Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

  |  

Monday, February 16, 2009

Architecture / Science To Charles

Posted by on Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:32 PM

Why RNA? Because when I look at a skyscraper, only rarely do I appreciate the envelope; more often, it's the structural and mechanical engineering of the building that fascinates me.

Micelles are beautiful, and their self-assembly is undeniable. But to place them at the very beginnings of life ignores to many facts. Life, for billions of years, was prokaryotic—with one living thing a single sac filled with biochemistry. And, at the core and origins of biochemistry is RNA—capable of both replicating itself and performing enzymatic functions. When I look at living things, I frequently see beyond the structural beauty—to see the beauty inherent in the chemistry of life, the mechanical engineering of life.

So, Charles, I propose a compromise: RNA at the starts of life, the simple life that was all of life for billions of years. And lipids—the compartment after compartment that makes up the eukaryotic cell—as the origins of complex life. Without the ability of lipids to segment space—to create specialized rooms for chemistry to occur—living things would never achieve the complex and rich world we live in.

 

Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Whoa there, Jonathan. Fix all your typos and then we'll pick up this debate.
Posted by Dick on February 16, 2009 at 6:51 PM
2
Oh, come on, don't even give him that. (Phospho)ipids may be crucial for complex life, but that still doesn't make them the origin in any meaningful way. They can't transmit information.
Posted by violet_dagrinder on February 16, 2009 at 7:25 PM
3
I could even dream up a story about cells learning to create semipermeable membranes in some other way, sans fatty acids. Some sort or properly polarized protein business. The phosopholipid bilayer is undeniably more elegant, but sometimes biology is inelegant and still functional. But without RNA? I got nothin'.
Posted by violet_dagrinder on February 16, 2009 at 7:30 PM
4
You got nothin'? Anything repeating in a pattern, anything potentially replicable...

And don't prokaryotes have a lipid membrane?

Protocells required both replicating material inside, and a lipid membrane to hold crap together to really become replicators.

Remember, evolution is not selecting for transmission of information, per se. It's only selecting for replicability.
Posted by STJA on February 16, 2009 at 7:46 PM
5
This is why I love SLOG. I request more bizarre Mudede/Golob ruminations.
Posted by facet on February 16, 2009 at 8:02 PM
6
Why lipids and not polysaccharides (particularly cellulose), which give plant cells their structure? What makes this molecule so special?
Posted by matt; on February 16, 2009 at 8:28 PM
7
As someone who studies RNA semi-professionally (i.e. as a grad student), I concur. RNA 4 Life, yo!
Posted by Nick on February 16, 2009 at 8:29 PM
8
I barely understand either of you, but this Mudede/Golob exchange was the best thing on Slog in a week.
Posted by Reverse Polarity on February 16, 2009 at 8:32 PM
9
Agreed. More metaphysical/biochemical conversations, please!
Posted by DavidG on February 16, 2009 at 9:02 PM
10
There's nothing metaphysical about this discussion. But Chuck should definitely stick with poetry cuz every time he ventures into the scientific realm, he fucks it up.

But Jonathan, I'm not entirely convinced that RNA can "replicate" itself. It can serve as a template to situate two things near each other and then perform its enzymatic function, but I'm not sure that's really "replication". If I understood Joyce's paper (and correct me if I'm wrong), the "building blocks" they used were half the size of the template/self-replicating RNA and the RNA needed to make only one linkage to get the new molecule. I must be wrong, because I don't understand why everyone else would consider that replication.
Posted by idaho on February 16, 2009 at 10:28 PM
11
No, RNA is capable of replicating just like DNA is by using itself as a template. That kind of RNA would be message RNA or mRNA. But there are other RNA molecules that do other things, like transfer RNAs which bring nucleic acids to the template strand of mRNA (or in our case our DNA) to make copies. To be an RNA organism isn't half bad. There's lots of wildly successful RNA viruses that consist of their RNAs, a protein coat, and maybe a handful of their own proteins. Everything else they may need they can take over in the infected cell or build for themselves using the cell's machinery.
Posted by salad on February 17, 2009 at 5:00 AM
12
Is it possible nucleic acids are made in super novas?
Posted by Vince on February 17, 2009 at 6:40 AM
13
Give me a bit of miRNA and a side order of siRNA to twiddle the bits and I'll make you a really complicated picture from the same slices of DNA.
Posted by Will in Seattle on February 17, 2009 at 10:44 AM
14
I'm surprised it took 13 whole posts before Will managed to work twiddling his bits into the thread.
Posted by his itty bitty bits on February 17, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy