| Index to this page |
Stanley Miller, a graduate student in biochemistry, built the apparatus shown here. He filled it with He hypothesized that this mixture resembled the atmosphere of the early earth. (Some are not so sure.) The mixture was kept circulating by continuously boiling and then condensing the water.
The gases passed through a chamber containing two electrodes with a spark passing between them.
At the end of a week, Miller used paper chromatography to show that the flask now contained several amino acids as well as some other organic molecules.
In the years since Miller's work, many variants of his procedure have been tried. Virtually all the small molecules that are associated with life have been formed:One difficulty with the primeval soup theory is that it is now thought that the atmosphere of the early earth was not rich in methane and ammonia — essential ingredients in Miller's experiments.
| Representative amino acids found in the Murchison meteorite. Six of the amino acids (blue) are found in all living things, but the others (yellow) are not normally found in living matter here on earth. The same amino acids are produced in discharge experiments like Miller's. | |
|---|---|
| Glycine | Glutamic acid |
| Alanine | Isovaline |
| Valine | Norvaline |
| Proline | N-methylalanine |
| Aspartic acid | N-ethylglycine |
The question is: were these molecules simply terrestrial contaminants that got into the meteorite after it fell to earth.
Probably not:This meteorite arrived here from Mars. It contained not only a variety of organic molecules, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, but — some claim — evidence of microorganisms as well.
Furthermore, there is evidence that its interior never rose about 40° C during its fiery trip through the earth's atmosphere. Live bacteria could easily survive such a trip.
| Link to a discussion of the possibility of life on Mars and more on the ALH84001 meteorite. |
Whether or not the molecules that formed terrestrial life arrived here from space, there is little doubt that organic matter continuously rains down on the earth (estimated at 30 tons per day).
Another problem is how polymers — the basis of life itself — could be assembled.
| Link to a discussion of enantiomers. |
This has led to a theory that early polymers were assembled on solid, mineral surfaces that protected them from degradation, and in the laboratory polypeptides and polynucleotides (RNA molecules) containing about ~50 units have been synthesized on mineral (e.g., clay) surfaces.
| Link to a discussion of ribozymes. |
While no ribozyme in nature has yet been found that can replicate itself, ribozymes have been synthesized in the laboratory that can catalyze the assembly of short oligonucleotides into exact complements of themselves. The ribozyme serves as both
(The figure is based on the work of Green and Szostak, Science 258:1910, 1992.)
In principal, the minimal functions of life might have begun with RNA and only later didTo function, the machinery of life must be separated from its surroundings — some form of extracellular fluid (ECF). This function is provided by the plasma membrane.
Today's plasma membranes are made of a double layer of phospholipids. They are only permeable to small, uncharged molecules like H2O, CO2, and O2. Specialized transmembrane transporters are needed for ions, hydrophilic, and charged organic molecules (e.g., amino acids and nucleotides) to pass into and out of the cell.
However, the same Szostak lab that produced the finding described above reported in the 3 July 2008 issue of Nature that fatty acids, fatty alcohols, and monoglycerides — all molecules that can be synthesized under prebiotic conditions — can also form lipid bilayers and these can spontaneously assemble into enclosed vesicles.
Unlike phospholipid vesicles, theseThese workers loaded their synthetic vesicles with a short single strand of deoxyguanosine (dC) structured to provide a template for its replication. When the vesicles were placed in a medium containing (chemically modified) dG, these nucleotides entered the vesicles and assembled into a strand of Gs complementary to the template strand of Cs.
Here, then, is a simple system that is a plausible model for the creation of the first cells from the primeval "soup" of organic molecules.
The 3 kingdoms of contemporary life — archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes — all share many similarities of their metabolic and genetic systems [Link]. Presumably these were present in an organism (or organisms) that were ancestral to these groups: the "LUCA". Although there are not enough data at present to describe LUCA, comparative genomics and proteomics reveal a closer relationship between archaea and eukaryotes than either shares with the bacteria. (Except, of course, for the mitochondria and chloroplasts that eukaryotes gained later from bacterial endosymbionts [Link].)
When I headed off to college (in 1949), I wrote an essay speculating on the possibility that some day we would be able to create a living organism from nonliving ingredients. By the time I finished my formal studies in biology — having learned of the incredible complexity of even the simplest organism — I concluded that such a feat could never be accomplished.
Now I'm not so sure.
Several recent advances suggest that we may be getting close to creating life. (But note that these examples represent laboratory manipulations that do not necessarily reflect what may have happened when life first appeared.)
Examples:
In 2008, scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) reported (in Science 29 February 2008) that they had succeeded in synthesizing a complete bacterial chromosome — containing 582,970 base pairs — starting from single deoxynucleotides. The entire sequence of the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium was already known [Link]. Using this information, they synthesized some 10,000 short oligonucleotides (each about 50 bp long) representing the entire genitalium genome and then — step by step — assembled these into longer and longer fragments until finally they had made the entire circular DNA molecule that is the genome.
Could this be placed in the cytoplasm of a living cell and run it?
The same team showed in the previous year (see Science 3 August 2007) that they could insert an entire chromosome from one species of mycoplasma into the cytoplasm of a related species and, in due course, the recipient lost its own chromosome (perhaps destroyed by restriction enzymes encoded by the donor chromosome) and began expressing the phenotype of the donor. In short, they had changed one species into another. But the donor chromosome was made by the donor bacterium, not synthesized in the laboratory. However, there should be no serious obstacle to achieving the same genome transplantation with a chemically-synthesized chromosome and we may hear about this soon.
So stay tuned!
| Welcome&Next Search |