Banner
    Could These Protocells Tell Us About Earth's Earliest Cells?
    By News Staff | June 5th 2008 12:00 PM | 4 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    A team of researchers at Harvard University have modeled in the laboratory a primitive cell, or protocell, that is capable of building, copying and containing DNA.

    Since there are no physical records of what the first primitive cells on Earth looked like, or how they grew and divided, the research team's protocell project offers a useful way to learn about how Earth's earliest cells may have interacted with their environment approximately 3.5 billion years ago.

    The protocell's fatty acid membrane allows chemical compounds, including the building blocks of DNA, to enter into the cell without the assistance of the protein channels and pumps required by today's highly developed cell membranes. Also unlike modern cells, the protocell does not use enzymes for copying its DNA.



    Supported with funding from the National Science Foundation and led by Jack W. Szostak of the Harvard Medical School, the research team published its findings in the June 4, 2008, edition of the journal Nature's advance online publication.

    "Szostak's group took a creative approach to this research challenge and made a significant contribution to our understanding of small molecule transport through membranes," said Luis Echegoyen, director of the NSF Division of Chemistry. "This is a great outcome of NSF's support of basic research."

    Some scientists have proposed that ancient hydrothermal vents may have been sites where prebiotic molecules--molecules made before the origin of life, such as fatty acids and amino acids--were formed. A theoretical scenario is one in which fatty acids are formed on the surface of minerals deep underground, and then brought to the surface by the eruption of a geyser.

    When fatty acids are in an aqueous environment, they spontaneously arrange so that their hydrophilic, or water-loving, "heads" interact with the surrounding water molecules and their hydrophobic, or water-fearing, "tails" are shielded from the water, resulting in the formation of tiny spheres of fatty acids called micelles.

    Depending upon chemical concentrations and the pH of their environment, micelles can convert into layered membrane sheets or enclosed vesicles. Researchers commonly use vesicles to model the cellular membranes of protocells. This animation created by Iwasa shows how vesicles may have been formed.


    Credit: Janet Iwasa, Szostak Laboratory, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital

    When the team started its work, the researchers were not sure that the building blocks required for copying the protocell's genetic material would be able to enter the cell.

    "By showing that this can happen, and indeed happen quite efficiently, we have come a little closer to our goal of making a functional protocell that, in the right environment, is able to grow and divide on its own," said Szostak.

    Co-authors of the Nature paper include Sheref S. Mansy, Jason P. Schrum, Mathangi Krishnamurthy, Sylvia Tobe and Douglas A. Treco of the Szostak Laboratory.

    The research was supported by NSF Division of Chemistry award number 0434507. Jack W. Szostak was also supported by National Aeronautics and Space Administration Exobiology Program award number EXB02-0031-0018. Sheref S. Mansy was supported by National Institutes of Health award number F32 GM07450601.

    Funding for Exploring Life's Origins Web site project was provided by NSF award number 0610117.

    -NSF-

    Comments

    This report does not evn give the reference to the Nature article. At least, I don't see it anywahere on this page.
    This is very poor reporting

    Hank
    The NY Times does not reference studies either, though I agree with you they are guilty of poor reporting.   Nature is a subscription-only journal and overview articles are written so people don't have to pay $150 a year to read one study of interest.    This was written by the National Science Foundation, not us, so if they choose not to reference the study, it's their business, since they funded the research and Nature simply got to publish it at no charge and doesn't warrant free publicity just for copying and pasting some text.
    IT IS UP TO THE READER TO DECIDE WHETHER TO GO TO A LIBRARY AND LOOK UP THE NATURE ARTICLE OR NOT, IT DOES NOT COST $150 TO READ THE ARTICLE UNLESS YOU ARE DAFT.
    ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT NATURE WOULD HAVE OBJECTED IF YOU GAVE THE REFERENCE TO THE NATURE ARTICLE HERE?
    ARE YOU DISCLAIMING ALL RESPONSIBILITY IN REGARD TO THIS WRITE UP!!!
    Thanks

    Hank
    Yes, I am personally disclaiming all responsibility for this write-up.  That -NSF- in the byline is there because it was written by the National Science Foundation so they get to decide if they should put an online link to one of the many, many, many journals that charge readers to read studies they get for free based on research paid for by taxpayers.   It's their choice.   And again, the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal also have articles on studies and do not link to the studies themselves so your standard for journalism seems to only apply to non-journalism sites like ours and not to actual journalism publications like theirs.  

    If you look at our articles, like this one from the Related Articles block above comments, you see we make a link to the study.   But, again, this was written by the NSF and their highly-paid staff of government employees.

    Add a comment

    The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
    • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite><TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe><u><font>
    • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
    CAPTCHA
    If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.