Scientists take first step towards creating 'inorganic life'
(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists at the University of Glasgow say they have taken their first tentative steps towards creating 'life' from inorganic chemicals potentially defining the new area of 'inorganic biology'.
Professor Lee Cronin, Gardiner Chair of Chemistry in the College of Science and Engineering, and his team have demonstrated a new way of making inorganic-chemical-cells or iCHELLS.
Prof Cronin said: “All life on earth is based on organic biology (i.e. carbon in the form of amino acids, nucleotides, and sugars etc) but the inorganic world is considered to be inanimate.
“What we are trying do is create self-replicating, evolving inorganic cells that would essentially be alive. You could call it inorganic biology.”
The cells can be compartmentalised by creating internal membranes that control the passage of materials and energy through them, meaning several chemical processes can be isolated within the same cell – just like biological cells.
The researchers say the cells, which can also store electricity, could potentially be used in all sorts of applications in medicine, as sensors or to confine chemical reactions.
The research is part of a project by Prof Cronin to demonstrate that inorganic chemical compounds are capable of self-replicating and evolving – just as organic, biological carbon-based cells do.
The research into creating ‘inorganic life’ is in its earliest stages, but Prof Cronin believes it is entirely feasible.
Prof Cronin said: “The grand aim is to construct complex chemical cells with life-like properties that could help us understand how life emerged and also to use this approach to define a new technology based upon evolution in the material world – a kind of inorganic living technology.
“Bacteria are essentially single-cell micro-organisms made from organic chemicals, so why can’t we make micro-organisms from inorganic chemicals and allow them to evolve?
“If successful this would give us some incredible insights into evolution and show that it’s not just a biological process. It would also mean that we would have proven that non carbon-based life could exist and totally redefine our ideas of design.”
The paper ‘Modular Redox-Active Inorganic Chemical Cells: iCHELLs’ is published in the journal Angewandte Chemie.
Lee Cronin: Making matter come alive. A video of Professor Cronin’s TED lecture
More information: Modular Redox-Active Inorganic Chemical Cells: iCHELLs, DOI:10.1002/anie.201105068
Provided by University of Glasgow
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
4 comments
-
Calculating partial pressures Pa and Pw
1 hour ago
-
Gibbs Free Energy Change/Entropy
11 hours ago
-
What's the rule to covalent character
12 hours ago
-
Schwartz reagent-- NMR/MS/IR
May 26, 2012
-
High school chemistry EEI
May 25, 2012
-
oxidation of I- by KMnO4
May 25, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Chemistry
More news stories
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases – and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if – it will be an expensive undertaking.
4 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
|
Scientists develop ultra-sensitive test that detects diseases in their earliest stages
Scientists have developed an ultra-sensitive test that should enable them to detect signs of a disease in its earliest stages, in research published today in the journal Nature Materials.
Chemistry / Analytical Chemistry
4 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
|
New CO2-removing catalyst can take the heat
(Phys.org) -- The current method of removing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the flues of coal-fired power plants uses so much energy that no one bothers to use it. So says Roger Aines, principal ...
May 24, 2012 |
5 / 5 (9) |
10
|
High-speed method to aid search for solar energy storage catalysts
Eons ago, nature solved the problem of converting solar energy to fuels by inventing the process of photosynthesis.
May 25, 2012 |
5 / 5 (3) |
4
|
Researchers demonstrate possible primitive mechanism of chemical info self-replication
(Phys.org) -- When scientists think about the replication of information in chemistry, they usually have in mind something akin to what happens in living organisms when DNA gets copied: a double-stranded molecule ...
May 25, 2012 |
5 / 5 (4) |
2
|
Land and sea species differ in climate change response: study
(Phys.org) -- Marine and terrestrial species will likely differ in their responses to climate warming, new research by Simon Fraser University and Australia’s University of Tasmania has found.
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidia’s competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy
Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match ...
Sep 12, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (11)
But if we actually manage to let loose inorganic, replicating cells then we could be in deep trouble because there is no such buffer/balancing system, yet.
Could be the dreaded 'grey goo' scenario. Im with Drexler on that one: "We cannot afford certain types of accidents."
Sep 12, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
We will ultimately create our own evolutionary competition.
Sep 12, 2011
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (13)
How about the fact, that most of the materials they require to live are so rare and locked up so tightly into other compounds (think, aluminium) that without us feeding them all the time, they would simply starve.
Aka. the reason why life didn't use that chemistry in the first place.
For example, if you made an inorganic bacterium that requires rare earth metals to survive, then you've basically created a being that depends on cigarette lighter flints. Where is it going to find enough stuff to eat?
Sep 12, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (7)
The problem arises once you have self replicators that you cannot contain (i.e. that have 'escaped into the wild') and once those replicators mutate.
While we may produce some that would need, e.g., yttrium to function what happens if the same setup also functions with iron (or any other abundant material)?
There are many technologies where we are substituting cheap/ubiquitous materials for materials which were hard to come by (e.g. the platinum in fuel cells or the rare earth materials in some battery types). Or even the replacement phosphorous by arsenic in DNA (though this is not certain).
At first we didn't know this was possible. So how can we be sure that such replacement isn't possible in artificial cells?
