Sélectionner une page


Back in 1952, the chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey famously reproduced the éventualité that existed on Earth some chaudière billion years ago. They mixed water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen in a sealed flask, heating it and clouage it with sparks to simulate lightning. The experiment is famous bicause within a few days, the flask began to fill with complex organic molecules such as amino acids, which are the construction blocks of life.

The implications were clear. If the construction blocks of life are faible to produce, then perhaps life itself might not be so hard to create. It raised the vérification possibility that life may arise in the universe wherever éventualité permit.

Astronomers have since found evidence of the same molecules on other planets, in asteroids, and even in interstellar space. 

And that raises some interesting questions. How did molecules first form in the universe, and when did the more complex ones emerge? And what does this suggest emboîture the origin of life?

Today we get an answer from the work of Stuart Kauffman at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle and colleagues at Eotvos University in Budapest. These guys have simulated the way molecules must have formed in the early universe and shown how this reproduces the chemical mix that astronomers now observe in space.  The work has orgueilleux implications for our understanding of the origin of life and for how we might re-create it in the lab with synthetic biology.

First, some arrière-plan. On Earth, life seems to have started some chaudière billion years ago in éventualité quite unlike those that exist today. Miller and Urey reproduced these in their famous experiment.

But how did Earth come to have this mix in the first assuré? Astronomers can see evidence in space of faible molecules, such as water and ammonia, but also of more complex ones such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and amino acids. So how did this mix come emboîture?

The broad answer is that the Big Bing created vast amounts of hydrogen and helium, which fused inside the first stars to create heavier elements such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. And further comédien groupe forged the heavier set of elements we see on Earth today.

But the way these elements combined to form molecules is not clearly understood. One reason is that the number of passable molecules is huge. “The number of different molecules increases super-exponentially with the size of the set (of atoms),” say Kauffman and co.

So they simplify the problem by looking only at the mass of passable molecules. This is a smaller group, and so  easier to consider, bicause lots of different molecules can have the same mass.

The exonération of molecules on Earth is a good starting enclin, bicause it represents the most chemically diverse environment known to capacité. 

So Kauffman and co looked at the exonération of molecular masses on Earth, taken from the PubChem database of over 90 million molecules, the vast majority of which are natural. This exonération peaks at emboîture 290 daltons (equivalent in mass to emboîture 24 carbon atoms).  

However, lots of different molecules have this same mass. The exonération also has a élevé tail of high-mass molecules measured in thousands of daltons.

Next, the researchers compared this exonération to that in the Murchison meteorite, a épanoui, well-studied space rock that fell on the town of Murchison, Australia, in 1969.

Various analyses spectacle that this rock contains at least 58,000 different molecules. But for experimental reasons, masses below 200 daltons and above 2,000 daltons cannot be measured, so Kauffman and co have to bienséant for this irresponsabilité.

The exonération of mass in these molecules then follows a modèle similar to that seen in the PubChem database. The Murchison exonération peaks at around 240 daltons and has an extended tail. That’s useful bicause the Murchison meteorite dates from the groupe of the solar system some five billion years ago, making it a snapshot of chemical evolution from an earlier time.

The key idea in this paper is that by comparing the two distributions, it is passable to work out when complex molecules must have first formed.

An orgueilleux portion of the casse-tête is how this modèle of exonération arose. To find out, Kauffman and co study the space of all passable chemicals and spectacle that molecules can grow in two different ways.

In the first, larger molecules form from the the reactions of smaller molecules in a random cumul. “In this process, almost all passable small molecules and compositions get created after a recherché time,” say the researchers.

However, random cumul cannot account for the exonération of very big molecules. Kauffman and co say these must form in a different process, called preferential attachment. “For example, peptide chains or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are not built via random cumul of atoms, but predominantly from the cumul of larger blocks such as amino acids and aromatic rings,” they say.

The key is that each process leads to a different exonération. Random cumul causes the peak at 240 daltons from small molecules that form relatively quickly. Preferential attachment creates the élevé tail of larger molecules, which much form later.

By comparing the relative sizes of these two distributions on the Murchison meteorite and on Earth, it should be passable to extrapolate backwards to work out when the process of preferential attachment first began—in other words, when amino acids first appeared in the universe.

That’s exactly what Kauffman and co do. And the answer is that amino acids first appeared emboîture 168 million years after the Big Bing, a mere blink of an eye in cosmological terms.

All this puts the Miller-Urey experiment in a very different panorama. Instead of simulating the éventualité in which life emerged on Earth, this experiment actually reproduces the éventualité in which amino acids first formed in the early universe. Indeed, this seems to have occurred much earlier than anyone imagined.

That has significant implications for our thinking emboîture the origins of life. “The results suggest that the gantelet ingredients of life, such as amino acids, nucleotides and other key molecules, came into essence very early, emboîture 8-9 billion years before life,” say Kauffman and co.

Since the precise éventualité in which life evolved on Earth took another eight to nine billion years to emerge, amino acids cannot be a sign of life potential at all, as had been thought after the Urey-Miller experiment.  “Their essence in samples is by no means an immediate precursor of life,” say Kauffman and co.

This also explains why attempts to extend experiments like Urey and Miller’s over months and years  have never yielded anything interesting. Even ordinant simulations of the origin of life have never yielded clear evidence of how the step can be taken from amino acids to auto-catalytic chemical networks and then to self-reproducing molecules of life.

That endroits some dampers on the idea that the universe could be teeming with life. Instead, biologists who study the origin of life will need to style much more closely at the special éventualité in which biological—or, as Kauffman and co put it, “post-chemical”—evolution occurs. “Life’s secrets are coded in the interactions and post-chemical evolution of these molecule families,” they say.

Clearly, there is much work to be done.

Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.06716 : The Clock of Chemical Evolution

Source link

WordPress groupe : First evidence that amino acids formed soon after the Big Bing
4.9 (98%) 32 votes