8 ms·

Russian scientists report new DNA under subglacial Lake Vostok

81 points by bra-ket 14y ago

bdc 14y ago
> "If it were found on Mars, people would call it Martian DNA. But this is DNA from Earth" Yes... yes indeed.
- nviarnes 14y ago
  I want to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and assume his english isn't great. He probably means something along the lines of: 'this DNA is so weird it could be Martian.'
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    It's not, though. I'd imagine Martian organisms would have a much lower shared proportion of DNA than the 86% mentioned in the article, assuming they even used DNA in the first place.
    - dmishe 14y ago
      Well, what if martians started life here?
      - ceejayoz 14y ago
        Mars->Earth or Earth->Mars seeding is a popular hypothesis. We'd still likely see a bigger difference than 86% identical, though, given the billion year timeframe involved.
    - bluekeybox 14y ago
      Highly likely that Martian "DNA" would be different in several fundamental aspects (for starters, the triplet codons would have entirely different "dictionary" meanings in terms of amino acids, or perhaps there would be no triplets but quartets instead or even something completely different) that it wouldn't even make sense to talk in terms of percentages -- it would be like saying a rock is 50% similar to a blue whale.
      - evilduck 14y ago
        Both could contain high percentages of calcium. ;)
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - lostlogin 14y ago
    Yes and very yes to the parent. I hope your generous comment about 2nd (or 3rd ...) language is correct because that is one awful quote. If the people drilling the ice were Martians we would call them Martians too.
josh2600 14y ago
This is so exciting. I've been waiting on the results of the opening of Vostok for YEARS! It's one of the few "untampered" natural subterranean lakes left on Earth and arguably the oldest. If there's DNA in there, it has existed in an anaerobic environment for a very long time, and, as the scientist said it's unlike anything on Earth because these conditions are essentially unique on Earth. Really exciting times :). Can't wait for some more confirmation and the eventual photos!!!
- emhart 14y ago
  Agreed. I'm more excited about Vostok than just about anything. Even just the development of the technology to get in there, explore, it, etc. has been thrilling. Not to mention the politics and international intrigue. This is a phenomenal bit of early news on what they'll hopefully find.
- twiceaday 14y ago
  Is it possible for life in Vostok to be genealogically isolated from life elsewhere on Earth, so that life evolved from nothing multiple times?
  - tdyo 14y ago
    I suppose it's possible, but the fact that it is, in fact, DNA is enough to suggest it's from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). If it shares the same ultra-conserved ribosomal etc sequences, then it's even more likely from LUCA.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    I believe the estimates for how long Lake Vostok water has been isolated cap out at around 25 million years. Although that is an incredibly long time, it isn't anywhere close to long ago enough to ensure a sterile condition when it was first isolated (It would need to be several billion years to proceed life as we know it already blanketing the planet). As I understand it, the prevailing notion is that abiogenesis happened only a single time, or at least only a single time that stuck. The life that already exists does a pretty good job of ensuring that any primitive re-developed life never has a chance to actually get started. You would need to completely sterilize the environment to have a shot at witnessing abiogenesis again. Maaaybe all life in the lake died, rendering it sterile, and then new life formed, but that seems super unlikely to me. Why would the existing life die if there was enough nutrients/energy to allow new life to form? (Also, 25 million years is probably far too short of a timeframe to see abiogenisis bootstrap DNA based life)
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- doctoboggan 14y ago
  Not all information required for life is stored in DNA. To create a living being you also need the universal context (physical constants and functions).
microDude 14y ago
Not being an expert in the molecular/cellular/biological department. Is there any risk that this new DNA strand could harm current life? (I am thinking infections or some weird mutations, similar to every scifi movie I have ever seen)
- akiselev 14y ago
  There is always a risk. However, these bacteria evolved in an extremely hostile environment. The probability that they developed mechanisms to infiltrate a multicellular organism and fight off its immune system is practically infinitesimal, although non-zero. There is likely zero evolutionary drive in such an environment to evolve above basic anaerobic life sustaining adaptations and it could even be the case that any evolution that isn't geared towards maximizing survivability in such an environment are actually detrimental. Chances are that any functional mutations will either optimize current processes (and thus help survivability) or create new processes or chemical pathways. The latter would usually expend more energy and could very well cause the mutated species to die off prematurely because their "improvement" is too much to handle in this low energy environment. Of course, this doesn't preclude the bacteria being so strange that our immune system wouldn't know what to do about it but after 25 million years of sequestration with no "predators", it is unlikely that they developed such a uniqueness.
mleonhard 14y ago
Is anyone else concerned that they have contaminated the lake with modern bacteria?
- richardjordan 14y ago
  Yeah. Little bit.
richardjordan 14y ago
I've been waiting for the results of this search for a while now. I'm hoping to see reportage soon from a more credible source than one which refers to some country called "Great Brittan"! Do they have interns writing this stuff or something?
hakaaaaak 14y ago
Were these bacteria living because of a heat source that was keeping the lake liquid, similar to life around deep sea vents? Could there be life under our feet, fueled by the heat of the molten core with bacteria flourishing in fresh groundwater, or do these types of thermophiles require salt that wouldn't exist there?
huhtenberg 14y ago
Oki-doki, so I looked at some Russian sources and it looks weird. The RIA, the Russian Reuters, says [0] that 1. This is based on the analysis of a "technological" water that accidentally got into a drilling column (whatever it is) dating back to May 2012, and not on the specifically collected samples from a recent drilling that will be arriving to St. Petersburg in May of this year (apparently it takes 6+ months to ship them). 2. "You have to understand that only a bacteria DNA was found, not the bacteria itself." This is what the representative of the science agency said. Literally. So. I wouldn't be getting too excited. This reads like a PR or a vanity piece rather than a proper science report, meaning that is probably aimed at securing additional funding or something along these lines. (edit) Also, doesn't the process of comparing DNA to the database samples smell a little like CSI bullshit to anyone? This is not my domain, but I would imagine that there's hardly a comprehensive database of a DNA of all existing life forms on Earth. I assume there's a way to see that a DNA is "alien", but why bring up some imaginary database if you are making a serious scientific announcement. [0] http://ria.ru/science/20130307/926380740.html http://ria.ru/science/20130307/926380740.html
- BioGeek 14y ago
  > I would imagine that there's hardly a comprehensive database of a DNA of all existing life forms on Earth. An annotated collection of all publicly available DNA sequences is available from the DNA DataBank of Japan (DDBJ), the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), and GenBank at NCBI. They are basically all three the same database and they exchange updates on a daily basis. However, small timelags in propagating data between the database centers causes minor differences.
anigbrowl 14y ago
Jurassic Water Park: Jeff Goldblum fights off rampaging algae.
arh68 14y ago
> "The researchers said that seven species of bacteria were found in the frozen water in 2012. The DNA match to any known organisms never went past 86 percent, so it is considered to be an unknown form of life. Anything under 90 percent is considered enough to designate a new species." Is that 90% figure standard convention? Where did it come from? I'm not too familiar with this field, so is that basic textbook stuff? It seems arbitrary.

81 points by bra-ket 14y ago

bdc 14y ago

> "If it were found on Mars, people would call it Martian DNA. But this is DNA from Earth" Yes... yes indeed.

nviarnes 14y ago
I want to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and assume his english isn't great. He probably means something along the lines of: 'this DNA is so weird it could be Martian.'
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  It's not, though. I'd imagine Martian organisms would have a much lower shared proportion of DNA than the 86% mentioned in the article, assuming they even used DNA in the first place.
  - dmishe 14y ago
    Well, what if martians started life here?
    - ceejayoz 14y ago
      Mars->Earth or Earth->Mars seeding is a popular hypothesis. We'd still likely see a bigger difference than 86% identical, though, given the billion year timeframe involved.
  - bluekeybox 14y ago
    Highly likely that Martian "DNA" would be different in several fundamental aspects (for starters, the triplet codons would have entirely different "dictionary" meanings in terms of amino acids, or perhaps there would be no triplets but quartets instead or even something completely different) that it wouldn't even make sense to talk in terms of percentages -- it would be like saying a rock is 50% similar to a blue whale.
    - evilduck 14y ago
      Both could contain high percentages of calcium. ;)
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- lostlogin 14y ago
  Yes and very yes to the parent. I hope your generous comment about 2nd (or 3rd ...) language is correct because that is one awful quote. If the people drilling the ice were Martians we would call them Martians too.

josh2600 14y ago

This is so exciting. I've been waiting on the results of the opening of Vostok for YEARS! It's one of the few "untampered" natural subterranean lakes left on Earth and arguably the oldest. If there's DNA in there, it has existed in an anaerobic environment for a very long time, and, as the scientist said it's unlike anything on Earth because these conditions are essentially unique on Earth. Really exciting times :). Can't wait for some more confirmation and the eventual photos!!!

