nasa finds new life form... on earth!

[Sasha]

it leaked out that the NASA press confrence that is taking place thursday (see: http://www.revleft.com/vb/nasa-hold-press-t145748/index.html) is about the finding of an completly new life form on earth (!)
instead of fosfor this micro-organism in arsenic based.
fucking awsome...

some more but with less detail than dutch news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8174040/Life-as-we-dont-know-it-discovery-could-prove-existence-of-aliens.html

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ah yes, extremophiles. If it can be demonstrated that they developed within the Earth, rather than on the surface, that'll be a blow for the Rare Earth Hypothesis.

[Pierre.Laporte]

Is this really that big of a deal? I seem to recall learning in high school biology about bacteria that live in sulfur, or boiling water. I could be missing something, as I'm not a bio major or anything.

[Tablo]

Is this really that big of a deal? I seem to recall learning in high school biology about bacteria that live in sulfur, or boiling water. I could be missing something, as I'm not a bio major or anything.
The big deal is that it isn't phosphorus based like most organisms and is instead arsenic based.

[Sasha]

The big deal is that it isn't phosphorus based like most organisms and is instead arsenic based.

Not "like most", like all!
Until now it was assumed that all forms of life, from plants to bacteria from mammals to fungi, consisted of the same 6 universal building blocks. I.e. some sort of basic set of life. Now they found an life form that misses one of those blocks and replaced that with an other element that enables it to live in a place too poisonous for life as we until now knew it. This means that the amount of planets with possible life just went through the roof. Because suddenly neither the prescence of water nor oxygen nor carbon etc etc is an requirement any more too sustain an form of life.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not "like most", like all!
Until now it was assumed that all forms of life, from plants to bacteria from mammals to fungi, consisted of the same 6 universal building blocks. I.e. some sort of basic set of life. Now they found an life form that misses one of those blocks and replaced that with an other element that enables it to live in a place too poisonous for life as we until now knew it. This means that the amount of planets with possible life just went through the roof. Because suddenly neither the prescence of water nor oxygen nor carbon etc etc is an requirement any more too sustain an form of life.

I thought there were only 4 universal building blocks of life, and that they were Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen (CHON)?

My understanding is that Phosphorous and Sulphur, being relatively rarer elements, were "optional" that is, while commonly found in organisms, not absolutely essential.

[Sasha]

CHON is an mnemonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonic) acronym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym) for the four most common elements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element) in living organisms: carbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon), hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen), oxygen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen), and nitrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen). These four elements are also notable for being the least massive (and having the lowest atomic number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_number)) in their group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table_group) in the periodic table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table).
Sometimes the acronym CHONP is used to include the element phosphorus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus) which, besides being crucial in DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) and RNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA), forms the core of the phosphate groups present in ATP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate) and ADP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_diphosphate).
Further, the acronym CHONPS is sometimes used, which stands for carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur). Sulfur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur) is used in the amino acids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid) cysteine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cysteine) and methionine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methionine).


as far as i gather there where theoretical concepts of life without phospor but (until now) all known life depended on its presence.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why is this being released by NASA?

[Tablo]

NASA does a lot of stuff seemingly unrelated to space. Now that I think about it.. what exactly is the official job of NASA now that the Soviet Union collapsed?

[Impulse97]

As far as I know it's still the exploration of space just not in competition with the Soviets.

If you look at NASA's history since Apollo 11 it changes drastically from reaching the moon and interstellar travel to deep space exploration through telescopes and earth orbit experiments. e.g Hubble Ultra Deep field Image which is hailed by some as the greatest human achievement of all time. [Bah won't let me post the link...look up Ultra Deep Field Image and select the Wikipedia link. Enlarge it and you'll see what I mean.]

The picture contains 10,000 GALAXYS not stars or planets but, galaxy's, each which can contain upwards of 1 Trillion stars each with the chance to have an orbiting body, with the chance for life.

