You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: The Origin of life (abiogenesis) | The Bridge Between In-organic(lifeless) and Organic(life).

in #science6 years ago (edited)

You give a very good summary of historical experiment. But the conclusion isn't necessarily true. In 2012 Siguwara's lab created first protocell with synthetic DNA that replicated based on signals provided by them. However, the limitation was that it only did that for one generation. Following this I'm 2015 the same group published in nat comm, in which, they upgraded their method by which they can supply new materials to the proto-cell by fusing it with material carrying lipid particles. After getting new materials from these delivery vesicles they were able to replicate the proto-cell for upto 3 generations. See this figure here.

Now this is a minimalistic system, because they had to provide the replication enzyme (sybr green you see in the figure) externally. Now they slowly need to add one component at a time to make these particles capable of not only replicating themselves but rather being capable of making molecules and enzymes within themselves as well.

On the other hand attempt at creating artificial life also includes reverse engineering. Where people take already living cell and then find the minimal components required by it to thrive. Like in 2016 they published some 400-500 minimal genes that were required to keep the bacteria alive. That is they took genome from one organism cut it down to minimum and inserted it into another genome deprived organism and kept it live and kicking.

I think the progress is going at good pace here from both directions.

Sort:  

hi @scienceblocks,
thanks for the contribution... you did a great job!!
As regards to my conclusion: it is very true that a protocell has been created, but a protocell is just a precursor for a true biological cell. although protocells have been achieved to possess the characteristics of growth and replication but none has yet attain the criteria to be declared a typical cell (a living cell).

I made a statement earlier that "Life might sound simple but it goes a long way differentiating the living from the non-living."

kindly check out this article: source; ncbi

when we describe an organism as alive, it means that it can self-maintain, self-reproduce, evolve, and die.Biological cells possess three main components for performing the essential functions of life :

  • A stable, semi-permeable membrane that encloses cell constituents protecting them from being damaged by the external environment while allowing selective material and energy exchanges.
  • Biomacromolecules (DNA or RNA) that carry the genetic information, control the dynamics of the cell, and endow it with the capability of evolution.
  • A series of metabolic pathways used for providing energy to cells, to make them self-maintain and self-renew, as well as self-process information.

It is highly desirable that artificial cells possess all three features of biological cells. Although an artificial cell that possesses all basic properties of a living cell has not been created so far, recent advancements indicate that it is now a realistic goal.

I think I'm still correct concluding that way- or what is your say about this?

I agree, You are correct that it can't be classified as living, because it can't self-sustain. I was trying to point that efforts of researchers in combining macromolecules has not been fruitless. They have created artificial systems with minimalistic criteria or what you call a prototype for life. But yes it would be more exciting to see an artificial self sustaining cell in action. Now reverse engineered cells may fit the bill, but even I don't like the fact that, they aren't artificial enough. I think this is a very interesting topic you have opened.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.20
TRX 0.13
JST 0.030
BTC 64081.52
ETH 3398.85
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.62