I thought this was an interesting find

[RedOne77]

A paper recently came out that shows that a 5 nucleotide ribozyme can translate tRNA to proteins! The paper can be found at pnas.org

Multiple translational products from a five-nucleotide ribozyme — PNAS

Interesting stuff going on in abiogenesis right now. This paper supports an RNA world; with only a 5 nucleotide long chain capable of translation with minimal requirements.

This is the abstract:

"An indispensable step in protein biosynthesis is the 2′(3&#8242 aminoacylation of tRNA by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. Here we show that a similar activity exists in a tiny, 5-nt-long RNA enzyme with a 3-nt active center. The small ribozyme initially trans-phenylalanylates a partially complementary 4-nt RNA selectively at its terminal 2′-ribose hydroxyl using PheAMP, the natural form for activated amino acid. The initial 2′ Phe-RNA product can be elaborated into multiple peptidyl-RNAs. Reactions do not require divalent cations, and have limited dependence on monovalent cations. Small size and minimal requirements for regiospecific translational activity strongly support the hypothesis that minuscule RNA enzymes participated in early forms of translation."

I didn't see anyone post this yet, so I apologize if this is a repeat. Plus I thought that evolutionists might want to be kept up-to-date on the latest research involving chemical evolution, as it is inevitably connected to biological evolution.

 

[Yerda]

Full text available too. Nice one!

 

[Gabethewiking]

A paper recently came out that shows that a 5 nucleotide ribozyme can translate tRNA to proteins! The paper can be found at pnas.org

Multiple translational products from a five-nucleotide ribozyme — PNAS

Interesting stuff going on in abiogenesis right now. This paper supports an RNA world; with only a 5 nucleotide long chain capable of translation with minimal requirements.

This is the abstract:

"An indispensable step in protein biosynthesis is the 2′(3&#8242 aminoacylation of tRNA by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. Here we show that a similar activity exists in a tiny, 5-nt-long RNA enzyme with a 3-nt active center. The small ribozyme initially trans-phenylalanylates a partially complementary 4-nt RNA selectively at its terminal 2′-ribose hydroxyl using PheAMP, the natural form for activated amino acid. The initial 2′ Phe-RNA product can be elaborated into multiple peptidyl-RNAs. Reactions do not require divalent cations, and have limited dependence on monovalent cations. Small size and minimal requirements for regiospecific translational activity strongly support the hypothesis that minuscule RNA enzymes participated in early forms of translation."

I didn't see anyone post this yet, so I apologize if this is a repeat. Plus I thought that evolutionists might want to be kept up-to-date on the latest research involving chemical evolution, as it is inevitably connected to biological evolution.

You little scamp, here you walk around talking Creationist talk and then you post links to terrific material, been stuck for some time now with this.. Interesting stuff.

Abiogenesis is very interesting especially in the light of people who do not understand Biological Evolution, my thoughts have been that it could be easier to explain the functions of Abiogenesis and how we would define new, evolved, Chemicals as 'life' when they finally would appear, and then continue explaining Basic Evolution as they would understand the difference in the usage of 'species' and how we define a 'new' animal from an 'old' (previous) one. Anyway, rambling.

 

[RedOne77]

You little scamp, here you walk around talking Creationist talk and then you post links to terrific material

Advocatus Diaboli

Abiogenesis is very interesting especially in the light of people who do not understand Biological Evolution, my thoughts have been that it could be easier to explain the functions of Abiogenesis and how we would define new, evolved, Chemicals as 'life' when they finally would appear, and then continue explaining Basic Evolution as they would understand the difference in the usage of 'species' and how we define a 'new' animal from an 'old' (previous) one. Anyway, rambling.

I'm sorry but I don't follow. Are you saying that it would be easier to teach people about biological evolution after they understand abiogenesis once scientists have synthesized life? So you can show them how organic compounds can form basic cell structures and become self replicating polymers and 'evolve' to become protobionts and eventually prokaryotes/life?

 

[Gabethewiking]

I'm sorry but I don't follow. Are you saying that it would be easier to teach people about biological evolution after they understand abiogenesis once scientists have synthesized life? So you can show them how organic compounds can form basic cell structures and become self replicating polymers and 'evolve' to become protobionts and eventually prokaryotes/life?

No I did not go into detail because of my own laziness, I apologize.
If you would understand the arbitrary lines we use to distinguish 'life' from 'none life' in abiogenesis it would give the subject a very good understanding of how we define different species and why 'macro' and 'micro' is not valid terms from a Biological standpoint. That is what I meant.

 

[painted wolf]

Wow, this is an awesome paper that I would have totally missed! (much like I missed this thread )

Three products from just a three nucleotide active sequence is pretty awesome. It really pushes the minimum genome size needed for the first 'cells' down. I've saved this paper so I can really devote some time to reading it later.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

oh... as a side note: Do you think a protocell/replicator with just a five nucleotide RNA would count as "life" or would it be in the fuzzy grey area still?

Also... do you think this protocell would be enough for a virus to use as a host? (I'm really interested in the evolution of viruses as a possible example of extreme secondary simplification in a parasite)

wa:do

 

[Yerda]

Also... do you think this protocell would be enough for a virus to use as a host? (I'm really interested in the evolution of viruses as a possible example of extreme secondary simplification in a parasite)

wa:do

What use could a five nucleotide genome be to a virus?

 

[RedOne77]

oh... as a side note: Do you think a protocell/replicator with just a five nucleotide RNA would count as "life" or would it be in the fuzzy grey area still?

Without things like homeostasis I'd say that it is still not yet life, but under a form of natural selection and evolution nonetheless.

Also... do you think this protocell would be enough for a virus to use as a host? (I'm really interested in the evolution of viruses as a possible example of extreme secondary simplification in a parasite)

wa:do

I don't know enough to have an informed opinion, but I would think if the protocell itself has enough nutrients to sustain the virus then yes. Especially if the 5 nucleotide RNA can translate proteins. The host might die, but if the viruses got to another host quickly enough, I suppose it could start a lineage.

 

[painted wolf]

I don't know enough to have an informed opinion, but I would think if the protocell itself has enough nutrients to sustain the virus then yes. Especially if the 5 nucleotide RNA can translate proteins. The host might die, but if the viruses got to another host quickly enough, I suppose it could start a lineage.

Honestly, me neither... it's all bare speculation on my part.
But if a virus is inserting it's genes into the cell and then using the cells to make copies... this sort of 5 nucleotide RNA cell should meet the basic requirements. (very hypothetically)

wa:do

 

[evolved yet?]

This is a nice thread I'm just going to bump it back up to the beginning. Frubals