The RNA world

November 18, 2014 • 6:47 am

by Matthew Cobb

I have just sent off the final version of my book Life’s Greatest Secret: The Story of the Race to Crack the Genetic Code (to appear in 2015 with Profile Books, and Basic Books in the USA). The book is mainly history, covering the period 1943-1961, but the final four chapters bring the story up to date, describing things like the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome, the development of genetic engineering, and epigenetics.

To celebrate, I thought I’d give readers a condensed version of one of the sections dealing with that exotic-sounding entity, the RNA World.

========

Proteins and DNA, which are so important to life today, have not always existed on our planet. The RNA machinery that exists in every cell of every organism on Earth, and the ability of RNA molecules to act as enzymes, catalysing biochemical reactions without the involvement of proteins, all indicate that another form of life existed before DNA-based life-forms: the RNA world. RNA is a molecule that resembles DNA except it has only one strand, rather than two, and it uses a slightly different set of chemical bases to code information: whereas DNA uses A, C, G and T, RNA uses U in place of T.

Exactly what the first replicating molecules were, and how they made the transition from merely replicating to also interacting with the world, we do not know – they may have been RNA molecules, or perhaps even simpler compounds, such as peptides. They appeared perhaps 4 billion years ago, probably in the microscopic pores of rock around a deep-ocean hydrothermal vent (although Jack Szostak argues they appeared in small vesicles made of fatty acids, and no one actually knows).

Wherever they were found, those early replicating systems would have had to speed up the chemical reactions that define life. If left to their own devices, the kind of reactions that take place in our cells would need billions of years to occur spontaneously; in the presence of RNA they take a fraction of a second.

At some point, perhaps after a period of evolution and competition between various biochemical types of life, the RNA world came into being. There are no direct traces of this world, so our views are based on strong suppositions rather than physical evidence.

This was a very different kind of life to the one we know. In the RNA world, RNA molecules were the basis both for reproduction and for biochemical interaction (that is, they acted as enzymes, speeding up and favouring chemical reactions).

In a world without DNA or proteins, the genetic information contained in an RNA molecule coded simply for that piece of RNA. Reproduction involved the copying of RNA molecules that acted as enzymes to direct chemical reactions. These RNA molecules provided the raw material for natural selection to begin its long work of sifting between variants, eventually leading to the DNA-based life that now covers the planet.

The idea of the RNA world was first been put forward by Oswald Avery’s colleague, Rollin Hotchkiss, at a symposium organised by the New York Academy of Sciences in 1957. Struck by the fact that some viruses use RNA and others use DNA, Hotchkiss suggested that:

[As] a genetic determinant, RNA was replaced during biochemical evolution by the more molecularly and metabolically stable DNA. Cell lines have preserved the RNA entities which, evolutionwise, were primary to DNA and may have allowed them to store their information in DNA and thereby become subservient to it metabolically.

In the late 1960s the idea was taken up by Francis Crick, Leslie Orgel and Carl Woese; Wally Gilbert coined the phrase ‘RNA world’ in 1986.

Although the RNA world no longer exists (but who knows what secrets lurk in the deep ocean?), we all carry its legacy within our cells. When our DNA-based life appeared, evolution did not redesign life from scratch: it used what was to hand, adapting existing RNA biochemical pathways and turning them into something new and strange.

This explains why RNA is not simply a passive messenger between the two apparently fundamental components of life – DNA and proteins. It plays many roles, shuttling genetic information around the cell and shaping how it is expressed, just as it did in the RNA world. As the RNA biochemist Michael Yarus has put it: ‘Without RNA, a cell would be all archive and no action.’

RNA is involved in almost all of the cell’s machinery for getting the genetic information out of DNA and either creating proteins or controlling the activity of genes. In its many forms, RNA performs essential functions within the cell, even if it has lost its role as the embodiment of genetic information, replaced by the semi-inert double helix of DNA. The double helix – iconic, rigid and fixed – contrasts with the many physical forms that RNA can take, enabling it to carry out such a wide range of functions, which would have been such an important feature of the RNA world.

