Advertisement

Science Friday
How RNA got started
Scientists identify chemical reactions that could be responsible for the origin of life
font_down font_up Text Size

Scientists may have figured out the chemistry that sparked the beginning of life on Earth.

The new findings map out a series of simple, efficient chemical reactions that could have formed molecules of RNA, a close cousin of DNA, from the basic materials available more than 3.85 billion years ago, researchers report online May 13 in Nature

“This is a very impressive piece of work — a really excellent analysis,” comments chemist James Ferris of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y.

The new research lends support to the idea that RNA-based life-forms were the first step toward the evolution of modern life. Called the RNA world hypothesis, the idea was first proposed some 40 years ago. But until now, scientists couldn’t figure out the chemical reactions that created the earliest RNA molecules.

Today, DNA encodes the genetic blueprint for life — excluding some viruses, for those who consider viruses living — and RNA acts as an intermediary in the process, making protein from DNA. But most scientists think it’s unlikely that DNA was the basis of the origin of life, says study coauthor John Sutherland of the University of Manchester in England.

Information-bearing DNA holds the code needed to put proteins together, but at the same time, proteins catalyze the reactions that produce DNA. It’s a chicken-or-egg problem. Scientists don’t think that DNA and proteins could have come about independently — regardless of which came first — and yet still work together in this way.

It’s more plausible that the first life-forms were based on a single molecule that could replicate itself and store genetic information — a molecule such as RNA (SN: 4/7/01, p. 212). RNA world proponents speculate modern DNA and proteins evolved from this RNA-dominated early life, and RNA in cells today is left over from this early time.

While reactions to make RNA from ancient precursors worked on paper, the chemistry didn’t work in the lab. And some scientists thought even RNA molecules were too complex to have spontaneously formed in the primordial soup. Sutherland and his colleagues have shown the reactions are possible.

RNA molecules are formed from three components: a sugar, a base and a phosphate group. In past research, chemists developed each of the components and then tried to put them together to make the complete molecule. “But the components are quite stable, and so they wouldn’t stick together,” Sutherland says. “After 40 years of trying, we decided there had to be a better way of doing this reaction.”

The team took a different approach, starting with a common precursor molecule that had a bit of the sugar and the base. “Basically, we took half a base, added that to half a sugar, added the other piece of base, and so on,” Sutherland says. “The key turned out to be the order that the ingredients are added and the way you put them together — like making a soufflé.”

Another difference is that Sutherland and his team added the phosphate to the mix earlier than in past experiments. Having the phosphate around so early helped the later stages of the reaction happen more quickly and efficiently, the scientists say.

The starting materials and the conditions of the reaction are consistent with models of the geochemistry of an early Earth, the team says.

“But while this is a step forward, it’s not the whole picture,” Ferris points out. “It’s not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. It’s a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didn’t happen in the ancient world.”

Sutherland and his team can so far make RNA molecules with two different bases, and there are still another two bases to figure out. “It’s related chemistry,” Sutherland says. “That’s how it must have been in the very beginning — a series of fundamental reactions that could make all four types of RNA molecule.”

Once those RNA molecules formed, they would have had to string together to make multiple letters of the code, which could then make proteins. Proteins could then make all the components that make up a cell, and the process would continue from there.


Found in: Biology, Chemistry, Genes & Cells, Life and Molecules
Comments 30
  • Thermal vents, tidal pools, primordial soups, and the likes contain far too many interfering molecules for equilibria to favor these precise, controlled, clean, non-interfered-with, reactions that INTELLIGENT humans are performing according to a DESIGN in their labs. There are lots of things that do not occur in nature that humans can pull off in labs, such as lasers, for example.
    Jon Klement Jon Klement
    May. 13, 2009 at 2:04pm
  • Does this really prove that these reactions can occur in nature and does it address all the myriad other sticky points in the RNA World hypothesis? For example, RNA is single stranded and even more fragile and subject to destruction from the environment outside a cell than DNA.
    Jon Klement Jon Klement
    May. 13, 2009 at 2:07pm
  • Jon,

    This is obviously just a first step toward demonstrating that complex molecules which transmit genetic information DO NOT need SUPERNATURAL forces in order to work.

    Scientist understand the molecules that make up RNA, the question was do these molecules spontaneously form? The answer according to this research is "Yes". Step one complete.

    Now, scientist will attempt to exam the RANGE of concentrations need to form these molecules. That will start answering how many "interfering molecules" the system can contain and still form the RNA molecules.

    Also RNA is not fragile as fragile as you think. It can be found in double stranded conformations (see double stranded RNA virues) and well as bind to itself forming stable, molecularly active forms (see ribozymes).
    WD WD
    May. 13, 2009 at 6:08pm
  • Jon,

    Lasers do occur in nature:

    Lasers in Stellar Atmospheres: [Link was removed]

    Natural lasing in the 10 m bands of CO2 in the atmospheres of Mars and Venus was observed by Johnson et al. (1976), [Link was removed]

    Laser action in stellar envelopes. [Link was removed]
    Eric Busboom Eric Busboom
    May. 13, 2009 at 6:24pm
  • Jon, you're reasoning by hand-waving. Nobody knows yet how life started, that's why people are doing these experiments. But to conclude that some supernatural being did it just because we don't know yet how it happened is silly. If we had used that kind of reasoning in the past, we'd still be stuck in the Dark Ages.

    You're right that people can "intelligently desing" things that don't otherwise occur in nature. Such objects are easily distinguishable from naturally evolved objects. We have never found anything even remotely resembling an intelligently designed artifact in nature. Natural objects and lifeforms are highly complex, but they share none of the characteristics that intelligently designed systems have.
    Mike Jones Mike Jones
    May. 14, 2009 at 1:01am
  • A Nobel prize candidate. Sure indeed. Such an information may be a revolution among Science and Faith. At last!
    ketinunkantim ketinunkantim
    May. 14, 2009 at 1:10am
  • ... or alternatively, take the component chemicals, freeze them and wait 15 years. Hey presto - RNA.

    One scientist did this experiment. And you know, it works.
    Simon Cooke Simon Cooke
    May. 14, 2009 at 6:01am
  • Intelligent design can be dangerous for the faithful. If you believe in the “God of the gaps”, what happens when the “gaps” are filled in?
    I personally believe that life is just one of those things that eventually happen, given enough time and space. If the universe is infinite then the statistical problems go away. Very interesting article, though.
    Robert Fowler Robert Fowler
    May. 14, 2009 at 12:10pm
  • "The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA. The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data"
    - Gerald Joyce (leading researcher into 'RNA World')
    Lou Leo Lou Leo
    May. 14, 2009 at 12:52pm
  • Jon, what this article proves is that it (the assembling of RNA) can occur given the timescale (millions of years) and the basic chemical components. The "interfering molecules", far from disturbing the equilibria, actually act as a laboratory, mixing and laying down strata of various chemicals in varying proportions, allowing them to mix and react over time once buried below the following layers.
    Kreb Kreb
    May. 14, 2009 at 2:53pm
  • If you look beyond the immediate hype of the 'RNA World' excitement, there lies a vast landscape of chemical problems (no matter the timescale given), largely ignored by the popular literature. Actually, ribozyme engineering experiments really demonstrate the need for intelligent intervention in the synthesis of the randomized RNA. The neglected chemical difficulties of the RNA World scenario need to be noted and presented accurately.
    [Link was removed]

    Lou Leo Lou Leo
    May. 14, 2009 at 6:12pm
  • Interesting research. I'm a bit perplexed at them having "solved" the problem without mentioning chirality induction. If the result is racemic, then it probably has a bit of work remaining to induce optical activity.
    Bob Greene Bob Greene
    May. 15, 2009 at 9:58pm
  • Hey guys, give some thought to quantum mechanics; you know, that science that is dragging physicists struggling and screaming to the conclusion that the basic nature of the universe is cognitive, that it is “thought” that leads to energy which leads to matter. As incredible as it may sound it is therefore quite conceivable that atoms joined into molecules, which then “communicated” with each other until they formed the first RNA. This is at least as plausible as leaving it all to chance, with the benefit that it’s a more satisfying explanation and it in the interest of atheists leaves God out of the equation. (By the way, a corollary of the cognitive theory of quantum mechanics is that there is a higher level of reality, of which our three dimensional world is just one of its aspects. Who knows, perhaps we will find out that that’s where God is hiding…
    Michel Mortier
    Mike Mortier Mike Mortier
    May. 17, 2009 at 9:13am
  • Excellent research. Life did indeed emerge on this planet 3.9Ga. RNA was the first 'living' molecule (yes viruses are living things) on this planet. RNA cannot form on its own from a prebiotic environment. RNA had to be assembled atom by atom. Though our galaxy is teeming with life and with intelligent life (but nowhere else in this sun system), life does not and cannot emerge on its own. DNA is much more complex than RNA, and comes later in the evolution of Earth's biodiversity. DNA, like RNA, cannot emerge on its own. Consider the life found by the Mars Phoenix Lander or the Mars Rovers on the Red Planet where shallow salty seas once were present billions of years ago -- none. Life did not emerge on Mars, or Enceladus, or Europa, or Titan, or elsewhere in this sun system, but it did on Earth. Why? How? These are good scientific questions. What we need is more and better science, not reliance on conjecture.
    JohnUmana JohnUmana
    May. 18, 2009 at 11:17am
  • Once again we are reminded that life is a natural, almost inevitable consequence of the physics of our universe. Coupled with the nearly infinite permutations of possible locations it seems equally probable that life will be the rule rather than the exception. This is all the more reason to plum the depths of our own system for life.
    Brad Lord-Leutwyler Brad Lord-Leutwyler
    May. 20, 2009 at 11:20am
  • Jon Klement... a few words about your comment:

    Lasers, as far as I understand about them, are light (waves) emitters... Stars do have those frequencies among their diversity of others spreading all around. They do not point them, of course, but this is a human ability, and... as far as I comprehend it ... this is exactly as it was meant, from the beggining, to be.
    Fragility, as you were saying about tinny reactions, is exactly what evolution fights against. Inteligently, we shall accept.
    ketinunkantim ketinunkantim
    May. 26, 2009 at 1:54am
  • DNA, like RNA, cannot emerge on its own. Atleast thats what i have read. [Link was removed]
    Joses Lima Joses Lima
    Nov. 26, 2009 at 3:22pm
  • Nice report, [Link was removed] I like it, very useful with my recent study now.
    Thank you. [Link was removed] [Link was removed]
    Manga Manga Manga Manga
    Dec. 19, 2009 at 11:29pm
  • now this is scary
    [Link was removed]
    Andy Reeto Andy Reeto
    Dec. 23, 2009 at 12:52am
  • and this is also scary
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    Andy Reeto Andy Reeto
    Dec. 23, 2009 at 10:42pm
  • Great stuff. Thanks!
    [Link was removed]
    Samuel Jaxon Samuel Jaxon
    Dec. 28, 2009 at 7:10am

  • [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    m9bnat m9bnat m9bnat m9bnat
    Jan. 3, 2010 at 10:13pm

  • [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    m9bnat m9bnat m9bnat m9bnat
    Jan. 5, 2010 at 7:19pm
  • real christians believe the god created the necessary conditions for these incredible processes to occur and evolve. They are wrong too, but at least they rate a lot lower on the loony scale than these anti-science religious nuts. Science will/can never disprove god, it can however demonstrate that one is not at all necessary for us to reach this point. I would express my fond wish that soon science will once and for all put paid to religious nonsense, however i realise that logic, reason and evidence is not an effective weapon against religion. Our only hope is for religion to gradually fade away over many generations, with increasing amounts of people rejecting the ridiculous notion of some magical mystery creator who conveniently only reveals himself to a select few, who then do rather well out of it. When choosing between a preacher dressed in fine suits, dripping in gold (or a church dressed equally finely) or a scientist that can support every claim with evidence, i know the choice a rational person must take, the choice that doesn't threaten you with an eternity of suffering if you don't surrender your will to them.
    Toby North Toby North
    Jan. 14, 2010 at 8:54am

  • [Link was removed]

    [Link was removed]

    [Link was removed]

    [Link was removed]

    [Link was removed]

    [Link was removed]
    shooq wdq8 shooq wdq8
    Jan. 18, 2010 at 12:49am
  • i am waiting for longer times to hear the real truth



    [Link was removed]
    sonny4tr sonny4tr
    Jan. 20, 2010 at 7:59am
  • thanks for sharing the post


    [Link was removed]
    vannesart4 vannesart4
    Jan. 20, 2010 at 8:23am
  • i wish them best of luck in their research


    [Link was removed]
    seasonr4e seasonr4e
    Jan. 20, 2010 at 12:48pm
  • Is'nt It Still An RNA World?

