Showing posts with label central dogma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label central dogma. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

An Infectious, Genetic Disease? Better Sleep On It.

Biology concepts – thermoregulation, sleep, genetic disease, infectious disease, central dogma of molecular biology, form follows function


Even rats have to get some sleep. It was nice to have the sleeping cap,
but unnecessary for a sleep deprivation study. Not a good use of
research dollars.
“I’m dying for a good night’s sleep.” Is this just hyperbole, or an impending warning of death? For laboratory rats, sleep deprivation does kill. During their insomniac downward spiral, the rats tend to get hot and can’t cool down – you know, they can't thermoregulate (see Can’t We Just Go With The Flow). This doesn’t mean that a loss of the ability to thermoregulate is what kills the rats, but it does suggest a connection between sleep deprivation and the hypothalamus.

We looked at the hypothalamus in our story of endothermy. This evolutionarily old brain structure implements a set point temperature for the body and receives information about the temperature of different parts of the body. When the body temperature deviates from the set point, the hypothalamus initiates bodily mechanisms to normalize the temperature.


Apparently one of the effects of sleep deprivation is that you
become semi-transparent.
People with severe insomnia tend to sweat more and have higher core temperatures even though they say they are cold. They also have extreme high blood pressure, pulse, and appetite. These symptoms suggest that sleep deprivation messes with the hypothalamus, since functions of the hypothalamus include themoregulation, sleep, hunger, thirst, reproductive readiness in females, and stress responses. What scientists don’t know yet is just how sleep deprivation actually kills the rats or harms people.

Dying from a lack of sleep is not just a rat problem, a few very unlucky humans die from it as well. Fatal familial insomnia (FFI) is a very rare genetic disorder; it has been reported in only 40 families worldwide. Before describing the truly horrible way these patients die, let’s look at what causes the disease.

FFI is caused by a point mutation in the gene for the prion protein PrPc. A point mutation means that one nucleotide on the DNA is changed, which leads to a change in the protein coded for by the DNA. Three unit (nucleotides) segments of the RNA (made from the DNA template) work together (called a codon) to code for one protein building block (amino acid). In the case of FFI, the amino acid called aspartic acid is changed to one called asparagine, and this changes the protein’s shape. 


The left image shows mRNA bases recognized in sets of three
(codons) by tRNAs with amino acids attached (Ser = serine, tyr =
tyrosine). The amino acids are linked to because proteins. The
lower section is the genetic code, showing which amino acids are
coded for by which codons. The right image shows how proteins
fold. The primary structure is the amino acid sequence. The
secondary structure comes from interactions of adjacent amino acids,
including spirals called helices or sheets. The tertiary structure comes
from the folding up of the entire protein, while the quaternary
structure comes from the interaction of different proteins into a
larger complex.
PrPc is made up of 250 amino acids linked together in a chain. Each different amino acid carries a different shape and charge and will interact with every other amino acid differently. The sequence of amino acids in a protein cause it to fold into a specific shape. It is the protein’s conformation (shape) that determines its function. This is the opposite of what we determined for evolved organism characteristics, where form follows function (see Do You Have To Be Ugly To Hear Well?). With proteins – function follows form!

Mutation of that single amino acid at position 178 (aspartic acid is negatively charged, while asparagine is positive) causes the folding, and therefore the function, of the protein to change. Aspartic acid is sometimes abbreviated "D", while asparagine is called "N"; therefore, the mutation is often indicated as D178N (D at position 178 is changed to N).

Many genetic mutations result in no change in amino acid, or a change that bring a large enough change the shape to cause a change in function. But when it does, good or bad things can happen. On one hand, the altered protein might confer an advantage to the organism, one that promotes survival in the environment or after an environmental change.This positive selection through reproductive advantage become the new normal – and this is evolution

On the other hand, the change in amino acid sequence, form, and function could be destructive. Disease might be the result, or perhaps a change in the organism that reduces reproductive success. One of these two results is what occurs with the FFI mutation of the prion protein.

