1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Jane Dough
  8. The Braiser

NASA Proves Building Blocks Of DNA Come From Space

NASA researchers studying meteorites have found that they contain several of the components needed to make DNA on Earth. The discovery provides support for the idea that the building blocks for DNA were likely created in space, and carried to Earth on objects, like meteorites, that crashed into the planet’s surface. According to the theory, the ready-made DNA parts could have then assembled under Earth’s early conditions to create the first DNA.

The researchers, from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, found adenine and guanine — two of the nucleobases needed to make DNA (the other two are thymine and cytosine, which were not found) — on meteorite samples. Additionally, the samples showed the presence of three molecules that are similar to nucleobases, but do not have a biological role on Earth: Purine, 2.6-diaminopurine, and 6.8-diaminopurine. Hypoxanthine and xanthine, compounds used in biological processes, but not DNA, were also found. What is particularly significant about the new research is that the scientists were able to confirm that the biological parts were created in space and carried to Earth.

Opponents of the idea that the components of DNA come from space typically point to contamination of samples with organic compounds as a reason why this theory isn’t viable. Samples can become contaminated simply from being handled or coming into contact with these compounds, which isn’t hard to do on Earth since DNA makes up all living things. This is the first research to effectively prove that there was no contamination and these compounds come from space.

The researchers proved this three ways. To start off their analysis, the samples underwent an extraction process. Each sample was treated with a solution of formic acid, and then run through a liquid chromatograph, which separates out compounds from a mixture. The samples were then studied with a mass spectrometer, to determine the chemical structure of the compounds that were found.

From this analysis, the nucelobases adenine and guanine were found. DNA looks like a spiral ladder, with rungs joining two sides as the strands twist, the double helix. These nucleobases make up parts of the rungs, and are an important part of the code that tells the internal machinery of cells which proteins to create. This analysis also revealed the molecules 2.6-diaminopurine and 6.8-diaminopurine, these molecules are rarely used elsewhere in biology, and are similar to nucelobases. These molecules are called nucleobase analogs.

The nucleobase analogs are the first piece of evidence showing that the compounds really did come from space and not Earthly contamination. Michael Callahan, a researcher at Goddard who led the study, said in a NASA press release:

“You would not expect to see these nucleobase analogs if contamination from terrestrial life was the source, because they’re not used in biology, aside from one report of 2,6-diaminopurine occurring in a virus (cyanophage S-2L).”

According to Callahan, the nucleobase analogs were most likely produced by the meteorite as if it were acting like a chemical factory. If the meteorite was creating the material needed to make life, it would be expected that many variants of nucleobases, not just the ones that ended up having a biological use, would be generated due to the variety of chemicals and conditions in each sample.

The second thing that ruled out the possibility of terrestrial contamination was how much of these molecules were found, and where. In addition to the meteorite samples, the researchers also studied a 21.4 pound chunk of ice from the area of Antarctica where most of the meteorites were recovered. The amounts of the two nucleobases, and the hypoxanthine and xanthine, were found in low concentrations in the ice at only a few parts per trillion. In the meteorites, they were found at concentrations of several parts per billion. If the DNA building blocks had come from Earth and contaminated the samples, their concentration would have been much higher in the ice they had been in contact with.

It is also important that none of the nucleobase analogs were found in the ice sample. One of the meteorites that contained a nucleobase analog was recovered from Australia instead of Antarctica. Even with this sample, soil collected near the fall site had none of the nucleobase analog molecules.

The third piece of evidence that supports the idea that the DNA components originated in space is that the researchers found the nucleobases, and the hypoxanthine and xanthine, were able to be produced by a completely non-biological reaction. Callahan explains:

“In the lab, an identical suite of nucleobases and nucleobase analogs were generated in non-biological chemical reactions containing hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, and water. This provides a plausible mechanism for their synthesis in the parent bodies, and supports the notion that they are extraterrestrial.”

This research is the strongest to date that supports the theory that the components of DNA necessary to create life on Earth were generated in space and transported to Earth. The research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

(via NASA, image by Chris Smith/NASA Goddard Space Flight Center)

  • haji

    it’s important to note that, we too, are in space. derp.

  • anonymous

    It is also important to note that evidence does not equal proof.  While the evidence given in this article is pretty compelling, it by no means says “The original DNA components which sparked life on earth almost certainly came from ‘space’”.  If you ask me, the article should be retitled to replace “…proves…” with “…provides evidence that…”.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Z4CJFSWSF6NJQ2QO56FEBHKHJM K

    Is this supposed to discount Miller and Urey’s, Oro’s, and Salvan et. al.’s experiment(s)?  If so, thumbs down – no way – try again.

    If this is simply a “rocks crashing into Earth bring minerals with them”, well, DUH.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HN33A45R2LGKA6SA73GUP7XPJU Trang Meloy

    Crazy possibilities with all of it, I am excited to see if they can find the other two components of DNA.  Then again, I am not quite up on how all of it works.

    Good video here that explains it if anyone is interested in it.  http://millionsofnerds.com/general-tech/alien-dna-found-on-meteorites/

  • Ajit Vadakayil

    Hi,

     

    Punch into google search,  NASA , DNA BUILDING BLOCKS IN METEORITE-
    VADAKAYIL.

    Alaska had DNA orange goo rain a couple of days ago.  

    There was red rain in my hometown in kerala 10 years ago.

     

    Capt ajit vadakayil

    ..

     

  • Anon

    Perhaps “life” is a universal tendancy…

  • Alan

    A nice and very interesting article, but the headline is more suitable for a checkout counter tabloid.  Some fairly compelling evidence, but not proof!

