beecee Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 The research was published in the journal Nature Communications. Source: University of Tokyo https://newatlas.com/biology/rna-evolution-origin-life/ RNA molecules can replicate in a process like evolution, which may have implications for the origins of life, according to a new study Researchers at the University of Tokyo have created an RNA molecule that can not just replicate, but “evolve” into a diverse range of more complex molecules. This find could plug a major gap in the puzzle of how life on Earth began. Exactly how life arose from non-living matter is one of the most profound mysteries of science. It’s long been hypothesized that RNA acted as a kind of precursor to DNA – if these simple molecules existed in the “primordial soup” of early Earth, they could have begun self-replicating and diversified into a range of forms. As the molecules became more complex, they could eventually have given rise to cells with DNA molecules, birthing all forms of life we see today. As neat as this explanation would be, it remained unknown whether or not RNA molecules could actually undergo this kind of evolution. So for the new study, the Tokyo researchers conducted a long-term RNA replication experiment. The team incubated RNA replicase molecules in droplets of water encased in oil, at 37 °C (98.6 °F) for five hours at a time. Then nutrients were added, diluting the solution to one-fifth of the original concentration, and the mix was stirred before being left to incubate for another five hours. This process was repeated over 240 cycles, for a total of 1,200 hours of experiment time. more at link...............
exchemist Posted March 22, 2022 Posted March 22, 2022 Here's the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29113-x Seems the researchers started off with a strand of RNA that included the code for a replicase, i.e. an enzyme enabling it to replicate from nutrients supplied. So it was already self-replicating when they started. Thus, self-replication was not something acquired during the experiment, so that part of the puzzle of abiogenesis is not addressed. What was interesting is that during the course of the experiment, different lineages of RNA appeared, due to mutations during the replication process. These competed with one another in a Darwinian manner and eventually several "won" and became established as the main successful types. However something else also happened, which is that some cooperation developed between them. In some cases the replicase code became lost due to mutation, but then RNA lacking this code still could reproduce, by using the replicase created by other strands which still retained this capability. So the final ecosystem of RNA was more subtle than might have been expected. At least, that is how I read it, skimming rather quickly. 1
beecee Posted March 22, 2022 Author Posted March 22, 2022 16 minutes ago, exchemist said: Here's the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29113-x Thanks. from page 6 of the pdf ."Although previous studies demonstrated the maintenance of cooperative traits in the presence of compartments, the spontaneous advent of cooperators has been elusive. Our study suggests that cooperative replicators could emerge and easily become dominant in a realistic molecular replication system". In essence, it's pretty encouraging that continuing research continues to support the only scientific explanation for the emergence of life. Whether that will in time reveal totally and fully, the exact pathway and methodology taken is something else.
Mark Corbett Posted March 28, 2022 Posted March 28, 2022 I feel that the news reports on this experiment are misleading. The experiment did not produce any self-replication. The replication involved required the use of a whole translation system that was made by living bacterial cell and then taken out of the cell. The translation system itself was not replicated in the experiment, but performed vital steps in the replication process for the RNA. I explain more about this in this YouTube video. Note: the provocative title was inspired by a statement made famous by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, I think it is unlikely that the authors of the science reports were intentionally lying. I do think their reports include misleading and false statements.
exchemist Posted March 28, 2022 Posted March 28, 2022 17 minutes ago, Mark Corbett said: I feel that the news reports on this experiment are misleading. The experiment did not produce any self-replication. The replication involved required the use of a whole translation system that was made by living bacterial cell and then taken out of the cell. The translation system itself was not replicated in the experiment, but performed vital steps in the replication process for the RNA. I explain more about this in this YouTube video. Note: the provocative title was inspired by a statement made famous by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, I think it is unlikely that the authors of the science reports were intentionally lying. I do think their reports include misleading and false statements. In post 2 of this thread I made the same point and provided both a link to the paper and a synopsis of the research, last Tuesday. All without making a video, too! 😀 2
Genady Posted March 28, 2022 Posted March 28, 2022 6 minutes ago, exchemist said: In post 2 of this thread I made the same point and provided both a link to the paper and a synopsis of the research, last Tuesday. All without making a video, too! 😀 And it is much better in writing than an audio-visual. For me anyway. 1
Mark Corbett Posted March 28, 2022 Posted March 28, 2022 1 hour ago, exchemist said: In post 2 of this thread I made the same point and provided both a link to the paper and a synopsis of the research, last Tuesday. All without making a video, too! 😀 I'm sure many people (if many people read this thread) will prefer your short summary in writing to my more detailed (to many, too detailed, perhaps) video. I'm thankful that you made that short written comment.