    WITH LINKS REMOVED, TO PREVENT COMPETITION WITH GOD'S ONLY PROPHET ON EARTH , THE SCIENCE ESTABLISHMENT'S AAAS, The AMERICAN ASSOCIATION AGAINST SCIENCE.

    A. "RNAs Mysterious Ways"

    is a comment on:
    "Translation Revelation
    More findings confirm that small RNAs work in mysterious ways."


    B. Is'nt It Still An RNA World?

    I conjecture that a scientifically commonsensical further unraveling of the mysterious ways of RNAs would follow:

    - 1st, acceptance of the revelation of the commonsensical lifehood of genes, of the concept presented in "Updated Life's Manifest May 2009"

    - 2nd, a rational resolution of the question if/when the initial, independent pre-biometabolism direct sunlight-fueled genes were RNAs and if/when they "evolved" their DNA-images as operational libraries prior to celling and genoming. They most probably synthesized (and nucleusized) their DNAs libraries as their organ to serve as their environmentally stabler works memory core,
    and

    - 3rd, a resolution of the scientifically rational possibility that ALL RNAs are representative of the original archae-genes that since their (life) genesis have been and still are the primary actors, assessors, messengers, operators of all life processes,
    and

    - 4th, acceptance of the rational possibility that the RNAs are the environmental feedback communicators to the genomes thus signallers of the accordingly desirable biased genes expressions effectors, for enhanced energy constraining, i.e. for survival,
    and

    - 5th, effecting the genes expressions per "Genes' Expression Modification"


    Suggesting,

    Dov Henis
    (Comments From The 22nd Century)
    Cosmic Evolution Simplified
    Dov Henis Dov Henis
    Jan. 30, 2010 at 5:28am
  • Life IS INDEED An RNA World

    Genomes Are RNAs'-Made Patterns-Manuals

    "Repeats protect DNA"

    "More On Evolution In The Still RNA World"

    Fitting together the pieces of the "still an RNA world" puzzle ?

    - Rational probability and possibility that the initial, independent pre-biometabolism direct sunlight-fueled genes (life) were RNAs, who evolved their DNA-images as operational patterns-manuals libraries, and celled and genomed them. They most probably synthesized (and nucleusized) their DNAs manual libraries as their functional organs, to serve as their environmentally stabler than RNA, than themselves, works memory cores.

    - Rational possibility that ALL RNAs represent the original archae-genes that since their (life) genesis have been and still are the primary actors, assessors, messengers, operators of all life processes.

    - Rational possibility that the RNAs are the environmental feedback communicators to, and modifiers of, the genomes, that the RNAs are the effectors of the desirable biased genes expressions modifications, of enhanced energy constraining for survival.

    Dov Henis
    (Comments From The 22nd Century)
    28Dec09 Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)]

    Cosmic Evolution Simplified
    Dov Henis Dov Henis
    Feb. 9, 2010 at 10:11am
Post a comment (Please note: All links will be removed from comments.)

Please login or register to participate.


Advertisement
Suggested Reading:
seperator
  • Netting, J. 2001. RNA world gets support as prelife scenario. Science News 159(April 7):212. [Go to]
  • 1996. RNA world begins to add up. Science News 150(Aug. 10):93. [Go to]
  • Lipkin, R. 1995. A larger role for RNA in life’s emergence? Science News 174(May 6):279. [Go to]
Citations & References:
seperator
  • Powner, M.W., et al. 2009. Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. Nature 459(May 14):239-242. doi:10.1038/nature08013
Reader Favorites:
seperator
SN on the Web:
seperator