When the mutated prion folds differently, it forgets its day job and moonlights as a sinister evil force. Every other prion protein it contacts, WHETHER MUTATED OR NOT, is coaxed into changing its shape. The new prions turn to the dark side, then change other prion proteins they contact, multiplying the effect. The poorly folded prion proteins will stick together, come out of solution, and form solids (plaques) where they settle out. In different prion protein diseases, this settling out occurs in different parts of the brain. In FFI, it is the hypothalamus.


In the top image, the PrPc on the left is properly folded. The green
represents alpha helices and the blue arrows represent beta-pleated
sheets. The right image shows the malfolded version of PrPsc. It is a
tighter structure, which partially explains why protein-degrading
enzymes don’t work on it. . The lower cartoon shows that the PrPsc
can force the PrPc to assume the improper form, and these then
aggregate into plaques.
The prion plaques are longer lived then the regular prion protein; normal cellular enzymes whose job it is to degrade proteins won’t work on prion plaques. And worse, if some of the malfolded protein is transferred to another animal, the recipient will develop plaques and disease as well. That makes this an infectious disease that isn’t caused by a bacteria, fungus, parasite, or virus. The prion is an infectious protein! What a terrible exception to the rules of infectious diseases.

We see here a protein that can replicate itself (not by building more of themselves, but by changing the form of normal proteins), and that makes it a repository of biologic information. This is an exception to the central dogma of molecular biology, which says that DNA is the sole information storing material.

FFI moves from person to person through heredity, but if a non-affected person comes into contact with some brain material from an FFI patient and that material entered their bloodstream, it can be transmitted this way as well. A prion protein disease called Kuru is famous for being transmitted from person to person.

The Fore tribe in Papua New Guinea once observed a ritual wherein they honored a dead tribe member by eating part of their brain (called ritualistic mortuary cannibalism - gasp!). Because of this, there was an epidemic of Kuru in this tribe in the early 1900’s. Over a period of 3-6 months victims would become unsteady, irrational with bouts of laughter, and then degrade mentally and physically to the point of death. There are more than twenty known prion diseases (mad cow disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob, scrapie, etc.), and Kuru suggests that some might have no genetic component, only person to person transmission.


A member of the Fore tribe is shown on the left. This tribe used
to celebrate the lives of departed members by eating their brains.
This spread a prion protein disease called Kuru, a protein disease
that is infectious! The Fore tribe still lives in Papua New Guinea,
although there are fewer of them than before Kuru.
The differences between the various prion diseases are based on the specific prion protein mutation, what part of the brain is attacked, and how potent the prion is at refolding normal prion proteins. For instance, the D178N mutation in FFI also occurs in Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), but a normal polymorphism (an amino acid change that doesn’t change form or function) at position 129 determines the fate. If amino acid 129 is methionine, the the person gets FFI, if it is valine, then they get CJD. 

The families that suffer from FFI have the D178N mutation, and also pass on the polymorphism for methionine (M) at position 129. Even more gruesome, some cases of prion protein diseases can be sporadic, not associated with either an inherited mutation or transmission. The malfolded prion can very rarely arise out of nowhere in isolated individuals.

The mutated PrPc is passed on via inheritance. You get one copy of each chromosome from each of your parents, so for an individual gene, you might get two normal copies, 1 mutant copy and 1 normal copy, or 2 mutant copies. Some diseases require that you must inherit two mutant copies for symptoms to show (recessive), but other require only one mutant copy (dominant, it dominates the trait from the other parent).

FFI is autosomal dominant (not associated with the X or Y sex chromosomes), so the chance of getting a mutant copy and the disease if one parent has it is 1 in 2; these are bad odds. But, if everyone with FFI dies, then why is the disease still showing up in families. Remember that we said above that some genetic diseases can, but don't have to, affect reproductive success. Unfortunately for those with FFI, the symptoms appear in the victims’ fifties, after they have had children. Natural selection doesn’t eliminate FFI from the population because FFI doesn’t appear affect reproduction.