Just as we do not know when the RNA world appeared, so we also do not know when it finally disappeared. All we can do is trace the ancestry of modern, DNA-based organisms back to the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA), a population of single-celled DNA organisms that lived perhaps 3.8 billion years ago. LUCA evolved out of the RNA world, eventually – perhaps rapidly – out-competing and replacing it.

An RNA world model for the successive appearance of RNA, proteins, and DNA during the evolution of life on Earth. Many isolated mixtures of complex organic molecules failed to achieve self-replication, and therefore died out (indicated by the arrows leading to extinction.) The pathway that led to self-replicating RNA has been preserved in its modern descendants. Multiple arrows to the left of self-replicating RNA cover the likely self-replicating systems that preceded RNA. Proteins large enough to self-fold and have useful activities came about only after RNA was available to catalyze peptide ligation or amino acid polymerization, although amino acids and short peptides were present in the mixtures at far left. DNA took over the role of genome more recently, although still >1 billion years ago. LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) already had a DNA genome and carried out biocatalysis using protein enzymes as well as RNP enzymes (such as the ribosome) and ribozymes. Figure and caption taken from Cech (2012)

The replacement of RNA as the repository of genetic information by its more stable cousin, DNA, provided a more reliable way of transmitting information down the generations. This explains why DNA uses thymidine (T) as one of its four informational bases, whereas RNA uses uracil (U) in its place.

The problem is that cytosine (C), one of the two other bases, can easily turn into U, through a simple reaction called deamination. This takes place spontaneously dozens of times a day in each of your cells but is easily corrected by cellular machinery because, in DNA, U is meaningless. However, in RNA such a change would be significant – the cell would not be able to tell the difference between a U that was supposed to be there and needed to be acted upon, and a U that was a spontaneous mutation from C and needed to be corrected.

This does not cause your cells any difficulty, because most RNA is so transient that it does not have time to mutate – in the case of messenger RNA it is copied from DNA immediately before being used. Thymidine is much more stable and does not spontaneously change so easily.

The new DNA life-forms would have had a substantial advantage because they involved proteins in all their cellular activities. Although we do not know when or why protein synthesis developed, it seems unlikely that it occurred instantaneously – there was probably no protein revolution. Initially the interaction of RNA and amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) would have enabled RNA life-forms to gain some additional metabolic property, before eventually the appearance of strings of amino acids – proteins – created the world of protein-based life.

At some point DNA supplanted RNA as the informational molecule, keeping the genetic sequence safe, using RNA to produce rapid translations of that sequence into the patterned production of proteins, as the RNA enzymes were co-opted and turned into bits of cellular machinery such as transfer RNAs and ribosomes. Proteins can carry out an almost infinite range of biological functions, both as structural components and as enzymes. In both respects, they far surpass RNA. The appearance of proteins therefore opened new niches to life, spreading DNA and protein across the planet, creating and continually altering the biosphere.

These new DNA-based life-forms would have out-competed the RNA world organisms in terms of their flexibility and the range of niches that they could occupy. They would also have been able to grow much more quickly: a modern DNA-based cell can replicate itself in about 20 minutes. Experiments suggest that it would have taken days for an RNA-based life-form to reproduce. The RNA world was slow, limited and probably confined to the ocean depths.

The evolutionary and ecological advantages gained through the use of proteins by DNA-based life show that the appearance of translation from a sequence of RNA bases into a sequence of amino acids was a decisive evolutionary step. The evolution of the genetic code was essential for life as we know it. It truly is life’s greatest secret.

____________

Further reading:

If you want to know more, I strongly recommend Michael Yarus’s book Life from an RNA World.

