Chemical Evolution of Self-Replicating Molecules Observed In a Lab (nature.com)

New submitter n0w4k writes: Researchers at the University of Groningen have developed a self-replicating system able to not only pass hereditary information from one generation to another, but also mutate (non-paywalled link to the paper). It is a crucial step towards Darwinian evolution of abiotic species and artificial life. According to the authors and perhaps somewhat counterintuitively, in order to fully reach this goal, a death mechanism needs to be implemented in the system. Otherwise new species can only form but not disappear.

Self-replicating chemical systems have been widely studied before; some were even able to mutate. However, this discovery provides the first example of mutating replicators which are fully artificial.

Full disclosure: I am one of the co-authors; you can ask me if you have some specific questions or suggestions — maybe they can be implemented in the lab!

Comments

Re:Obligatory

[Viol8]

I don't know where God is , but I do know the Devil is in the details with this sort of thing.

Movie plot?

[Dawn Keyhotie]

I would ask you to please don't let it get out of the lab.

You will probably reply: Bwahahahaha!

Counterintuitively?

[Pegasus]

I don't get it... To me death is an obvious part of the life cycle, which is the base for evolution. What way of thinking can bring you to the point where you think evolution is possible without death?

Re:Counterintuitively?

[Teun]

I can think of evolution without programmed self-destruction.
For example, you can have death of the original caused by the evolved next generation.

Re:Counterintuitively?

[n0w4k]

To me it's also obvious, but judging from the conversations with colleagues in the field (who are chemists, not evolutionary biologists), destruction of replicators is generally neglected. The challenge has been to just make molecules which can replicate and it is even more difficult to make them evolve because you need at least one bit of information that can assume 0 or 1 state, translated into chemical structures. Such error-prone replication process is enough to generate diversity of replicators but without extinction, the only selection pressure is on the replication efficiency and not survival.

The idea of reducing with Darwinian evolution to chemical kinetics (replication and destruction of replicators) has been nicely outlined by Addy Pross, who introduced the concept of dynamic kinetic stability:

dX/dt = kMX - gX,
where X is the concentration of the replicator, M is the concentration of 'food' and k and g are the rate constants (efficiencies) for the replication and destruction processes.

So far we only got the first part of the equation and colleagues from the lab got some promising results implementing the second part.

Re:Counterintuitively?

[MightyMartian]

Bacteria are effectively immortal; in that they just divide and divide and divide.

That being said, as environmental pressures increase, one would assume that self-replicating units of this nature would soon evolve the ability to gain nutrients from its neighboring proto-life, and you now have a predator-prey situation. Being eaten or being killed by some eternal factor is how bacteria and archaea die. You're applying a concept that mainly applies to multicellular organisms.

Re:Counterintuitively?

[ediron2]

Sorry, but you've hit 3 problems.

First, your definition is twice flawed. It infers that your definition is correct without proof. And your definition requires death, when evolution is a process of transition of traits in organisms. Death is a coincidence, but neither causal nor integral to that transition.

Your question is equally flawed: questioning research only because the research focuses on a stage, because it doesn't include all stages.

Last item first: when we study something, science allows focusing on just part of it. When multiple parts are understood, we can then step back and study the collection, too. Sometimes good ideas at the stage level don't succeed at a wider scale (system, cycle, n-body, etc.) because of externalities to the initial scope. Often we find a better model that addresses all parts, but scientific method never insists that study must solve things beyond their scope. That's WHY we define scope in research.

Now, for the rest, let's treat this like some other technical 'nibble' off a bigger problem (xor as a part of two's compliment, Limits in calculus, the two-body problem in physics, catalysis, backscatter of particles):

If you break down any life cycle (including your definition), one 'moment of evolution' has nothing to do with death: reproduction. It has to do with a child having different traits than the parent. Mom may or may not die. The child may or may not die. The trait may lead to a genetic advantage with far-reaching effects, or doom the child. For this study, we don't care. We care that a synthetic organism was able to reproduce, and progeny changed traits. TFA talks of an abiotic, self-replicating system that they made, that can change traits. It's brilliant stuff, offering insight into evolution, and it is a significant building block to a bigger picture.

Nice work, Nowak and peers!

Re:Obligatory

[neoritter]

Catholic church has had the evolution "problem" nixed for about a century. Try to keep up.

Re:Question

[esaulgd7195]

This has already been done in many different ways within computer science. Genetic Algorithms is a technique in Artificial Intelligence that has been solving problems in production settings for decades now.

Re:Question for n0w4k

[n0w4k]

Thanks, Barryke.

Unfortunately, paywalling is a common problem with scientific publishing. Making it open access would cost us a few thousand euros and that money is spent better on doing research. Fortunately Nature journals provide a way to share articles freely on the internet. This link should work: https://t.co/wMF2wfbJDr

Re:Question

[n0w4k]

Thanks vikingpower!
Yes, we thought of that and we have been collaborating with physicists/programmers who are interested in chemical kinetics from the origins of life perspective. And the simplified model of our system is based on exactly what you suggested: A and B elements interacting with each other with different strength. We hope that the model can guide further experiments and help us to properly set the conditions to incorporate the 'death' mechanism.

Re:Obligatory

[frog_strat]

Agnostic here. IMHO we really have no way to think or talk about the origin problem. We can insert some placeholder, that semantically answers the question (like God started it all, or time goes back infinitely, or time started at the big bang), but ontologically, we still got nothin'. How do we make sense of a beginning with no previous moment ? Or an infinitely backward extending line of time ? Go ahead and act like the problem is resolved, but it is still an open question. And this is a problem because I have a belief that something, rather than nothing, exists, which raises these nasty origin questions.

Re:Question for n0w4k

[smallfries]

Might ve a temporary problem, but right now your paywall-free link in the sunmary goes to a nature paywall asking for $22, and your other twitter link goes to a "nature is broken right now, we will charge you later" page. Shame as your article sounds interesting, any chance of putting the pre-submission draft on Arxiv?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Obligatory

[frog_strat]

I am responding to the post above, not how evolution got started, which is a somewhat smaller problem. The context of the above post was about how anything got started, a place you end up ultimately if you keep thinking about it. I am an agnostic because I think the burden of proof rests with those who make a positive claim. When I say I don't know, there is nothing I need to prove.

Re:Obligatory

[JesseMcDonald]

For instance if I asked you if it was more likely that my brother is 1 millimeter tall or 6 feet tall, answer "I'm not sure" is making the claim each are at least similarly likely.... So either you make the claim that one side is more likely, or you make the claim they are similarly likely. Those are all claims which require a defense just as much as someone who has faith or is a non-believer.

There is another option: you can choose not to answer the question. There is no need to take a position (even a non-committal one like "not sure") when the answer has no impact on your life. The proper response to the question "is it more likely than not that there are invisible pink unicorns hiding in my back yard" is not "yes", "no", or "not sure", but rather "who cares?".