that these concerns were properly addressed, at least in the later studies.

    3. Re:Experimental evidence says that is unlikely by LeDopore · · Score: 1

      Hi Wdi,

      Do you have a citation for the meteorite work?

      Also, even if there's a slight chiral asymmetry in space rocks, space is a high radiation environment compared to the primordial soup. Tinkerton makes a very good point: when the chiral chemical effects of beta decay are this weak even under lab conditions engineered to maximize their strength, it's hard to imagine this asymmetry would play a significant role in the wild.

      --
      Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
    4. Re:Experimental evidence says that is unlikely by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      It's a bit more than a concern, it's distrust because the idea has some attributes I'm suspicious about. Compare it with panspermia theories. These theories were successful primarily because people had problems thinking up ways of how life could spring out of nothing. That by themselves doesn't make them wrong of course, and some may claim that it's unsigntific to use such things as distrust. I disagree.

      On the other hand, if it turns out that electroweak parity breaking does percolate upwards all into chemistry that would make it a very fascinating find.

  16. Psychedelic... by Andreas+Otto · · Score: 1

    when you change the direction from where you view it it changes direction to the left..... woa dude! Far out

    1. Re:Psychedelic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why don't you get a spring or a screw try flipping it around and see what happens...and then come back here after you finish with this homework.

        you fill find flipping it around doesn't change the direction of the threads

  17. Random chance more likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, just by random change life began as right handed version. Later all the emerging left hand versions were eaten.

  18. Headline: "Force of nature gave life its asymmetry by radtea · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Article:

    The interaction of left-handed electrons with organic molecules is not the only potential explanation for the chiral asymmetry of life.. Meierhenrich favours an alternative â" the circularly polarized light that is produced by the scattering of light in the atmosphere and in neutron stars3. In 2011, Meierhenrich and colleages showed4 that such light could transfer its handedness to amino acids.

    But even demonstrating how a common physical phenomenon would have favoured left-handed amino acids over right-handed ones would not tell us that this was how life evolved, adds Laurence Barron, a chemist at the University of Glasgow, UK. âoeThere are no clinchers. We may never know.â

    The new work is interesting and important, but its primary significance is that it makes future work distinguishing the possible alternatives more challenging. It's also interesting because unlike the other two proposed mechanisms it is a result of the fundamental asymmetry in the weak force rather than an accidental boundary condition, so it implies that life everywhere is more likely than not to be right-handed, whereas the explanations involving magnetic fields will make a universe that's 50/50 right/left.

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  19. you mean Clockwise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or anticlockwise?

  20. Up next, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... hopefully they can tell us why the left testicle always hangs lower than the right :-)

  21. A left-twisted DNA ecosystem somewhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would make for interesting Star Trek like story, two space-faring civilizations meet up, alike in many ways, except for that one fundamental quirk. Could their version of a flu virus wipe us out, or would it have no effect at all?

    .

    1. Re:A left-twisted DNA ecosystem somewhere? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The general trope has been exercised in several SF short stories, if not longer ones. I don't know if that has happened in the Star Trek universe though (only having seen maybe 20% of the series).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  22. Explains Star Trek by Ugmo · · Score: 1

    That explains why in Star Trek all intelligent life can interbreed despite evolving separately for billions of years. ;)

    1. Re:Explains Star Trek by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      That explains why in Star Trek all intelligent life can interbreed despite evolving separately for billions of years. ;)

      Actually, they can't. Even Spock's parents had to use medical intervention to make it possible. That said, it is interesting, whether they can interbreed or not, that most of them have the correct genitalia and in the right places to accommodate intercourse.

    2. Re:Explains Star Trek by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Most of the ones we've seen. But, maybe there's a whole bunch that don't. Either of Spock's parents would have had trouble, medical intervention notwithstanding, making it with a Horta.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:Explains Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TNG offered the yeah-OK-sure explanation that an ancient humanoid race that was dying off seeded the soon-to-be homeworlds in the series with their own DNA, hoping that life would evolve on them, and that eventually more humanoid races would appear. (They even left a message encoded in the DNA explaining this.)

