Russian scientists report new DNA under subglacial Lake Vostok(cbsnews.com)
cbsnews.com
Russian scientists report new DNA under subglacial Lake Vostok
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57573314/russian-scientists-report-new-dna-under-subglacial-lake-vostok/
29 comments
> "If it were found on Mars, people would call it Martian DNA. But this is DNA from Earth"
Yes... yes indeed.
Yes... yes indeed.
I want to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and assume his english isn't great. He probably means something along the lines of: 'this DNA is so weird it could be Martian.'
It's not, though. I'd imagine Martian organisms would have a much lower shared proportion of DNA than the 86% mentioned in the article, assuming they even used DNA in the first place.
Highly likely that Martian "DNA" would be different in several fundamental aspects (for starters, the triplet codons would have entirely different "dictionary" meanings in terms of amino acids, or perhaps there would be no triplets but quartets instead or even something completely different) that it wouldn't even make sense to talk in terms of percentages -- it would be like saying a rock is 50% similar to a blue whale.
Both could contain high percentages of calcium. ;)
[deleted]
Yes and very yes to the parent. I hope your generous comment about 2nd (or 3rd ...) language is correct because that is one awful quote. If the people drilling the ice were Martians we would call them Martians too.
This is so exciting. I've been waiting on the results of the opening of Vostok for YEARS! It's one of the few "untampered" natural subterranean lakes left on Earth and arguably the oldest. If there's DNA in there, it has existed in an anaerobic environment for a very long time, and, as the scientist said it's unlike anything on Earth because these conditions are essentially unique on Earth.
Really exciting times :). Can't wait for some more confirmation and the eventual photos!!!
Really exciting times :). Can't wait for some more confirmation and the eventual photos!!!
Agreed. I'm more excited about Vostok than just about anything. Even just the development of the technology to get in there, explore, it, etc. has been thrilling. Not to mention the politics and international intrigue. This is a phenomenal bit of early news on what they'll hopefully find.
It's very exciting if it passes peer review.
There are of course two questions - first of the initial evolutionary path and then the path of long term survivability following its isolation beneath the ice. Still even if all this does is provide credibility to the latter long term survivability case it makes me excited about the potential for life in the sub-surface-ice oceans of Europa.
There are of course two questions - first of the initial evolutionary path and then the path of long term survivability following its isolation beneath the ice. Still even if all this does is provide credibility to the latter long term survivability case it makes me excited about the potential for life in the sub-surface-ice oceans of Europa.
Is it possible for life in Vostok to be genealogically isolated from life elsewhere on Earth, so that life evolved from nothing multiple times?
I believe the estimates for how long Lake Vostok water has been isolated cap out at around 25 million years. Although that is an incredibly long time, it isn't anywhere close to long ago enough to ensure a sterile condition when it was first isolated (It would need to be several billion years to proceed life as we know it already blanketing the planet).
As I understand it, the prevailing notion is that abiogenesis happened only a single time, or at least only a single time that stuck. The life that already exists does a pretty good job of ensuring that any primitive re-developed life never has a chance to actually get started. You would need to completely sterilize the environment to have a shot at witnessing abiogenesis again. Maaaybe all life in the lake died, rendering it sterile, and then new life formed, but that seems super unlikely to me. Why would the existing life die if there was enough nutrients/energy to allow new life to form? (Also, 25 million years is probably far too short of a timeframe to see abiogenisis bootstrap DNA based life)
As I understand it, the prevailing notion is that abiogenesis happened only a single time, or at least only a single time that stuck. The life that already exists does a pretty good job of ensuring that any primitive re-developed life never has a chance to actually get started. You would need to completely sterilize the environment to have a shot at witnessing abiogenesis again. Maaaybe all life in the lake died, rendering it sterile, and then new life formed, but that seems super unlikely to me. Why would the existing life die if there was enough nutrients/energy to allow new life to form? (Also, 25 million years is probably far too short of a timeframe to see abiogenisis bootstrap DNA based life)
Agree with that, but would also like to throw in a scenario where there wasn't a sterile environment, but conditions were harsh enough for all present life to die, leaving you with a 'sterile' thin soup containing the building blocks of DNA based life.
That might shave a bunch of time off of the time needed.
That might shave a bunch of time off of the time needed.
[deleted]
I suppose it's possible, but the fact that it is, in fact, DNA is enough to suggest it's from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). If it shares the same ultra-conserved ribosomal etc sequences, then it's even more likely from LUCA.
[deleted](1)
Not being an expert in the molecular/cellular/biological department. Is there any risk that this new DNA strand could harm current life? (I am thinking infections or some weird mutations, similar to every scifi movie I have ever seen)
There is always a risk. However, these bacteria evolved in an extremely hostile environment. The probability that they developed mechanisms to infiltrate a multicellular organism and fight off its immune system is practically infinitesimal, although non-zero.