It was taken in a part of the sky thought to be void of anything that was roughly 1/13 millionth of the whole visible night sky. The image seen is of that which existed over 13 Billion years ago only a few hundred million since the dawn of time itself. The one large circular yellow galaxy near the right lower corner is thought to be so big as to defy Physics altogether.:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersick le:

[Sosa]

NASA funded the research

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html


"One of the truisms of science is that life isn't possible without six elements, one of which is phosphorus.

"But a young scientist at NASA wondered whether that truism was really true. She thought arsenic, which is chemically very similar to phosphorous, might work as a substitute.
"So she and other researchers began studying tiny organisms taken from the mud of Mono Lake in California. That mud contains a lot of arsenic. And they found at least one bacterium that was able to adapt to a diet that included lots of arsenic, but no phosphorus.
"What's more, the bacterium appeared to be using arsenic instead of phosphorus in its DNA. Scientists say that suggests organisms could exist in places on earth, or elsewhere in the universe, that were previously thought incapable of sustaining life."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/12/02/131758918/bacterium-lives-without-phosphorous-may-alter-thinking-on-life?sc=fb&cc=fp

[B0LSHEVIK]

Not "like most", like all!
Until now it was assumed that all forms of life, from plants to bacteria from mammals to fungi, consisted of the same 6 universal building blocks. I.e. some sort of basic set of life. Now they found an life form that misses one of those blocks and replaced that with an other element that enables it to live in a place too poisonous for life as we until now knew it. This means that the amount of planets with possible life just went through the roof. Because suddenly neither the prescence of water nor oxygen nor carbon etc etc is an requirement any more too sustain an form of life.


Actually, the building blocks of life are ACGT (adenine,cytosone,guanine,thymine). These make up the dna which all life (and only life) has. Now if you want to say that elements are building blocks of life, well, thats too general, really. They are also the building blocks of iron-oxide (rust) and other inorganic objects. What makes life different however, is that double stranded phosphorus-ribose back-bone. Literally.

From what I can gather in reports about this discovery, its nothing too impressive. These bacteria ARE NOT REPLACING ACGT with Aresenic in any way (which would be incredible). They simply use arsenic in the back-bone of dna. If you look up P and As in the periodic table, you'll find that they are both in group -3 (meaning they'll pick up 3 electrons). This gives them very similar bonding properties. Its just using arsenic instead of phosphorus in the back-bone of dna. It is interesting, tho.

Oh, and it never said no presence of water. Its found in a lake !!!!!

[Blackscare]

AGCT are made up of four specific elements, which is why said elements are considered necessary. See, you don't find AGCT randomly in nature, but you do find these elements. Which is why it's important, because this opens up the possibility of organisms existing on other planets (or, types of DNA existing in places we thought it couldn't).


You don't understand the importance of this? It's not too vague anyway, since the formation of DNA was thought to hinge upon a very specific number of elements that had to be present. The fact that this is not the case is what is interesting here.


Also, what about RNA? I'm not sure, maybe it uses the same protiens/whatever you listed, but the idea is that obviously, organisms else where aren't going to have the exact same genetic coding structures as ours. You're saying, basically, that DNA is the basic building block of life when that isn't even so on our own planet.

[NecroCommie]

Does this mean that I can get an arsenic-dog?

[B0LSHEVIK]

AGCT are made up of four specific elements, which is why said elements are considered necessary. See, you don't find AGCT randomly in nature, but you do find these elements. Which is why it's important, because this opens up the possibility of organisms existing on other planets (or, types of DNA existing in places we thought it couldn't).


You don't understand the importance of this? It's not too vague anyway, since the formation of DNA was thought to hinge upon a very specific number of elements that had to be present. The fact that this is not the case is what is interesting here.


Also, what about RNA? I'm not sure, maybe it uses the same protiens/whatever you listed, but the idea is that obviously, organisms else where aren't going to have the exact same genetic coding structures as ours. You're saying, basically, that DNA is the basic building block of life when that isn't even so on our own planet.