The first symptoms of FFI include sweating while feeling cold. Later, the ability to get a good night’s sleep is lost, followed closely by the inability to nap. As the disease progresses, there are panic attacks, phobias, and no sleep whatsoever. After 4-6 months, mental abilities start to degrade. In its final stages unresponsiveness precedes death. 

This is especially sad way to die, because during the majority of the disease course the patient is aware of everything going on. At least with middle to late Alzheimer’s disease the patient is blissfully unaware of their dementia.


For both the gross and microscopic images, the left example is from prion protein disease victim, while the right example is from a normal brain. The brains on the left show how great the loss of tissue can be in Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The microscopic image from the diseased brain shows the plaques and the resulting holes in the brain structure. The small gaps in the normal brain on the right are a result of shrinking of tissue after it was on the slide.
On autopsy, the hypothalmus of an FFI sufferer looks like it has been hit with a shotgun blast. Holes are present in the tissue, representing areas where neurons have been lost due to inflammation and triggered cell death. The affected area of the brain takes on a spongy appearance, so prion protein diseases are lumped together and called transmissable spongiform encephalopathies (encephalon = brain and pathy = disease). Unfortunately, there are no cure, treatments, or vaccines for any of these prion diseases.

It is the hypothalamus' control of sleep cycles and circadian rhythms that promotes survival in animals. But what about plants? They don’t have a hypothalamus. Can they suffer from loss of circadian activity? In a word – yes!  And this will be our starting point next time.


For more information or classroom activities on prion proteins, central dogma, infectious or genetic disease, the genetic code or protein structure, see:

Prion protein and diseases –

central dogma of molecular biology –

infectious disease –

genetic disease –

genetic code –

protein structure –
nwabr.org/sites/default/files/learn/bioinformatics/AdvL5.pdf
 

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Fish Guts and Cancer – Giant Bacteria, part 2

The gut of a fish is a strange place to go looking for bacteria. It’s an even stranger place to find the second largest bacterium on Earth.

Epulopiscium fishelsoni (E. fishelsoni) hangs out in the intestinal tract of the brown surgeonfish, commonly called the lavender tang. While it seems logical that E. fishelsoni would be named for the site where it was found – inside a fish – it was actually named for its discoverer, Lev Fishelson of Tel Aviv University.  

Epulopiscium fishelsoni is shown in the left image. The white line is approximately 100 µm. On the right is the Lavender Tang.  E. fishelsoni lives in this fish’s gut, and only in this fish’s gut.

Before T. namibiensis (last week’s post) was discovered, E. fishelsoni was the biggest kid on the block, having been first seen in 1985. It can be seen with the naked eye, reaching a maximum length of 0.7 mm, but it also has large size variations. In fact, this is one of the keys to its success.

E. fishelsoni’s changing size is a daily routine. In the early morning, E. fishelsoni is only about 10 µm long, only 2-5 times bigger than typical bacteria. As the surgeonfish starts to feed, more food is available to the bacteria in its gut. With this signal, E. fishelsoni starts to grow. By late afternoon into evening, the maximum size has been reached and they can be seen with the unaided eye (if you happened to be in the fish’s gut to see it – I wouldn’t recommend it as a holiday destination).

However, after the night passes, you would find just the small cells again in the morning. You would also see that the number of bacteria has increased.  The large cells have divided into daughter cells, splitting their cellular contents between their two or three new partners. Then, as a new day passes and food becomes available in the gut, these cells grow large and divide overnight. 


Could you imagine having your baby grow 75x bigger in one day?
Think of it this way: you bring home your 22-inch long newborn baby in the morning and place it in its crib.  That night, you find that you have a baby that is 140 ft. tall. You start to build the world’s largest crib, but by morning, the giant is gone and you find two 22-inch babies in the crib. It would continue like this everyday. Parenting is difficult.

E. fishelsoni’s shape is also different than that of T. namibiensis. E. fishelsoni is shaped like a long grain of rice, as opposed to the spherical T. namibinesis. This can help meet diffusion needs (see this post), since the distance to travel is much shorter for molecules brought in on its long sides. The elongated shape is enough to make the new daughter cells viable. But as the cells grow during the day, merely being longer than they are wide isn’t enough to overcome diffusion rate, mixing rate, and traffic time limits. E. fishelsoni must know another trick in order to survive at is maximum size.

In the majority of molecular interactions, it is a cellular protein that partners with a molecule that has diffused into the cell. What might E. fishelsoni do to increase the chance that an enzyme will find its substrate (the molecule an enzyme acts on and changes in some way) quickly?

Remember in the “It’s all in the Numbers” post, we saw that one way to reduce traffic time was to increase the number of one or the other interacting molecule. It is impossible for the bacterium to raise the concentration of nutrients, but it can raise the number of proteins made by the bacterium.


The central dogma of molecular
biology.
We need a bit of background to help explain E. fishelsoni’s trick to producing more copies of its proteins. There is a central dogma (core belief) to cell molecular biology: DNA goes to RNA goes to protein. This means that DNA is transcribed to a message (mRNA), which is then translated into a protein. However, if you want to make more protein, you can’t just transcribe more RNA from the DNA in the cell. This process is highly regulated and can only be manipulated to a certain degree. The other problem with this solution is that the proteins would be produced near the site of the DNA, so these extra proteins would have to travel a long distance to mix through the entire cell – this wouldn’t solve the mixing time (diffusion) problem.

What if the cell made more copies of its DNA and spread them out through the cell? Then the cell could produce much more RNA and hence much more protein. Having the DNA spread throughout the entire bacterium would solve the mixing time problem.


Fold number of chromosomes is a cell’s ploidy. 
N= haploid number of chromosomes, N in humans = 23, 
but we are diploid, so the total number of 
chromosomes is 2 x 23 = 46.
How would a bacterium make more copies of its entire DNA (its genome)? Isn’t the number of copies of DNA determined and unchangeable? In general, bacteria are haploid, meaning that they have one copy of each (usually just one) chromosome. Human cells (except for sex cells) are diploid, meaning they have two copies of each chromosome (one from Ma and one from Pa). Some plants exhibit triploidy, especially the seedless varieties of fruit, like bananas and watermelons. Finally, while polyploid cells (poly = many and ploid = fold) can occur naturally in lower animals and some plants, in humans it is often associated with cancer cells. The more copies of the genome there are in a cancer cell, the worse the prognosis (predictable outcome) for the patient.

E. fishelsoni has found a way to make being polyploid work for it. The early morning version of the bacterium (the small cell) is haploid, but as the cell volume increases hour by hour, the amount of bacterial DNA also increases through the circadian cycle (the daily sequence of physiological events).


Green color in inset shows the huge amount of DNA dispersed throughout  
E. fishelsoni. Courtesy of: Ward, R.J., Clements, K.D., Choat, J,.H. 
and Angert, E.R..  2009.  Cytology of terminally differentiated  
Epulopiscium mother cells.  DNA and Cell Biology 28:  57-64.
By evening, the mega-E. fishelsoni has 85,000 copies of its genome! Scientists don’t have a -ploidy name for a number that big; just plain polyploid. This is a huge amount of DNA for a prokaryotic cell, and is 25% more DNA than contained in a human cell.  The new DNA copies are spread throughout the cytoplasm to provide thousands of local protein factories. Wherever there is a diffused nutrient, the proper protein it needs to interact with won’t be too far away. Therefore, E. fishelsoni can disregard the usual size limitations placed on it by diffusion.

This bacterium still has much to teach us; for instance, I wondered about all that extra DNA. If there are 85,000 copies in the parent cell, but the two or three daughters that result from it are haploid (1 copy/daughter cell), what happened to the other 84,997 or 84,998 copies of the genome? I asked Dr. Fishelson about this, and he said, “there are several questions concerning this enigmatic bacterium, one of which is what you are asking about - what is the fate of the ‘surplus DNA’ as the daughter cells are produced?” If we figure out how E. fishelsoni gets rid of its extra DNA, we could take advantage of the process. Wouldn’t it be something if we learned how to beat cancer by studying a bacterium in the gut of a fish?




Bresler V, Montgomery WL, Fishelson L, Pollak PE. (1998). Gigantism in a bacterium, Epulopiscium fishelsoni, correlates with complex patterns in arrangement, quantity, and segregation of DNA J Bacteriol., 180 (21), 5061-5611 : 9791108


  For more information and activities on ploidy, central dogma, see below:

Ploidy –

Central dogma –

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

RNA Takes First Place

Biology concepts – nucleic acids, DNA, RNA, central dogma of molecular biology, ribozyme, RNA world hypothesis


The Library of Congress in Washington DC was designed as a 
showplace as well as a repository. The main reading room looks as
much like a museum or a cathedral as it does a library. If I could
figure out how to get away with it, I would live in the LOC.
Did you know that there are more than 155.3 million informational items (books and such) in the Library of Congress? Established in 1800 with 3000 volumes, the library was originally housed in the Capitol Building. Unfortunately, all the books were lost when the British fired Washington in 1814. No worries, the LOC then purchased Thomas Jefferson’s personal library of over 6500 books and set up shop in new building, although not the 1892 designed library that exists today (left).

In a way, you can think of the molecular workings of the cell like the Library of Congress. You need information storage – these are the books. In each book (chromosome or parts of a chromosome) contain the instructions (genes) needed to make products (proteins) the cell may need.

Each time you want to make a certain molecule, you must consult the book (chromosome) that has the correct instruction page (DNA gene). But you may be making many copies of your product in a short period, so one book might not be enough.

You could keep many copies of each book, maybe thousands, but this would take up too much room. The LOC already covers 2.1 million sq. feet (and that’s just one main building). What if you needed 1500 copies of One Good Turn (and interesting book about the history of the screw and screwdriver) because at some time or another, 1500 people wanted to learn how to build a square screwdriver?

To avoid this need for extra space, you make copies of pages (mRNA) from the books (chromosomes) that can be taken out of the library (nucleus) and used for making the products. Each time you want a product, a translator (tRNA and ribosome) must be used. This converts the copied instructions (mRNA) into a usable product (protein).

When one or several translations have been made, the copied instructions start to tear and get worn, and finally break down. Good thing we still have the original copy of the book stored in the nucleus… I mean library. We can go back and make more copies later if we need them. Humans are amateurs, we only have about 25,000 sets of instructions stored in 46 books, nowhere near the 155.3 million of the LOC.


The central dogma of molecular biology says that DNA is replicated to
DNA, so daughter cells get a full set of instructions. DNA is also
transcribed to mRNA, which is a copied message of the instructions to
build one protein. Finally, the mRNA acts as a code that is translated
into an amino acid polymer – a protein. HIV and other retroviruses
laugh at the central dogma, going the opposite direction, RNA to
DNA. Retrotransposons laugh at HIV, as they can do all that and more.
Cells take this library/nucleic acid analogy further. Sure, they have DNA, mRNA, and tRNA so that they can carryout the central dogma of molecular biology --- DNA goes to mRNA goes to protein (via tRNA and rRNA), but they have so much more. Just as there are many kinds of information storage at the LOC--- books, images, recordings, manuscripts, pamphlets, there are different kinds of nucleic acids as well.

Ever here of small nuclear RNAs, or micro RNAs, or plasmid DNAs for that matter? We have talked about plasmids as extrachromosomal pieces of DNA that can code for genes, especially antibiotic resistance genes in prokaryotes.

But the list of RNAs is far more impressive. There are regulatory RNAs that control gene expression (whether or not a protein is made from a gene), RNAs that control modification of other RNAs or work in DNA replication. There are even RNAs that are parasitic, like some viral genomes (RNA viruses) and retrotransposons.

Of these, retrotransposons may be the most interesting. A transposon is a piece of DNA that can jump around from place to place in the chromosomes of a cell. Barbara McClintock won a Nobel Prize for identifying transposable elements were responsible for the different colors of corn kernels in maize.