This article by Cech is also excellent, though at a higher level:  Thomas R. Cech (2012) The RNA Worlds in Context Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 

Calvinian teleological evolution

November 18, 2014 • 5:56 am

“The World That Knew We Were Coming”

—Title of Chapter Six in Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, by Kenneth Miller

Replace Calvin in Sunday’s Calvin and Hobbes strip with “Homo sapiens“, and you have an accurate description of theological human exceptionalism, as well as an inkling of the evolutionary teleology of misguided philosophers like Tom Nagel:

ch141116-1

The strip was drawn by Bill Watterson, a very interesting fellow (do have a look at his Wikipedia bio). He stopped drawing Calvin and Hobbes in 1995, but I guess they’re recycled—and none the worse for it.

As for the philosophical/academic preoccupation of some of the strips, Wikipedia notes the following in its piece on Calvin and Hobbes (Calvin is the young boy, Hobbes his stuffed tiger, and you can guess where their names came from):

Watterson also lampooned the academic world. In one example, Calvin writes a “revisionist autobiography,” recruiting Hobbes to take pictures of him doing stereotypical kid activities like playing sports in order to make him seem more well-adjusted. In another strip, he carefully crafts an “artist’s statement,” claiming that such essays convey more messages than artworks themselves ever do (Hobbes blandly notes, “You misspelled Weltanschauung“). He indulges in what Watterson calls “pop psychobabble” to justify his destructive rampages and shift blame to his parents, citing “toxic codependency.” In one instance, he pens a book report based on the theory that the purpose of academic writing is to “inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity,” titled The Dynamics of Interbeing and Monological Imperatives in Dick and Jane: A Study in Psychic Transrelational Gender Modes. Displaying his creation to Hobbes, he remarks, “Academia, here I come!” Watterson explains that he adapted this jargon (and similar examples from several other strips) from an actual book of art criticism.

Here’s that famous “academia, here I come!” strip:

calvin

Professor Ceiling cat also has a stuffed tiger!:

Photo on 11-18-14 at 6.50 AM

Squirrel purloins, then returns, GoPro camera

November 17, 2014 • 2:39 pm

I nominate this for the Squirrel Video of the Year (my own rodents, by the way, are all fattened up for winter after generous ingestion of seeds and nuts). As the Daily Mail explains, a David Freiheit of Montreal affixed a piece of bread to the GoPro camera and put it near a squirrel.

The results were absolutely predictable, as you can see below. At least the guy got his camera back.

The video, of course, went viral, with over a million views in the last week.

h/t: Tina

Bill Nye challenged to debate GMOs

November 17, 2014 • 12:12 pm

Nine days ago I wrote about a discussion between a reddit questioner and Bill “The Science Guy” Nye about genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The questioner asked Nye if he still expressed his doubts about GMOs that he’d previously aired in an “Eyes on Nye” television episode. Here’s that episode if you want to see it:

The video’s not a debacle, but I don’t think Nye presents the issue fairly, and, in a few acted-out scenarios, he raises the issue of sneaky companies passing off environmentally dangerous products for their profit. He also raises fears that “modifying organisms is a way of modifying the world,” i.e., endangering ecosystems (in the last two minutes Nye paints one harrowing but overblown scenario).  Finally, Nye says “we have enough food.” But as we know with cases such as golden rice, that’s not the only question at issue.

I agree with Pam Ronald’s assessment in this video that the benefits of GMOs far outweigh the risks. Throwing around names like “Monsanto” and “Big Agro” to demonize GMOs, as was done by some people in my earlier post, only serves to muddy this issue.

Ramez Naam has put together a page summarizing scientific organizations’ views on GMO, all of which attest to its safety of the process to date. Yes, of course one needs to think about the perils of such interventions, but right now there’s nothing obvious to worry about, and certainly nothing to justify the environmental “activist’s” trashing of fields and overheated demonstrations.

Nye responded to the reddit questioner by expressing his continuing doubt about GMOs, as well as some goal-post moving about “malnourished fat people” who “don’t need more food”. Nye:

We clearly disagree.

I stand by my assertions that although you can know what happens to any individual species that you modify, you cannot be certain what will happen to the ecosystem.

Also, we have a strange situation where we have malnourished fat people. It’s not that we need more food. It’s that we need to manage our food system better.

