Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday March 15 2017, @01:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the It's-the-end^W-beginning-of-the-world-as-we-know-it? dept.

Researchers have demonstrated that an enzyme-free metabolic pathway using sulfate radicals can mirror the Krebs cycle:

A set of biochemical processes crucial to cellular life on Earth could have originated in chemical reactions taking place on the early Earth four billion years ago, believes a group of scientists from the Francis Crick Institute and the University of Cambridge. The researchers have demonstrated a network of chemical reactions in the lab which mimic the important Krebs cycle present in living organisms today. In a study published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution, they say it could explain an important step in how life developed on Earth.

[...] One central metabolic pathway learned by every A-level biology student is the Krebs cycle. But how did this essential set of chemical reactions, each step catalyzed by an enzyme, first arise? Each step in the cycle is not enough by itself. Life needs a sequence of these reactions, and it would have needed it before biological enzymes were around: Amino acids, the molecular components of enzymes, are made from products of the Krebs cycle.

The research group from the Francis Crick Institute and the University of Cambridge say their demonstration offers an answer. They have shown an enzyme-free metabolic pathway that mirrors the Krebs cycle. It is sparked by particles called sulphate radicals under conditions similar to those on Earth four billion years ago. Senior author Dr Markus Ralser of the Francis Crick Institute and University of Cambridge explains: "This non-enzymatic precursor of the Krebs cycle that we have demonstrated forms spontaneously, is biologically sensible and efficient. It could have helped ignite life four billion years ago."

Found at ScienceDaily.

Sulfate radicals enable a non-enzymatic Krebs cycle precursor (open, DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0083) (DX)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday March 15 2017, @04:03PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 15 2017, @04:03PM (#479463) Journal

    While I can't really no-true-scotsman my way past the fact that there doubtlessly are atheists who say that, it's still basically a very popular strawman that relies more on nutpicking than any substantial amount of people presenting that case.

    The reason I feel confident saying that is I decided to drop (in quotes) "science disproves god" into my favorite search engine. Among the first 50 results I examined, not one, was making that assertion. About 10% were asking why people say that, and the remainder were all deconstructions of this argument(from both the atheist side and the Christian side) that... almost no one makes?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4