emhart 14y ago
Agreed. I'm more excited about Vostok than just about anything. Even just the development of the technology to get in there, explore, it, etc. has been thrilling. Not to mention the politics and international intrigue. This is a phenomenal bit of early news on what they'll hopefully find.
twiceaday 14y ago
Is it possible for life in Vostok to be genealogically isolated from life elsewhere on Earth, so that life evolved from nothing multiple times?
- tdyo 14y ago
  I suppose it's possible, but the fact that it is, in fact, DNA is enough to suggest it's from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). If it shares the same ultra-conserved ribosomal etc sequences, then it's even more likely from LUCA.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I believe the estimates for how long Lake Vostok water has been isolated cap out at around 25 million years. Although that is an incredibly long time, it isn't anywhere close to long ago enough to ensure a sterile condition when it was first isolated (It would need to be several billion years to proceed life as we know it already blanketing the planet). As I understand it, the prevailing notion is that abiogenesis happened only a single time, or at least only a single time that stuck. The life that already exists does a pretty good job of ensuring that any primitive re-developed life never has a chance to actually get started. You would need to completely sterilize the environment to have a shot at witnessing abiogenesis again. Maaaybe all life in the lake died, rendering it sterile, and then new life formed, but that seems super unlikely to me. Why would the existing life die if there was enough nutrients/energy to allow new life to form? (Also, 25 million years is probably far too short of a timeframe to see abiogenisis bootstrap DNA based life)

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

doctoboggan 14y ago
Not all information required for life is stored in DNA. To create a living being you also need the universal context (physical constants and functions).

microDude 14y ago

Not being an expert in the molecular/cellular/biological department. Is there any risk that this new DNA strand could harm current life? (I am thinking infections or some weird mutations, similar to every scifi movie I have ever seen)

akiselev 14y ago
There is always a risk. However, these bacteria evolved in an extremely hostile environment. The probability that they developed mechanisms to infiltrate a multicellular organism and fight off its immune system is practically infinitesimal, although non-zero. There is likely zero evolutionary drive in such an environment to evolve above basic anaerobic life sustaining adaptations and it could even be the case that any evolution that isn't geared towards maximizing survivability in such an environment are actually detrimental. Chances are that any functional mutations will either optimize current processes (and thus help survivability) or create new processes or chemical pathways. The latter would usually expend more energy and could very well cause the mutated species to die off prematurely because their "improvement" is too much to handle in this low energy environment. Of course, this doesn't preclude the bacteria being so strange that our immune system wouldn't know what to do about it but after 25 million years of sequestration with no "predators", it is unlikely that they developed such a uniqueness.

mleonhard 14y ago

Is anyone else concerned that they have contaminated the lake with modern bacteria?

richardjordan 14y ago
Yeah. Little bit.

richardjordan 14y ago

I've been waiting for the results of this search for a while now. I'm hoping to see reportage soon from a more credible source than one which refers to some country called "Great Brittan"! Do they have interns writing this stuff or something?

hakaaaaak 14y ago

Were these bacteria living because of a heat source that was keeping the lake liquid, similar to life around deep sea vents? Could there be life under our feet, fueled by the heat of the molten core with bacteria flourishing in fresh groundwater, or do these types of thermophiles require salt that wouldn't exist there?

huhtenberg 14y ago

Oki-doki, so I looked at some Russian sources and it looks weird. The RIA, the Russian Reuters, says [0] that 1. This is based on the analysis of a "technological" water that accidentally got into a drilling column (whatever it is) dating back to May 2012, and not on the specifically collected samples from a recent drilling that will be arriving to St. Petersburg in May of this year (apparently it takes 6+ months to ship them). 2. "You have to understand that only a bacteria DNA was found, not the bacteria itself." This is what the representative of the science agency said. Literally. So. I wouldn't be getting too excited. This reads like a PR or a vanity piece rather than a proper science report, meaning that is probably aimed at securing additional funding or something along these lines. (edit) Also, doesn't the process of comparing DNA to the database samples smell a little like CSI bullshit to anyone? This is not my domain, but I would imagine that there's hardly a comprehensive database of a DNA of all existing life forms on Earth. I assume there's a way to see that a DNA is "alien", but why bring up some imaginary database if you are making a serious scientific announcement. [0] http://ria.ru/science/20130307/926380740.html http://ria.ru/science/20130307/926380740.html

BioGeek 14y ago
> I would imagine that there's hardly a comprehensive database of a DNA of all existing life forms on Earth. An annotated collection of all publicly available DNA sequences is available from the DNA DataBank of Japan (DDBJ), the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), and GenBank at NCBI. They are basically all three the same database and they exchange updates on a daily basis. However, small timelags in propagating data between the database centers causes minor differences.

anigbrowl 14y ago

Jurassic Water Park: Jeff Goldblum fights off rampaging algae.

arh68 14y ago

> "The researchers said that seven species of bacteria were found in the frozen water in 2012. The DNA match to any known organisms never went past 86 percent, so it is considered to be an unknown form of life. Anything under 90 percent is considered enough to designate a new species." Is that 90% figure standard convention? Where did it come from? I'm not too familiar with this field, so is that basic textbook stuff? It seems arbitrary.