    Clear skies, Alan

  • Blar13

    They have some building blocks of DNA, they have proven that they not only exist in space but have come to earth from space. It doesn’t say proof that life on earth came from space, it says “Proof the DNA building blocks come from space”. They are DNA building blocks, they did come from space and they can prove it.

    Not a thing wrong with the headline as other posters have suggested.

  • Anonymous

    I think (without any deep knowledge of organic chemistry) that even if these compounds can  be produced in the cold, dry vacuum of deep space that they would be far more likely to occur in the wet energetic seas of a young earth. It is however interesting, and suggestive that the components of life probably are everywhere. I don’t think this finding much changes the traditional view of the origins of life. If these compounds are being produced by non biological processes on earth, something is probably eating them immediately.

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/4ow75ws

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/297sxrk

  • http://grismar.myopenid.com/ Grismar

    Agreed, or simpler: NASA proves build blocks for DNA *could* have come from space. Especially since this research does nothing to disprove that the actual stuff that started life didn’t form on Earth as well as in space.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Z4CJFSWSF6NJQ2QO56FEBHKHJM K

    The implication is that DNA building blocks come from space.  It’s like saying milk comes from the supermarket – while you can obtain milk from the supermarket, that is not the origin of milk.  The first paragraph of the article:

    “The discovery provides support for the idea that the building blocks for DNA were likely created in space, and carried to Earth on objects, like meteorites, that crashed into the planet’s surface”

    is basically stating this is proof that the *first* DNA came from space and all other DNA is based off this.  Again – without a time machine, no one can definitively prove anything that occurred in the past but it is much more likely for the first nucleotides to have been synthesized in house that for us to have relied on meteorites for them – after all, what happened when the first RNA strand wanted to reproduce?  Did it have to hang around waiting for another meteorite to crash?

    Again, the error is in the wording, and what the wording implies.

  • Roger Koop

    Supposedly the moon is a result of the earth and another planetoid colliding. Space rocks go up and out and come back down so maybe it started here left and then came back? It’s hard to believe anything is created inside a rock in the cold void of space. It seems more plausible to me that things happened on the surface of the earth where things are comingleing moving and mixing around.

  • Munstrumridcully

    well, the problem is that in science (unlike math) nothing is ever proved 100% and facts are not truth. All the laws and facts of science are theories (in the scientific sense, not the vernacular) that have so much supporting evidence in both observation and prediction, that, unless new evidence emerges, is the most probable model for the given data. A theory ia an hypothesis for which so much evidence has been gathered and experimentation reproduced enough, with enough predictive power that no other theory is equally supportable by the evidence. So you are right, they should only use the term “proven” in court or mathematics, it has no place in other sciences.

    So you’re right

  • Munstrumridcully

    i belive the tendancy toward life arrising from the stringing together of longer and longer protein chains must be a universal probability, if not inevitability. I belive that quantum physics have, if not “proven” this, then they have at least provided some intriguing evidence to point us in that direction.

  • Munstrumridcully

    and again, the wording problem is that the vernacular concept of proof isn’t properly applicable to science outside of mathematics. Equations can be proven. Supposedly guilt can be proven, but all of ’Scientific Fact” is really just differing levels of probability.

    The difference in the meaning of “theory” and “hypothesis” between popular culture and the scientific community is why, I believe, people are so confused about evolution and say it’s “only” a theory and that intelligent design is an equally valid theory, when, by scientific definition, a theory has advanced far enough that other hypotheses are NOT equally valid to explain observation. Hence that evolution occurs is fact, the mechanism by which it acts, thought to be natural selection is a theory. Pan-spermia would be an hypothesis: possible but without enough supporting evidence.

  • Munstrumridcully

    I think the focus of the conclusions the article makes go in the wrong direction. Like you said, it really wouldn’t change the prevailing view of life on earth’s origins. What it might suggest though, and this isn’t even mentioned in the article, is that DNA may be all over space, hence life may be as common as I (and many scientists) believe it to be in the cosmos.

  • Sciencealwayswins


    well, the problem is that in science (unlike math) nothing is ever proved 100%” 
    Math does prove things to be logically true within the structure of mathematics. Fundamental mathematics are an abstraction that is used to quantify and represent reality in a manipulable form, but most higher fields of math rely on assumptions (usually called postulates) that, while they make perfect sense and nothing logical contradicts them, are still assumptions. The basic postulates of geometry were created by Euclid, and his fifth is actually incorrect outside of Euclidean (planar) geometry. Everything within planar geometry is, therefore, based on assumption. Most proofs fall into higher fields of mathematics where demonstrable accuracy is required as the reasoning behind the workings of those fields of math are not, as an old friend put it “intuitively obvious”. In this way, mathematics is exactly the same as science. Math doesn’t prove anything except within mathematics, but it ALWAYS works in reality (and when we find that it doesn’t we change the model to one that does until demonstrated incorrect, again, exactly like science), so we accept that it is correct. In short, math and science are true because: SCIENCE: IT WORKS BITCHES.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=743026508 Jeff Simons

    SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Erebostrain

     No, they proved that these particular building blocks which are found in DNA came from space, not that the original components which sparked life on Earth came from these rocks.

  • Mconnor379

    I’m In space. Gotta see it all…


Abrams Media Network click here for advertising opportunities

© 2012 Geekosystem, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Jobs | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives | RSS RSS
Dan Abrams, Founder | Power Grid by Sound Strategies | Hosting by Datagram