3 ms·
This article links to an uncritical report on the controversial GFAJ-1 finding, which is widely considered to be erroneous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-
by mrob 8y ago
This article links to an uncritical report on the controversial GFAJ-1 finding, which is widely considered to be erroneous:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1#Criticism
Why should I believe it's correct this time?
- gomijacogeo 8y agoThe Felisa Wolfe-Simon / NASA debacle from 2010 was trying to claim that GFAJ was using Arsenic in place of Phosphorus in biomolecules (especially the DNA backbone). This was quickly debunked. The paper (indirectly) cited here is claiming that some micro-organisms use simple Arsenic-containing ions for electron transport as part of their metabolic cycles. This is a much less outrageous claim and, I think, already documented in high-Arsenic environments. The only big deal here is, I believe, that this is a low-Arsenic environment. Original paper: http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1818349116 http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1818349116