The search for life's stirrings

February 7, 2012 By Alvin Powell, Harvard University
Nobel Prize winner Jack Szostak’s research focuses on understanding primitive cells, how they might have been created, and how they might have behaved and divided. Credit: Rose Lincoln/Harvard Staff Photographer

Scientists studying how life arose on Earth are stumped by several key steps in that eventual process, but a Harvard scientist studying the earliest cells says that seemingly intractable problems in this field have sometimes proved to have simple, even elegant solutions.

Those pondering the earliest stirrings of life expect that it will either turn out to be easy to create and a natural outgrowth of the primordial conditions found on like Earth: rocky, not too hot, not too cold, with water and other key elements. If that’s the case, the rapid acceleration of discoveries of extrasolar planets would mean there are potentially millions of other worlds that are Earth-like enough for life to arise.

Or, life may be hard to get going, requiring a precise combination of conditions and chemicals that were present on Earth, perhaps fleetingly and only once. If that’s the case, such conditions may be difficult to locate in other places, and we may find ourselves in thin company — or even entirely alone — in the universe.

So far, researchers have run into one knotty problem after another. But Nobel laureate Jack Szostak, a genetics professor at Harvard Medical School, and distinguished investigator at Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital, said Feb. 1 that we shouldn’t interpret the difficulty of the problems so far to mean that life is most likely rare in the universe.

“At this stage in our thinking, there are a lot of gaps in our understanding, places where we have no idea what happened,” Szostak said. But “problems that looked so intractable in retrospect look simple.”

Szostak, who won the 2009 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine, spoke at the Harvard Museum of Natural History in the kickoff lecture of the season’s “Evolution Matters” series. Szostak gave a packed Geological Lecture Hall an overview of the work of researchers like himself who are seeking to answer life’s most fundamental question: Where did we come from?

Szostak’s research focuses on understanding primitive , how they might have been created, and how they might have behaved and divided. Among other findings, Szostak and colleagues have shown that cell-like vesicles are relatively easy to create from fatty acid molecules suspended in water. He has also shown that vesicles divide naturally when passed through a smaller pore, and explored other possible methods of early cell division.

One of the early problems researchers in this field faced was how in the first cells was transmitted. The way cells work today, Szostak said, is that the information in DNA is taken by RNA and used to create a vast array of proteins, which do much of the body’s work. This DNA-to-RNA-to-protein process feeds back on itself, with proteins playing key roles in creating RNA from DNA. Scientists found such a closed loop difficult to unravel: With no proteins in an early cell, how do you get the DNA’s information out to create RNA and then more proteins?

That changed in the early 1980s, when researchers discovered that RNA, in addition to having the ability to carry genetic information, also can catalyze chemical reactions, something thought to be the domain of proteins. The discovery gave rise to the possibility that early cells held their genetic information not in DNA, but in RNA molecules, as some viruses do today, and that RNA, not proteins, could have played a role in catalyzing the cellular processes. The problem changed from needing three kinds of molecules that interacted in complex ways to needing just one kind.

While that presented a plausible scenario, many details remain problematic. Two of them, it turns out, are solved with a single solution, Szostak said. One issue is that when two RNA molecules are joined to form a double helix, pulling them apart to get at their genetic information is very difficult without using cellular enzymes, which wouldn’t have been present in early cells.

The second problem is that the molecular backbone occurring in RNA that is created through chemical processes like those possible on early is not the same as that manufactured inside cells. When cells make RNA, the molecular backbone bonds with different atoms at specific locations. When RNA is made through primitive chemical processes, there is more sloppiness, with atoms attached in the wrong spot in some cases.

Both seemed intractable problems, Szostak said. But when members of his lab replicated the situation, evolving an RNA molecule through chemical processes, they realized that instead of being a problem, the sloppiness in the backbone was actually a solution. A few misplaced atoms didn’t affect the whole RNA molecule’s structure, and with those atoms out of place, it didn’t bond quite as strongly to another RNA molecule, allowing them to come apart more easily and letting replication proceed, solving the first problem as well.

“Instead of being a fatal problem for RNA, we now think that backbone heterogeneity may be what allowed RNA to emerge as primordial genetic material,” Szostak said. “Our thinking on this problem is just completely inverted.”

Explore further: 'Accelerated evolution' converts RNA enzyme to DNA enzyme in vitro

Related Stories

RNA-exporting machine deciphered

March 29, 2011

( -- A tiny motor tasked with one of nature’s biggest jobs is now better understood. The molecular machinery that helps export messenger RNA from a cell’s nucleus has been structurally mapped at the ...

Study builds on plausible scenario for origin of life on Earth

August 9, 2011

A relatively simple combination of naturally occurring sugars and amino acids offers a plausible route to the building blocks of life, according to a paper published in Nature Chemistry co-authored by a professor at the University ...

Recommended for you

A new, dynamic view of chromatin movements

January 18, 2018

In cells, proteins tightly package the long thread of DNA into pearl necklace-like complexes known as chromatin. Scientists at EPFL show for the first time how chromatin moves, answering longstanding questions about how its ...

How living systems compute solutions to problems

January 17, 2018

How do decisions get made in the natural world? One possibility is that the individuals or components in biological systems collectively compute solutions to challenges they face in their environments. Consider that fish ...

Scale-eating fish adopt clever parasitic methods to survive

January 17, 2018

Think of them as extra-large parasites. A small group of fishes—possibly the world's cleverest carnivorous grazers—feeds on the scales of other fish in the tropics. The different species' approach differs: some ram their ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2012
PERHAPS, JUST PERHAPS the MISSING ingredient is TIME, plain and simple.

It's estimated that it took 100s of millions if not at least a billion years for life to begin in its most primitive form on Earth.

Perhaps the right conditions are actually a matter of a long long chain of chance chemical reactions that even the best of modern science would have a hard time replicating, because those changes happened to specific molecules over millions of years as the chemical context in which those changes occurred changed over millennia.

Why some are so certain that it all happened in a brief moment to the right mix of ingredients?

Considering it happened over hundreds of millions of years, we'd have to accurately follow the changes in Earth's chemistry as the time passed while providing the right starter molecules.

Oh and as big as the universe is the notion that it only happened on Earth is stone age thinking. We hardly have the tech. to determine if that's true or not so why speculate?
1.5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2012
...a Harvard scientist studying the earliest cells...

Why do so many confound life with cells?? Yes, the smallest unit of life known today is cellular, but humans are alive and they are not cells. Indeed, the moment a person dies every cell in their body that was alive a moment before death is still alive the moment after, indicating that the cell's life is independent of the human's.

The first organism to reproduce was already alive. The first chemical process to grow a cell was already alive.

So much for current theories of life's genesis ~ they all start long after life did. This is what happens your definition starts with a very sophisticated manifestation of the thing described (typically, Biology describes the prototypical prokaryotae/archaea...
Feb 08, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.