ACGT are molecules, not indvidual elements.

And you RNA is used to transcribe proteins, yes. But you cant assume life on other planets have different mechanisms, untill you find those different organisms. Til yet we havent. So, as far as science is concerned, dna is the basic building block of life. Like it or not. Its called science.

[Sasha]

sadly its not an completly new form of life, it turns its an bactaria that can replace its poshor for arsenic (wich are indeed similair in build) and still replicate and grow.
but these new arsanic based lifeforms can also switch back.
so scientists assume it started still out as an posphor based lifeform that adapted.

[B0LSHEVIK]

sadly its not an completly new form of life, it turns its an bactaria that can replace its poshor for arsenic (wich are indeed similair in build) and still replicate and grow.
but these new arsanic based lifeforms can also switch back.
so scientists assume it started still out as an posphor based lifeform that adapted.

WTF?

Thats what I said!!!

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

lol, Something tells me that the majority of us here will see the discovery of alien life be it in one of the ice moons of Jupiter or Saturn, on a planet orbiting a nearby star or somewhere else in the cosmos :p And truth be told, once nuclear based space crafts come to be, the possibility of us reaching far off places in the universe will become more likely.

[Blackscare]

ACGT are molecules, not indvidual elements.
Had you read what I said carefully, you'd realize that is exactly what I was saying. ACGT are made up of elements, which until now we thought were only four. It turns out this is not true, however, which is what makes this discovery important.



And you RNA is used to transcribe proteins, yes. But you cant assume life on other planets have different mechanisms, untill you find those different organisms. Til yet we havent.
My point is, there's no reason to believe that other organisms necessarily are composed the same way that we are. Also, maybe it went over your head, but the fact is this organism is composed a different way, so there's your evidence. It doesn't have to be from a different planet, it simply has to prove a principle.


Its called science.

Yes, and you're not displaying too great an understanding of it yourself.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Had you read what I said carefully, you'd realize that is exactly what I was saying. ACGT are made up of elements, which until now we thought were only four. It turns out this is not true, however, which is what makes this discovery important.



My point is, there's no reason to believe that other organisms necessarily are composed the same way that we are. Also, maybe it went over your head, but the fact is this organism is composed a different way, so there's your evidence. It doesn't have to be from a different planet, it simply has to prove a principle.



Yes, and you're not displaying too great an understanding of it yourself.


1) Its not doing what you say it is. Which if you read my post, you would see that I explain what it DOES DO. Arsenic is not used in the nucleotides, false.

2) We have a very good reason not to assume alien life. We havent found it.

3) Im a bio-major, so....

[Amphictyonis]

3) Im a bio-major, so....

It's all well and good to base opinions on the scientific method but to assume the universe is sterile....well. Intelligent life is a different story. I'll even go as far as to assume, with the amount of galaxies and stars with planets within the billions of galaxies, intelligent life exists out there. It's not like belief in god it's more common sense.

There's nothing special about Earth. All the planets are made of start dust and I don't see the earth as some freak of nature. Kepler is already finding earth size planets in the habitable zone around other stars and their saying earth size planets are more common than gas giants so to think evolution hasn't taken place on on of the billions of earth size planets in the universe is, to me, silly.

I think the James Webb telescope will have the ability to analyze the atmosphere of the earth size planets they found- it will look for signs of life. That will be an exciting time :)

[B0LSHEVIK]

It's all well and good to base opinions on the scientific method but to assume the universe is sterile....well. Intelligent life is a different story. I'll even go as far as to assume, with the amount of galaxies and stars with planets within the billions of galaxies, intelligent life exists out there. It's not like belief in god it's more common sense.

There's nothing special about Earth. All the planets are made of start dust and I don't see the earth as some freak of nature. Kepler is already finding earth size planets in the habitable zone around other stars and their saying earth size planets are more common than gas giants so to think evolution hasn't taken place on on of the billions of earth size planets in the universe is, to me, silly.