There is likely zero evolutionary drive in such an environment to evolve above basic anaerobic life sustaining adaptations and it could even be the case that any evolution that isn't geared towards maximizing survivability in such an environment are actually detrimental. Chances are that any functional mutations will either optimize current processes (and thus help survivability) or create new processes or chemical pathways. The latter would usually expend more energy and could very well cause the mutated species to die off prematurely because their "improvement" is too much to handle in this low energy environment.
Of course, this doesn't preclude the bacteria being so strange that our immune system wouldn't know what to do about it but after 25 million years of sequestration with no "predators", it is unlikely that they developed such a uniqueness.
There is likely zero evolutionary drive in such an environment to evolve above basic anaerobic life sustaining adaptations and it could even be the case that any evolution that isn't geared towards maximizing survivability in such an environment are actually detrimental. Chances are that any functional mutations will either optimize current processes (and thus help survivability) or create new processes or chemical pathways. The latter would usually expend more energy and could very well cause the mutated species to die off prematurely because their "improvement" is too much to handle in this low energy environment.
Of course, this doesn't preclude the bacteria being so strange that our immune system wouldn't know what to do about it but after 25 million years of sequestration with no "predators", it is unlikely that they developed such a uniqueness.
Is anyone else concerned that they have contaminated the lake with modern bacteria?
Yeah. Little bit.
I've been waiting for the results of this search for a while now. I'm hoping to see reportage soon from a more credible source than one which refers to some country called "Great Brittan"! Do they have interns writing this stuff or something?
Were these bacteria living because of a heat source that was keeping the lake liquid, similar to life around deep sea vents?
Could there be life under our feet, fueled by the heat of the molten core with bacteria flourishing in fresh groundwater, or do these types of thermophiles require salt that wouldn't exist there?
Could there be life under our feet, fueled by the heat of the molten core with bacteria flourishing in fresh groundwater, or do these types of thermophiles require salt that wouldn't exist there?
Oki-doki, so I looked at some Russian sources and it looks weird. The RIA, the Russian Reuters, says [0] that
1. This is based on the analysis of a "technological" water that accidentally got into a drilling column (whatever it is) dating back to May 2012, and not on the specifically collected samples from a recent drilling that will be arriving to St. Petersburg in May of this year (apparently it takes 6+ months to ship them).
2. "You have to understand that only a bacteria DNA was found, not the bacteria itself." This is what the representative of the science agency said. Literally.
So.
I wouldn't be getting too excited. This reads like a PR or a vanity piece rather than a proper science report, meaning that is probably aimed at securing additional funding or something along these lines.
(edit) Also, doesn't the process of comparing DNA to the database samples smell a little like CSI bullshit to anyone? This is not my domain, but I would imagine that there's hardly a comprehensive database of a DNA of all existing life forms on Earth. I assume there's a way to see that a DNA is "alien", but why bring up some imaginary database if you are making a serious scientific announcement.
[0] http://ria.ru/science/20130307/926380740.html
1. This is based on the analysis of a "technological" water that accidentally got into a drilling column (whatever it is) dating back to May 2012, and not on the specifically collected samples from a recent drilling that will be arriving to St. Petersburg in May of this year (apparently it takes 6+ months to ship them).
2. "You have to understand that only a bacteria DNA was found, not the bacteria itself." This is what the representative of the science agency said. Literally.
So.
I wouldn't be getting too excited. This reads like a PR or a vanity piece rather than a proper science report, meaning that is probably aimed at securing additional funding or something along these lines.
(edit) Also, doesn't the process of comparing DNA to the database samples smell a little like CSI bullshit to anyone? This is not my domain, but I would imagine that there's hardly a comprehensive database of a DNA of all existing life forms on Earth. I assume there's a way to see that a DNA is "alien", but why bring up some imaginary database if you are making a serious scientific announcement.
[0] http://ria.ru/science/20130307/926380740.html
> I would imagine that there's hardly a comprehensive database of a DNA of all existing life forms on Earth.
An annotated collection of all publicly available DNA sequences is available from the DNA DataBank of Japan (DDBJ), the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), and GenBank at NCBI. They are basically all three the same database and they exchange updates on a daily basis. However, small timelags in propagating data between the database centers causes minor differences.
An annotated collection of all publicly available DNA sequences is available from the DNA DataBank of Japan (DDBJ), the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), and GenBank at NCBI. They are basically all three the same database and they exchange updates on a daily basis. However, small timelags in propagating data between the database centers causes minor differences.
Jurassic Water Park: Jeff Goldblum fights off rampaging algae.
Is that 90% figure standard convention? Where did it come from? I'm not too familiar with this field, so is that basic textbook stuff? It seems arbitrary.