Ancient viral RNA got inserted into plant and animal genomes. The
retrotransposon can be transcribed to mRNA, and then could be
reverse transcribed back into DNA or translated into protein. The
DNA can then insert itself anywhere in the genome. Since several
mRNA transcripts can be made from one transcribed retrotransposon,
and since several pieces of DNA can be reverse transcribed from just
one mRNA, we have the potential for millions of retrotransposons in
the genome – and that’s exactly what we have found. The bottom
cartoon shows HIV. Since reverse transcription makes more mistakes
than DNA replication, many more mutants can be produced. This is
one reason HIV is so hard to treat – it’s always changing.
Retrotransposons use the library analogy to fill the shelves with hundreds of copies of themselves. If plant nuclei were like libraries, up to 80% of their book pages would be retrotransposons!

In and of themselves, retrotransposons represent an exception in nucleic acids. They are mRNA sequences that can turn back into DNA. Transcription is the process of using DNA to produce an mRNA, so going the opposite direction is called reverse transcription. This is also what retroviruses like HIV do.

In the case of retrotransposons, the chromosome held copies will be transcribed to an mRNA, and some of those copies might be translated into protein. Other copies will be reverse transcribed back to DNA by an enzyme called reverse transcriptase and will insert themselves somewhere in the genome (see picture).

In this way, retrotransposons can make more copies of themselves and end up all over the chromosomes of the organism. Mutation occurs at a higher rate in reverse transcription than in DNA replication because reverse transcriptase makes more mistakes than replication enzymes. This is why HIV is so hard to treat; it mutates so often that drug design can’t keep up with the changes in the viral proteins.

So how can the same mRNA sometimes be translated, and other times end up in a new place on the DNA? A 2013 study has investigated how one type of retrotransposon manages these different outcomes. The BARE retrotransposon of plants has just one coding sequence for a protein, but the study results show that it actually makes three distinct mRNAs from this one piece of DNA.


Sam Kean is the author of The Violinist’s Thumb, a very readable
book on molecular biology. He goes through how fruit flies were
recruited to disprove DNA heredity and ended up as the strongest
evidence for it; how DNA is linked very strongly to linguistics and
math; and how Stalin tried to breed a race of half human - half
chimps. This is in addition to showing how most DNA on Earth is
descended from viruses.
One transcript (mRNA) is modified so it can be translated but cannot be reverse transcribed. The second transcript is packaged in small bundles to be reverse transcribed later back to DNA. The third transcript type is smaller and actually houses the bundles of mRNAs to be reverse transcribed. So this retrotransposon balances itself between making protein and inserting itself into new places in the genome.

If plants have so much nucleic acid in the form of retrotransposons, could these be the remnants of ancient viral infections? You betcha, and it doesn’t stop with plants. In his fascinating book, The Violinist’s Thumb, Sam Kean lays out a compelling argument that most human DNA is actually just viral nucleic acid remnants, much of it being mutated versions of old RNAs.

Old RNA is probably the best way to describe all nucleic acids, because the generally accepted view of the evolution of life on Earth is that everything started with RNA. This called the RNA world hypothesis and professes that the job that DNA does now was first done by RNA.

The hypothesis also says that what those that protein enzymes now do - cutting things up, putting things together, and modifying existing structures - was originally done by RNAs as well, called catalytic RNAs.

We have evidence for this hypothesis, specifically, we know of many RNAs that have enzymatic activity. Called ribozymes (a cross between ribo for RNA, and zyme for enzyme), some RNAs carry out enzymatic roles in our cells and the cells of every eukaryote and prokaryote ever analyzed for their presence.


Ribozymes, a form of catalytic RNA, are present in most cells. They come
in two flavors based on what someone thought their secondary structure
looked like – the hammerhead or the hairpin. Scientists aren’t the most
imaginative when it comes to naming things. They both sit down on an
RNA where they recognize their specific sequence, and make a cut in the
strand. In the cartoon, N stands for any nucleotide, and X stands for
unknown. On the right side is a diagram showing how one ribozyme can
act again and again to cleave RNAs.
So now we are aware of two exceptions when it comes to the central dogma of molecular biology and RNA – 1) RNA can be converted back into DNA and 2) RNA can act like an protein enzyme.