Phi for All Posted March 28, 2022 Posted March 28, 2022 11 minutes ago, Mark Corbett said: I'm sure many people (if many people read this thread) will prefer your short summary in writing to my more detailed (to many, too detailed, perhaps) video. It has nothing at all to do with "more detailed". It's hard to figure out if you're serious about discussing science, or more interested in pushing the views for your YT channel. Videos often require the viewer to keep going back to make sure they heard things right. The written word allows us to do this practically instantaneously. It's much easier to put mis/dis-information that goes unnoticed into a video than a written study. Video often adds an emotional element that's unnecessary. You yourself admit you used a "provocative title" to grab attention. Then there's the whole element of illusion. With modern tech, can we really trust what we see on posted videos? In science, you can't get "too detailed". There will always be someone who requires more clarity and precision simply because they can understand it and use it to promote even better explanations for various phenomena. 2
Mark Corbett Posted March 28, 2022 Posted March 28, 2022 4 hours ago, Phi for All said: It's hard to figure out if you're serious about discussing science, or more interested in pushing the views for your YT channel. Try discussing some of the science that is related to the topic and we can find out. Example: Do you agree that the experiment in question succeeded in producing a molecule or system of molecules that self-replicated?
exchemist Posted March 28, 2022 Posted March 28, 2022 1 minute ago, Mark Corbett said: Try discussing some of the science that is related to the topic and we can find out. Example: Do you agree that the experiment in question succeeded in producing a molecule or system of molecules that self-replicated? That's a bit silly, frankly. As both you and I have pointed out, that is not what the paper is about. It's just a typical pop-sci headline: eye-catching but misleading. So why waste time on that? It would be far more interesting if you can build on my brief summary of what it seemed to me the paper actually is about, as per post 2. 1
Mark Corbett Posted March 28, 2022 Posted March 28, 2022 14 minutes ago, exchemist said: That's a bit silly, frankly. As both you and I have pointed out, that is not what the paper is about. It's just a typical pop-sci headline: eye-catching but misleading. So why waste time on that? It would be far more interesting if you can build on my brief summary of what it seemed to me the paper actually is about, as per post 2. The paper claims that the experiment demonstrates evolution. But evolution is not possible, even in theory, if there is no self-replication. So self-replication is a foundational issue.
CharonY Posted March 29, 2022 Posted March 29, 2022 7 hours ago, Mark Corbett said: The paper claims that the experiment demonstrates evolution. But evolution is not possible, even in theory, if there is no self-replication. So self-replication is a foundational issue. As already mentioned, the paper starts off with a replicating system. So that at least is not an issue. What exchemist pointed out is that because it starts off with a replicating system, it cannot address how the mechanism of self replication arose (something which the news article gets wrong). There are some issues with the idea of the RNA world (specifically with RNA being early or first replicators), related to their instability and the fact that enzymatic RNA (which are not the topic here) are fairly large. What the authors looked at is looking at evolution in once a self-replication system was established. If the youtube is not getting that right, it would really just fall in line of many other videos which, to my dismay, are increasingly used non-critically by students.
exchemist Posted March 29, 2022 Posted March 29, 2022 10 hours ago, Mark Corbett said: The paper claims that the experiment demonstrates evolution. But evolution is not possible, even in theory, if there is no self-replication. So self-replication is a foundational issue. Yes of course replication is essential for evolution. However the purpose of this research was not to demonstrate the development of self-replication, nor does it claim any such thing. The title is: "Evolutionary transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network". The paper does demonstrate that. Have you actually read the paper?
Mark Corbett Posted March 29, 2022 Posted March 29, 2022 1 hour ago, exchemist said: Yes of course replication is essential for evolution. However the purpose of this research was not to demonstrate the development of self-replication, nor does it claim any such thing. The title is: "Evolutionary transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network". The paper does demonstrate that. Have you actually read the paper? I have actually read the paper. I agree that the paper is more cautious in its claims than the press release from the University and from the news articles that followed. The news articles did make it sound like the experiment had discovered a self-replicating RNA. Here are two examples: "According to SciTechDaily.com, the first RNA molecule that can replicate itself was created, thanks to scientists from the University of Tokyo." Source: https://www.healththoroughfare.com/science/scientists-create-the-first-rna-molecule-that-replicates/45320 AND "AN RNA molecule that can self-replicate, change its form and develop complexity - or, in other words, evolve - has been developed by researchers for the first time in a discovery that could shine a light on how life first emerged." from: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1582670/origins-of-life-breakthrough-evolving-rna-molecule-created-first-time-tokyo
exchemist Posted March 29, 2022 Posted March 29, 2022 2 hours ago, Mark Corbett said: I have actually read the paper. I agree that the paper is more cautious in its claims than the press release from the University and from the news articles that followed. The news articles did make it sound like the experiment had discovered a self-replicating RNA. Here are two examples: "According to SciTechDaily.com, the first RNA molecule that can replicate itself was created, thanks to scientists from the University of Tokyo." Source: https://www.healththoroughfare.com/science/scientists-create-the-first-rna-molecule-that-replicates/45320 AND "AN RNA molecule that can self-replicate, change its form and develop complexity - or, in other words, evolve - has been developed by researchers for the first time in a discovery that could shine a light on how life first emerged." from: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1582670/origins-of-life-breakthrough-evolving-rna-molecule-created-first-time-tokyo I trust, then, that your video makes clear the paper is not claiming to have solved the riddle of how the first replicator arose. Leaving aside the silly hype in sections of the lay press, do you have anything to say about the content of the paper?
Recommended Posts