So when corporations seek government funding for genetic modification of food sources, I stroke my chin.

But enough of that. Over at his Discover Magazine website Collide-A-Scape, Keith Kloor publishes an open letter to Nye by Kevin Folta, a professor of horticultural science and plant molecular biology at the University of Florida—a letter challenging Nye to a public debate about GMOs. (Folta is an advocate for GMO foods.) Part of Folta’s letter is below:

Last week you published a new book, Undeniable, again covering the harm of science denial with regard to evolution.  But then in the same text, and in later comments on Reddit, you expressed a belief-based criticism of agricultural biotechnology, or “GMO” technology.  No evidence, just “here’s what I think” coupled to arguments from ignorance, and positions that lay perpendicular to the scientific consensus.  Your logic and reasoning match the fallacies of climate and evolution deniers, the people you correctly criticize.

Over almost two decades agricultural biotechnology has shown to safely and effectively aid farmers, and offers future promise to deliver higher quality food, more sustainably.  Perhaps you were just speaking off the cuff from an uninformed opinion. We all can’t be experts in everything.

However, given your prominent status and huge media platform, you have a special responsibility to accurately communicate the science about this subject. GMO technology is backed by massive data and proof of concept, yet the topic is poorly understood and frequently misrepresented in the public discourse by anti-GMO activists. Agricultural biotechnology is not going away; the public would be well-served by a fact-based discussion, not one that is colored by emotion or ideology.

My hope is that you will consult with experts in the field and rescind your incorrect assertions.  But if you elect to stand by them, they should be challenged, and challenged publicly.

And here’s where Folta really has Nye on the spot, for since Nye has decided (vis-à-vis Ken Ham) that public debate is an appropriate way to air scientific disputes, how can he turn down this request?:

As a public scientist immersed in the biotech literature for 30 years, I am disheartened by your statements (so are many of my colleagues) as they do not reflect the current state of our scientific understanding. Let’s use public debate to articulate the science of this issue.  I am happy to arrange a forum at a major university for a civil, evidence-based debate on the benefits and risks of agricultural biotechnology. Consider this an invitation.  Three hours, same format as the Nye vs. Hamm [sic] debate.  Let’s talk about the science and make sure we get it straight.  Either I’m missing something you know, or you’re missing something I know, but it can’t work both ways.

Now I don’t think Nye will take him up on this, for I don’t think The Science Guy has done his homework, and Folta appears to know his stuff. There’s no gain in Nye looking like a fool by losing this debate. But if he really thinks that these kinds of issues should be debated verbally on stage (I don’t agree), he really should engage.

Ten to one he won’t. I’m not a fan of the new Science Guy, and see him as a self-aggrandizing person trying to capture his lost limelight more eagerly than he wants to promulgate science. But if he favors the debate route, and sees it as a way to educate the public, this is his chance.

h/t: Grania

Where did life come from: God or naturalism? The data from the U.S. vs. the U.K.

November 17, 2014 • 9:32 am

This disparity between our two related and Anglophonic lands is even worse than I expected. U.S. and U.K. citizens were polled just last wee about how they think life on Earth began. The question and choices were virtually identical for the two countries.

First the good news:

YouGov poll on the origin of life taken in the U.K. (2003 adults), Nov. 12-13 of this year. Figures are percentages:

UK

If you lump the third and fourth answers as “naturalistic origin,” then 59% of the respondents think life occurred as an outcome of the laws of chemistry and physics.  And if you go to the page, you’ll see the results don’t vary much with age, gender, region, or political affiliation.

Before you look below, guess what the answer is for the U.S.

*
*
*
*
*

Here’s the bad news, then: the YouGov poll from the U.S., taken Nov. 12-14:
US 1 US2

Less than half of the respondents were naturalists: 25%, while 53% thought life was created by God (and by that I suspect direct intervention, not just that God made sure the right chemicals were there.  That is more then threefold the number of Brits assuming God’s work (15%).