      .

  23. Intelligent design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sigh, another attempt to cover up what looks suspiciously like evidence of intelligent design (i.e. a designer preference). "There has to be an alternative," what passes for modern science, claims. "There just has to be." They been fussing over this one at least from when I was studying engineering in the early 1970s.

    Charles Darwin concocted only one mechanism to explain the development of species, the clumsily tautological survival of the fittest, with fitness determined solely by survival. Over a century and a half later biology is so dogmatic insistent that no other mechanism be allowed, that no evidence suggesting a different possibility can be considered. If physicists had been as narrowly dogmatic as biologists, Einstein and the early champions of quantum mechanics would have been driven out of the scientific community long ago and their names turned into smear words.

    Those who like the inside scoop on these debates might regularly visit:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org

    Here is a good start:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/from_stephen_me089981.html

    1. Re:Intelligent design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahaha tosser

  24. No silly, its very simple.... by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    Electrons are right handed and left brained.

  25. Ambiguity by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

    Why "right-handed"? Shouldn't it be "clockwise"?

    Twisting towards the right hand could be "over the top" (clockwise) or "around the bottom" (counterclockwise). Not to mention that unless you specify whether you're twisting down the strand towards or away from you (assuming the strands are pointed straight away from your body), means you end up with 4 ways to arrive at 2 possible orientations.

    I suppose the scientific response is, "No, shut up; we just defined this confusing and nonstandard wording as X."

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    1. Re:Ambiguity by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Why "right-handed"? Shouldn't it be "clockwise"?

      In a world of digital time devices, that makes no sense :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Ambiguity by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Why "right-handed"?

      I suppose the scientific response is, "No, shut up; we just defined this confusing and nonstandard wording as X."

      Pretty much, but it is a bit more complicated that that. Right hand rule refers to the cross product dealing with current, magnetic force, and the way it is taught. Essentially, physics follows a pattern that is mimicked by using the right hand and assigning certain related forces and fields to the thumb and fingers. This is known as the Right Hand Rule.

    3. Re:Ambiguity by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Looks like my guess was wrong then--that article seems to indicate that "to the right" = "counterclockwise" for some applications.

      When we already have an unambiguous term to describe something, co-opting an ambiguous one instead is foolish.

      And we all know that the entire field of mathematics is "because we said so" anyway so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised ;)

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    4. Re:Ambiguity by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

      It makes more sense than saying "to the right" in a circular motion.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  26. Does life depend on the right twist of DNA? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    Hopefully, somebody will read past all the political jokes to answer this. I understand why the physicists are hypothesizing as to why DNA twists to the right. My question is whether or not the right twist is required for life or could a left twisted DNA led to life? If DNA must twist right for life to exist, does that preclude life on many of the star systems that could support life because the same condition that led to our right twisting DNA was absent?

    1. Re:Does life depend on the right twist of DNA? by Urkki · · Score: 1

      ... and if right or left twisting DNA could equally support life, then the fact that all DNA is right-twisting suggests that life arose just once (or very few times).

      Well, no. As TFA suggests, "electrons created in the subatomic process known as beta decay are always 'left-handed'. ". It could also be some other influence, but the point I'm trying to make is, even though life would work equally well with both directions, it always gets started with DNA twisted the same way.

      Sort of like, all life on Earth can withstand the atmospheric pressure, all life in this universe could have DNA twisting certain way to better withstand beta decay electrons.

      I'm not sure if this is related to /. beta, but I would not be surprised.

  27. Orientation by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Okay, so if you look at it in the opposite direction, is it still to the right? Is there a standard starting point, like when we say the right side of a car, we're assuming the orientation is from the driver's point of view. Facing the vehicle from the front would reverse that.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
    1. Re:Orientation by xfade551 · · Score: 2

      As someone else posted above, if you look at it from the opposite direction, it still twists right.