I think the James Webb telescope will have the ability to analyze the atmosphere of the earth size planets they found- it will look for signs of life. That will be an exciting time :)

I too believe life is out there outside of Earth. However, rationally speaking, you cant discuss something that yet doesnt exist. I know this is difficult to understand. Logic and common sense lead one way, I agree. But, the reason we made the advances we have made is not because we chose to simply assume and take 'common sense' for fact. We did this too, for thousands of years.

Common sense once told us that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. We know this to be false now. I dont think Earth is unique, in fact, Im quite sure it is not. But untill we discover this life, we cannot even seriously discuss it. Any debate or talk of it today is simply sci-fi jibberish.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Something not surprising, but during this discovery, Bush had budget-cuts brought against them.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/02/nasa-bush-cuts/

[Luís Henrique]

My point is, there's no reason to believe that other organisms necessarily are composed the same way that we are. Also, maybe it went over your head, but the fact is this organism is composed a different way, so there's your evidence. It doesn't have to be from a different planet, it simply has to prove a principle.

These organisms use Arsenic instead of phosphorus. Which proves that life can be based on either:

a) Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sulphur; or
b) Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Arsenic, and Sulphur.

It doesn't prove that the other five elements can be replaced by others. Maybe they can, and speculation about Sylicon-based life (instead of Carbon) is commonplace. But up to now, it is just that: speculation.

There are some reasons besides the mere fact that all life as observed until now uses the same elements, to be skeptic. If you look at the periodic table, you will see that four of the six elements in CHONPS are at the top of their groups - and the other two are immediately below them (Phosphorus, below Nitrogen, and Sulphur, below Oxygen). So, life without Oxygen would need Sulphur in the place of Oxygen, and Selenium instead of Sulphur. This would mean two replacements instead of one (besides other concerns; sulphur is a solid at temperatures in which Oxygen is a gas, so Sulphur-Selenium based life would need different temperatures or a different way to "breathe" - "breathing" a solid, so to say). Life without Nitrogen would require two replacements as well; Phosphorus instead of Nitrogen and Arsenic instead of Phosphorus. Life without Hydrogen would be even more complicated, as Hydrogen is unique (I don't think the properties of Lythium, which is just below Hydrogen in the table, are similar enough to Hydrogen to actually replace it - H2O is pretty unreactive, but Li2O is violently alcaline).

Besides that, all the usual elements are much more common in nature (and yes, this does include the Universe as a whole, not just Earth) than those below them in the tables, so the actual possibilities for different biochemistry are lower.

Luís Henrique

[B0LSHEVIK]

These organisms use Arsenic instead of phosphorus. Which proves that life can be based on either:

a) Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sulphur; or
b) Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Arsenic, and Sulphur.

It doesn't prove that the other five elements can be replaced by others. Maybe they can, and speculation about Sylicon-based life (instead of Carbon) is commonplace. But up to now, it is just that: speculation.

There are some reasons besides the mere fact that all life as observed until now uses the same elements, to be skeptic. If you look at the periodic table, you will see that four of the six elements in CHONPS are at the top of their groups - and the other two are immediately below them (Phosphorus, below Nitrogen, and Sulphur, below Oxygen). So, life without Oxygen would need Sulphur in the place of Oxygen, and Selenium instead of Sulphur. This would mean two replacements instead of one (besides other concerns; sulphur is a solid at temperatures in which Oxygen is a gas, so Sulphur-Selenium based life would need different temperatures or a different way to "breathe" - "breathing" a solid, so to say). Life without Nitrogen would require two replacements as well; Phosphorus instead of Nitrogen and Arsenic instead of Phosphorus. Life without Hydrogen would be even more complicated, as Hydrogen is unique (I don't think the properties of Lythium, which is just below Hydrogen in the table, are similar enough to Hydrogen to actually replace it - H2O is pretty unreactive, but Li2O is violently alcaline).

