3 ms·

Yes, beside the fact that they found a way to change the structure of their DNA, RNA, and a few hundreds enzymes involved in energy metabolism they are the same

Yes, beside the fact that they found a way to change the structure of their DNA, RNA, and a few hundreds enzymes involved in energy metabolism they are the same... This is so huge that my money go into a mistake: I bet these bacteria just found a way to either get rid of arsenic or to neutralize its allosteric toxicity by maskerading or something. The paper is not out yet so I cannot give my opinon on the experimental data but from what I read there is no evidence that DNA actually contains arsenic and until that arrives I believe it's a red herring.

mechanical_fish 16y ago
It does seem overwhelmingly likely to be a mistake. But an exciting one! Biochemistry sports fans like myself will watch with interest. EDIT: Hey, my upvote voted you down by mistake! Somebody upvote the parent, please.
roadnottaken 16y ago
"from what I read there is no evidence that DNA actually contains arsenic" FTFA: "When the researchers added radio-labelled arsenate to the solution to track its distribution, they found that arsenic was present in the bacterium's proteins, lipids and metabolites such as ATP and glucose, as well as in the nucleic acids that made up its DNA and RNA. The amounts of arsenate detected were similar to those expected of phosphate in normal cell biochemistry, suggesting that the compound was being used in the same way by the cell. The team used two different mass-spectrometry techniques to confirm that the bacterium's DNA contained arsenic... Analysis with laser-like X-rays from a synchrotron particle accelerator indicated that this arsenic took the form of arsenate, and made bonds with carbon and oxygen in much the same way as phosphate." It sounds like there IS some evidence...
- crocowhile 16y ago
  The author themselves are tyring to explain to you that "Our data are strongly suggestive of arsenic replacing phosphorus". Where suggestive =!= evidence. Plus, read the paragraph "A world of possibilities" to see why so(FTFA). There is no evidence. There are results that are compatible with that and other scenarios. Science is not so easy as you wish it was.
  - roadnottaken 16y ago
    Evidence != proof. But there IS lots of evidence.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    If you want absolute proof without any possibility of doubt go to church. If you want a series of ever more robust hypotheses supported by growing evidence which "suggest" possibilities, then you want science. This is the first result. It's not foolproof but it's very, very suggestive.
colanderman 16y ago
Maybe I misread the article but I thought that the bacteria did not multiply if there was neither phosphorous nor arsenic present, but did multiply if there was arsenic but no phosphorous. I could be interpreting this wrong but this seems to rule out "neutralizing" or "getting rid of" the arsenic. (Otherwise why was it unable to multiply in the absence of phosphorous and arsenic?)
- crocowhile 16y ago
  Bacteria multiply just fine (in fact better) with phosphorous but seem to cope with arsenic too. This is in my view a strong indicator of a mistake or flaw in the paper because it'd mean that if the authors' speculations were real, those bacteria would have evolved thus to modify a great deal of their biology just little enough to be able to incorporate both arsenate and phosphorus. It doesn't make sense. <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52420/Science-2010-Wolfe-Simon-science.1197258.pdf>Heres http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52420/Science-2010-Wolfe-Simon-scien... the PDF</a> of the paper, btw (I don't like scribd).

mechanical_fish 16y ago

It does seem overwhelmingly likely to be a mistake. But an exciting one! Biochemistry sports fans like myself will watch with interest. EDIT: Hey, my upvote voted you down by mistake! Somebody upvote the parent, please.

roadnottaken 16y ago

"from what I read there is no evidence that DNA actually contains arsenic" FTFA: "When the researchers added radio-labelled arsenate to the solution to track its distribution, they found that arsenic was present in the bacterium's proteins, lipids and metabolites such as ATP and glucose, as well as in the nucleic acids that made up its DNA and RNA. The amounts of arsenate detected were similar to those expected of phosphate in normal cell biochemistry, suggesting that the compound was being used in the same way by the cell. The team used two different mass-spectrometry techniques to confirm that the bacterium's DNA contained arsenic... Analysis with laser-like X-rays from a synchrotron particle accelerator indicated that this arsenic took the form of arsenate, and made bonds with carbon and oxygen in much the same way as phosphate." It sounds like there IS some evidence...

crocowhile 16y ago
The author themselves are tyring to explain to you that "Our data are strongly suggestive of arsenic replacing phosphorus". Where suggestive =!= evidence. Plus, read the paragraph "A world of possibilities" to see why so(FTFA). There is no evidence. There are results that are compatible with that and other scenarios. Science is not so easy as you wish it was.
- roadnottaken 16y ago
  Evidence != proof. But there IS lots of evidence.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  If you want absolute proof without any possibility of doubt go to church. If you want a series of ever more robust hypotheses supported by growing evidence which "suggest" possibilities, then you want science. This is the first result. It's not foolproof but it's very, very suggestive.

colanderman 16y ago

Maybe I misread the article but I thought that the bacteria did not multiply if there was neither phosphorous nor arsenic present, but did multiply if there was arsenic but no phosphorous. I could be interpreting this wrong but this seems to rule out "neutralizing" or "getting rid of" the arsenic. (Otherwise why was it unable to multiply in the absence of phosphorous and arsenic?)

crocowhile 16y ago
Bacteria multiply just fine (in fact better) with phosphorous but seem to cope with arsenic too. This is in my view a strong indicator of a mistake or flaw in the paper because it'd mean that if the authors' speculations were real, those bacteria would have evolved thus to modify a great deal of their biology just little enough to be able to incorporate both arsenate and phosphorus. It doesn't make sense. <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52420/Science-2010-Wolfe-Simon-science.1197258.pdf>Heres http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52420/Science-2010-Wolfe-Simon-scien... the PDF</a> of the paper, btw (I don't like scribd).