Breaking the U.S. data down by gender, age, and politics, we see that, as is often found, females are more religious than males, older people are more religious than younger (this reflects, I suspect, more a clinging to one’s upbringing than an age-related conversion), and the damn Republicans are goddier than the Democrats.

Republicans are the bane of science in the U.S.:

Screen Shot 2014-11-17 at 10.29.42 AM

Now I haven’t looked at all the survey data (there are more questions on other stuff like the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe), but once again we see how hyperreligious the U.S. is, even compared to the U.K., where faith schools are rife. I don’t think Americans are dumber than the inhabitants of Great Britain; they’re just blinkered by faith.

h/t: Dom

Proprietor’s beef of the week

November 17, 2014 • 6:37 am

It takes several hours to write a science post, for when I’m reporting on a paper like the one about the cat genome yesterday, I read the paper twice, and then go over it again before summarizing it. In toto, that post probably involved four hours of effort, most of it in the evening. About a dozen people bothered to comment.

A post on atheist issues, or on “readers’ beefs”, often takes no more than 25 minutes to write. Those posts can garner between 40 and 150 comments.

The lack of comments on science posts, leads me to wonder if people even read them, or read them but have nothing to say, or just skip them as seeming “too hard” (I, as well as Matthew and Greg) strive to make them comprehensible to science-interested readers).

If it’s the latter, what’s the point of writing about science? But if I couldn’t do that, I wouldn’t want to run this website.  I could turn it into the Daily Mail of atheist sites, but there’s already an entire blog network devoted to drama, rage, and recrimination.

All I can say is that this is dispiriting.

Readers’ wildlife (and astronomy) photographs

November 17, 2014 • 6:00 am

According to Diana MacPherson, winter has begun in Canada, and the beasts need noms:

It has been snowing here all day so the animals have been hungry. Here a blue jay chased away the chipmunk from some seeds but the chippy cheerfully found some on the deck and got snow on his snout snuffling for them. He looks like he’s smiling about it. 🙂

270A0103

270A0202

Robin Cornwell sent a photo of a Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) entitled, “His Majesty,” as well as a brief story about the herd that frequents her land:

This photo is from in front of my house – he is so beautiful.   I have about 15 or so regular on my property.  Now that the rut is over, there are 4 or 5 bucks regularly visiting.  Watching their interaction is interesting.  But this guy, well, he has survived to reach his full majesty.  By western conventions he is 7 points, by Eastern he is 14 points.  But in all conventions, he is magnificent. It is really a privilege to be alive to see this. Can religion offer more than this?  I figured that out as a child. No.

Robin Cornwell cleaned up image IMG_1526
The herd:

IMG_1773

And an adorable fawn (they’re called “mule deer” because of their oversized ears):

IMG_1778

And a special treat for astronomy buffs: our own moon (click, as always, to enlarge):

The image was taken through a 5-inch Cassegrain telescope using a Canon 70D camera filtered down to 13% of visual brightness.

The prominent crater near the top right-hand of the visible area is named for Tycho Brahe. You can clearly see the paths of ejecta thrown from the impact.

Wikipedia has the following to say about Brahe:

  • “In his De nova stella (On the new star) of 1573, he refuted the Aristotelian belief in an unchanging celestial realm. His precise measurements indicated that “new stars,” (stellae novae, now known as supernovae) in particular that of 1572, lacked the parallax expected in sub-lunar phenomena, and were therefore not “atmospheric” tailless comets as previously believed, but were above the atmosphere and moon. Using similar measurements he showed that comets were also not atmospheric phenomena, as previously thought, and must pass through the supposedly “immutable” celestial spheres.[6]”

Brahe is sometimes portrayed as a bah-humbug anti-Copernican, but the truth is a bit different.

The Apollo 11 landing site is in the “Sea of Tranquillity”, roughly at the top edge of the middle of three large dark areas to the left of the image.

Northern Hemisphere viewers will notice that they have been looking at the Moon upside down all these years. Here is a tip: drinking water while standing on your head is also an infallible cure for hiccups.

image