Sep 12, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Sep 12, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
instead of inorganic life, you could use organic substances, ( detritus, wood, coal, carbon based plastics) , or inorganic ones that are not so much capable of self replication indefinitley, so much as a single transformation. ( the whole point is getting cheap-self directed substance phase changes out of materials. ) .
Sep 12, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
First, it would be exceedingly unlikely that our inorganic life could survive outside of the test tube for long enough to mutate because it can't find anything to eat. Secondly, the reaction potentials of many of the chemicals are such that the normal environment would be poisonous to the creatures. E.g. they would spontaneously combust in air and water because their cell membranes are made out of sodium.
And third, the most likely abundant substances that they'd try to substitute would be the same that are employed in organic chemistry: carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen. Essentially, they would become organics in a roundabout way.
Sep 12, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
This works because arsenic is chemically very similiar to phosphorous, so it fits right in to the DNA of the cell. It's probably always been that way, but arsenic happens to clash with some other functions that these cells don't have or don't need, so they are able to survive with arsenic where others can't.
Could you build multi-cellular life with arsenic? Probably not. It probably doesn't work because it prohibits the formation of some complex proteins and the most complex life you can evolve that way is pond scum.
Sep 12, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Cell biology is based on proteins, which are based on DNA. Essentially, the majority of your body that isn't water or fat is made of protiens, thousands of which that are chemically somewhat similar in structure to DNA.
In order to make inorganic life, you would have to create each version of a 'protein' from scratch. It is an enourmously difficult task.
Second, with an inorganic life with its own chemical bases, it would have universal weaknesses, just like cyanide or arsenic are toxic to most organic life. These weaknesses may not affect organic life in the same way.
Lastly, inorganic life is likely unsuited to the same environment as organic life. Even though a few extremophiles live on antartica, doesn't mean they make it green.
Sep 12, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Sep 13, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
It's makes me really glad to have peoples like you around.
Sep 13, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
One would be enough. And the point of having self replicators IS to use them outside the test tube at some point. And no setup can prevent accidental - or malevolent - spillage 100% of the time.
As noted: Just one that happens to be spilled in an anoxic (or otherwise nonreactive environment) and from then on it can eat/bury down.
Which just turns our grey goo into black (or red) goo. Not an improvement. And certainly no better for containment purposes.
Sep 13, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
Inorganic replicators would be no more complicated than pond scum. Point being: we never thought that arsenic could - in theory - be a replacement. So if we build our inorganic cell e.g. with a terminal dependency on arsenic (believing that it won't replicate outside the presence of arsenic) we could have been in for a real shock when it suddenly feeds on ubiquitous phosphorous.
NOW we know about this interchangeability - but we hadn't suspected it not so long ago. The security offered by a 'Jurassic Park'* type of failsafe switch seems very low.
*In the movie Jurassic Park Dinosaurs were imbued with an inability to produce a certain protein - making them dependent on being fed said protein.
Sep 13, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (2)
Who says that inorganic life needs to have these types of proteins? And even if: once it's self replicating there's no need any more to make them from scratch.
Certainly. But snice we don't have inorganic life on this planet (at least that we know of) there are no competitors. If the cells feed on ubiquitous materials then there would be an unchecked growth explosion.
If one feeds on the other we may be in big trouble. Or if it just feeds on stuff that we also need (e.g. atmospheric oxygen or H2O) or if it produces waste products that are toxic to us but not to it.
Sep 13, 2011
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (4)
Inorganic life would need some equivilent of proteins and enzymes - essentially, chemicals that allow metabolism to work. It's that simple. Otherwise it doesn't reproduce. In order to take energy from the environment and reproduce requires a whole array of protiens and other compounds.
How many synthetic protiens not found in nature that actually functions have we created? One. And it was based on a protien that did the same function we wanted it to. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am saying that it will be a very long time before we truly have the ability to create inorganic life. You seriously underestimate the complexity of this idea.
That said, I also believe you seriously underestimate the vulnerability of inorganic life in a world essentially created and dominated by organic biology.
Sep 13, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (3)
That was not the intent...I just went down the list and responded to stuff that seemed to merit a response. I don't really look all that much at who posts stuff.
Agreed. That doesn't invalidate any argument I've made, though. I'm not saying that we are in danger of grey goo tomorrow - but that we should put some SERIOUS thought into the matter when we try to create inorganic replicators.
Certainly more serious than "We'll just include an off switch" or "We'll make it dependent on some ingredient we have to provide"
Sep 13, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
I'm saying that due to the extreme difference in biology between organic and inorganic life, there is a high likelyhood that you could take a chemical that is benign or even necessary for regular life, and it would be toxic to inorganic life. And due to the nature of the extreme chemical differences that would arise between the two, a chemical environ that is ideal for one may be terrible for the other. And seeing as the chemical environ of the biosphere is suitable for organic life, the inorganic will likely have difficulty. This is a far bigger step than trying to replace phosphorus with arsenic.
All of that said, this is more theoretical work with some simpler concepts of inorganic life, rather than real effects. i think we're thinking too far out from the known variables to come to an accurate conclusion until quite a bit more research is done.
Sep 17, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (2)