4 ms·
"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 i
by 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 agoThe 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 agoEvidence != proof. But there IS lots of evidence.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoIf 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.