One essential ribozyme function is the synthesis of protein. The ribosome (a riboprotein because it is made up of many RNAs and proteins) translates the codons of mRNA into a sequence of amino acids. It uses the RNA to link the individual amino acids together via peptide bonds. I’d say that’s essential.

Other ribozymes work on themselves. Many mRNAs, when first copied from DNA have sequence within them that is not used in the final product. These are called intervening sequences (or introns), and are cut out (spliced) as part of the transcript processing. Group I and II introns are self-splicing. They fold over on themselves and cause their own excision from the RNA of which they are part!

Group I introns can be found in the mRNAs, rRNAs, and tRNAs of most prokaryotes and lower eukaryotes, but the only place we have found them so far in higher eukaroytes are the introns of plants and the introns of mitochondrial and chloroplasts genomes.  Yet more evidence for the plastid endosymbiosis hypothesis.

If the RNA world hypothesis is to be strengthened, we must find a catalytic RNA that can replicate long strings of RNA “genes.” If RNA was both the storage material and the enzymatic material, there must have been an RNA-dependent, RNA polymerase that was itself a piece of RNA. An RNA replicase has not been found, probably because life moved on to using DNA as the long-term repository of genetic information, But we should be able to make an RNA replicase as a proof of concept.


The RNA world hypothesis is an idea of how early life on Earth transmitted
information and carried out functions. RNA did everything, stored info.,
replicated itself, and carried out enzymatic activity. A – E represent a
possible sequence, although no times can be assigned yet. According to this
theory – the last thing that developed was enzymatic proteins – but new
evidence suggests that proteins were important for the development of
tRNAs so they must have been around earlier. Step B is an area of interest,
as scientists are trying to make an RNA that could replicate any RNA, even itself.
A few ribozymes can polymerize a few nucleotides into short RNAs. The problem is that we need to show that there is an RNA that could replicate long strings of RNA that could then go on to have biological function. Until 2011, the best we’d produced was a ribozyme (called R18) that could polymerize just 14 ribonucleotides.  

Then a study was published showing that a modification of R18 could synthesize much longer strings and could replicate many different RNA templates. In this publication, the authors could synthesize ribonucleic acids of 95 bases, almost as long as the R18 replicase itself. Another study has shown that some catalytic RNAs can self-replicate at an exponential rate, making thousands of copies of themselves while still having catalytic function.

It seems that the RNA hypothesis is getting stronger, but there remain some hurdles.
A July, 2013 study shows that primitive protein enzymes (called urenzymes, where ur = primitive) activate tRNAs much faster than do ribozymes. These primitive proteins date to before the last common ancestor, so they have been around nearly as long as life itself. tRNA urenzymes suggest a tRNA-enzyme co-evolution, providing evidence that catalytic proteins and the conventional central dogma were important in early life – a result that does not support the RNA world hypothesis. I’m glad – the hunt goes on.

In the next weeks, let’s take a look at nucleic acid structures and their building blocks. Think DNA is double stranded? – not always. Think A, C, G, T, and U are the only nucleotides life uses? – not even close.



Chang W, Jääskeläinen M, Li SP, & Schulman AH (2013). BARE Retrotransposons Are Translated and Replicated via Distinct RNA Pools. PloS one, 8 (8) PMID: 23940808

Li L, Francklyn CS, & Carter CW (2013). Aminoacylating Urzymes Challenge the RNA World Hypothesis. The Journal of biological chemistry PMID: 23867455

Ferretti AC, & Joyce GF (2013). Kinetic properties of an RNA enzyme that undergoes self-sustained exponential amplification. Biochemistry, 52 (7), 1227-35 PMID: 23384307


For more information or classroom activities, see:

Nucleic acids –
Central dogma of molecular biology –

Types of RNA –

Retrotransposons –

RNA world hypothesis –

Catalytic RNA (ribozymes) –