      Find the nearest screw or bolt (almost all will be right-handed), pick an end to be up, point your right thumb in that direction then curl your fingers: your fingers will curl in the same direction that is needed to move up the spiral. Now flip the bolt or screw upside down and try it again... Yep, still works. Now try it with your left hand: your fingers will curl in the downwards direction. That is what is meant by right-handed or left-handed.

  28. their theory isn't provable by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    All life we know about came from a single origin since all life is based on DNA, RNA and proteins. whatever the origin was it would have had left or right handed DNA and thus so did everything that followed. there's no reason to suppose the need for a bias for one or the other. one of them was going to win. it's like vhs and betamax.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  29. vastly stronger symmetry effect is already known by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    As light passes by a sun it is subject to an asymmetric situation where the solar atmosphere is in a magnetice field closer to one pole than another, rotating and having a gradient both radially and with the azimuth. thus there's a strong symmetry breaking effect on this light. On average, for all light passing the sun it's an equal handed effect. But if your planet happens to be subject to light that cam from the left side of the sun versus the right, that light could have a net polarization.

    this effect would likely be orders of magnitude greater than this weak force polarization effect.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  30. bollocks by Larryish · · Score: 1

    DNA is shown as a helix to make it more appealing to the eye.

    The proles don't want to see "a mishmash of random looking scientifical crap".

    Rendering DNA in the form of a double helix makes it purty and romantical and radio-friendly.

  31. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  32. Righty-Tighty by uslurper · · Score: 1

    Lefty-Loosey

    --
    oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
    1. Re:Righty-Tighty by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Only for one type of bolt ; the others are righty-loosey, lefty-tighty. If you work with them (flammable versus non-flammable gasses, left-hand wheels versus right-hand wheels on vehicles), then it is really, really important to make sure that you're doing it right. I routinely send trainees out to change a gas bottle which I know is righty-loosey, with a spanner too short to cause harm, purely to teach them the lesson.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  33. Next week in Nature by ichabod801 · · Score: 1

    Scientists find a clue as to why the chicken crossed the road.

  34. Reason it twists to the right... by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

    Gawd dun it.

  35. Looked left to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Though, I was on the other side of the picture

  36. Re:The Creator decided that DNA have right chirali by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am certain, DNA happened by chance.

  37. what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there were both right and left twists. and suddenly, the right one was part of a successful species, which propagated the right stranded version with it's success! then all DNA from that point on, became based on the right-stranded DNA, because right stranded manufactures right stranded DNA. and as all life is based on the same species, DNA, and life that formed a long, a long time ago, all life today is based on it! :)

    http://www.obamasweapon.com/

  38. Right hand rule! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's one of the principles of the universe!

  39. Re:Headline: "Force of nature gave life its asymme by metaforest · · Score: 1

    It's also interesting because unlike the other two proposed mechanisms it is a result of the fundamental asymmetry in the weak force rather than an accidental boundary condition, so it implies that life everywhere is more likely than not to be right-handed, whereas the explanations involving magnetic fields will make a universe that's 50/50 right/left.

    TFA goes too far with this idea; which I think is confusing the issue here. While the article focuses on DNA chirality, I think that is going too far up the chain of evolution.

    There were most likely replicating molecules before DNA, and many of the building blocks for life were likely set long before DNA became the preferred genetic coding system.

    What this study says, in the bigger picture, is that the chirality of many classes of molecules in early life may have been influenced by this mild bias in the weak nuclear force. What that would mean is that organisms using building blocks of the 'wrong' chirality were --over the long term-- more likely to become extinct than their peers using the same building blocks with a different chirality. Over a couple of billion years that selection pressure would weed out organisms using the 'wrong' chirality because those molecules are more likely to break when exposed to low energy beta-decay.

    Now, whether this mechanism specifically influenced the chirality of DNA... there is probably no way to tell. This mechanism of chirality selection works up and down the entire evolutionary chain. And it doesn't just select for right or left... it selects the chirality that is least likely to break from this source of pressure.

  40. Re:alternative selective force than early-universe by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Did life start North or South of the equator?

    We don't know that.

    The magnitude of forces generated from this force is far below what is around in the environment from random motions.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"