Besides that, all the usual elements are much more common in nature (and yes, this does include the Universe as a whole, not just Earth) than those below them in the tables, so the actual possibilities for different biochemistry are lower.

Luís Henrique

Hey comrade.

You really cant (and shouldnt) use the periodic table as a 'roadmap' for different biochemsitry. First of all, one must look at the table (usually) top-down. Groups are actually columns. If you read it left-right, you're actually only looking at their masses arranged by mass. Top-down however, you're looking at their bonding abilities via valence electrons.

The highest group up (left-right) only only have 1 s orbital (notice H and He are the highest, each one of the simplest of elements). The second highest have an sp orbital. The 3rd have an spd, the fourth spdf, which as far as we know is usually enough. (the labeling of these orbitals changes tho, so be aware of that).

Silicone life cannot be discounted yet, but most think it unlikely, simply because of the bonding properties of Si. While in the same column with Carbon, it lacks its characteristics. Carbon is unique. Why? Well it has tetravalency. That is, the ability to form multiple covalent bonds (some of the strongest) and form long chains. Just look at the chemical formula for octane; C8H18, lots of carbons there. These properties are mainly due to Carbons empty p orbital. Thats why its charge is -4, in group -4. Si, although also with a -4 charge, has a different orbital available for bonding of electrons. This prevents if from forming covalent bonds. Instead bonds with silicone are weak. As a matter of fact, there are no known natural molecules to have more than 3 silicon atoms! It forms very weak bonds.

This is not favorable to life.

If interested in more:
http://www.thelivingcosmos.com/TheNatureofLife/SiliconVsCarbon_12May06.html

[Amphictyonis]

But untill we discover this life, we cannot even seriously discuss it. Any debate or talk of it today is simply sci-fi jibberish.

I don't think so. To discuss it being put in school curriculum or alien life being accepted as fact without proof is gibberish but to have an opinion in favor of life in the universe isn't gibberish.

We'll just have to wait a few years for the James Webb telescope to analyze the Kepler planets. Exiting times!

[B0LSHEVIK]

I don't think so. To discuss it being put in school curriculum or alien life being accepted as fact without proof is gibberish but to have an opinion in favor of life in the universe isn't gibberish.

We'll just have to wait a few years for the James Webb telescope to analyze the Kepler planets. Exiting times!


I agree, but thats not what Im saying. I think its fine to tell students that statistically speaking, its a near sure thing that life exists outside of earth. Opinions are not jibberish, but all opinions amount to speculation, often. Its fine to talk about it theoretically, but some people get carried away with it though.

[Luís Henrique]

You really cant (and shouldnt) use the periodic table as a 'roadmap' for different biochemsitry. First of all, one must look at the table (usually) top-down. Groups are actually columns. If you read it left-right, you're actually only looking at their masses arranged by mass. Top-down however, you're looking at their bonding abilities via valence electrons.

Yes, that's how I was using it.

?

Luís Henrique

[Black Sheep]

Could someone explain the 'all life as we (until now) knew needs phosphorus'

I thought life was carbon-based

[Sasha]

(i'm an alfa so what do i know bout these things but) as far as i know all life as we know it so far needs 6 basic ingredients known as CHONPS, and wikipedia is so kind to explain:

CHON (or CHNOPS or SPONCH') is an mnemonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonic) acronym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym) for the four most common elements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element) in living organisms: carbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon), hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen), oxygen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen), and nitrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen). These four elements are also notable for being the least massive (and having the lowest atomic number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_number)) in their group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table_group) in the periodic table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table).
Sometimes the acronym CHONP is used to include the element phosphorus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus) which, besides being crucial in DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) and RNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA), forms the core of the phosphate groups present in ATP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate) and ADP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_diphosphate).
Further, the acronym CHONPS is sometimes used, which stands for carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur). Sulfur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur) is used in the amino acids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid) cysteine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cysteine) and methionine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methionine).