Big Bang in the Protein Universe?

Researchers at Spain's Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) demonstrate evidence in support of the common ancestry of life, thanks to a new computational approach to study protein evolution.

Science Daily Article

Example of a 3-D structure of a protein (Myoglobin). (Credit: Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

The work, published in Nature, takes its inspiration from the astronomer Edwin Hubble and uses his approach to study protein evolution. The extrapolation of Hubble's approach to proteins shows that proteins that share a common ancestor billions of years ago continue to diverge in their molecular composition.

The study reveals that protein evolution has not reached its limit and it is still continuing. At the same time, it provides us new information on why this evolution is so slow and conservative, showing that protein structures are more evolutionary plastic than previously thought.

Almost 100 years ago Edwin Hubble observed that distant galaxies are moving away from Earth faster than those that are closer. This relationship between distance and velocity is widely cited as evidence of the origin of the Universe from a Big Bang. Researchers at the Centre for Genomic Regulation used his approach to investigate the divergence between protein sequences.

So... Universe is to Expanding is as Protein is to Evolving is what I get from this. Makes sense, if the Universe began and evolves this way, why not life as well? The notion that suggests "that protein evolution has not reached its limit and it is still continuing" is a very intriguing portion of the article.

They are suggesting that evolution has a limit. Well then what's the limit? How close are we? "evolutionary plastic" meaning pliable, modifiable, easily molded and shaped? Very intriguing!!

How can evolution have a limit?? If someone can clarify are they saying that the theory that amino acids turned into proteins, then proteins turned into RNA, then DNA is actually true because they used computational simulations?

reply to post by Maddogkull


I agree, this raises a lot of questions. It resonates with speculation on evolution.

At the same time, it provides us new information on why this evolution is so slow and conservative

...but has a limit. Thus they're speculating the Universe indeed has a limit based on the comparable study using Hubble's findings as the foundation of the study. I do hope this thread gets more attention.

If anything, for some added compare/contrast opinions on the findings as well as to the speculative claims that are made.

Originally posted by UberL33t
reply to post by Maddogkull

 

I agree, this raises a lot of questions. It resonates with speculation on evolution.

At the same time, it provides us new information on why this evolution is so slow and conservative

...but has a limit. Thus they're speculating the Universe indeed has a limit based on the comparable study using Hubble's findings as the foundation of the study. I do hope this thread gets more attention.

If anything, for some added compare/contrast opinions on the findings as well as to the speculative claims that are made.

I didn't read anything about a "limit" anywhere in the article. Did I miss that? From what I read, it just talked about how things are constantly evolving, and how not just genes evolve, but their constituent proteins are themselves evolving. The correlation with Hubble's concepts of an expanding universe are interesting but after all, the authors of the study used Hubble as a platform, so the correlation is something they created to add context to their results, basically.

reply to post by Son of Will

The study reveals that protein evolution has not reached its limit and it is still continuing.

Right there ^

Originally posted by Maddogkull
How can evolution have a limit?? If someone can clarify are they saying that the theory that amino acids turned into proteins, then proteins turned into RNA, then DNA is actually true because they used computational simulations?

No. It goes like this DNA -> RNA -> Proteins (mostly made of amino acids).

You can't have proteins without DNA (sequence), mRNA (copied from DNA), rRNA (make ribosomes that manufacture proteins out of amino acids based on mRNA sequence) and tRNA (move amino acids to ribosomes).

What about the viruses that only have RNA, sequences? Wouldn’t that mean early life arose from amino acids, to proteins to RNA the Eventually to DNA?? How can DNA just exist? It would have to start from something like amino acids? What is your take on this?


The current theory of life is that a bunch of random amino acids kept colliding and eventually made proteins, they then turned into RNA then DNA? Isn’t that the current theory? Sounds pretty good to me.

reply to post by Maddogkull


I actually made a thread on that awhile back, this subject definitely has room for debate:

"Primordial Soup" theory vs. the Complex Structure of DNA

Didn't get much attention though

Originally posted by Maddogkull
What about the viruses that only have RNA, sequences? Wouldn’t that mean early life arose from amino acids, to proteins to RNA the Eventually to DNA?? How can DNA just exist? It would have to start from something like amino acids? What is your take on this?


The current theory of life is that a bunch of random amino acids kept colliding and eventually made proteins, they then turned into RNA then DNA? Isn’t that the current theory? Sounds pretty good to me.

RNA Viruses still need tRNA and rRNA and thus could not have existed before modern cells. There are many theories on the origin of life. I think RNA world hypothesis is the most accepted one at the moment. Proteins don't turn into RNA. RNA is translated into proteins in ribosomes. RNA can also fold and thus have protein like qualities (for example ribosomes are kind of like proteins althou they're not made of amino acids).

[edit on 22-5-2010 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by rhinoceros


en.wikipedia.org...-like_strands

PAH sounds more plausible then RNA

The RNA world hypothesis shows how RNA can become its own catalyst (a ribozyme), and so become the basis for evolution of life. In between there are some missing steps such as how the first RNA molecules could be formed.

There are always missing steps. RNA cannot just form on its own?

reply to post by Maddogkull

www.nytimes.com...

I remember reading the actual article. RNA can (maybe) form spontaneously in right conditions. The difficult part is getting the nucleotides. Once you have them they will stick together..

[edit on 22-5-2010 by rhinoceros]

I don't know....the iron-sulphur theory sounds more realistic

reply to post by Maddogkull

Sounds more realistic because.. ?