backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 73 comment(s) - last by Regular Reader.. on Aug 25 at 12:31 PM


University of Illionois graduate student Elijah Roberts led the new study, developing the computer programs for it. He was assisted by his chemistry professor Zaida Luthey-Schulten (standing),  (Source: L. Brian Stauffer, U. of I. News Bureau)

Professor Carl Woese was a pioneer in using ribosome RNA to study evolution. His work predates computer analysis, but he has rode the wave of breakthroughs that computer analysis has yielded.  (Source: Jason Lindsay)
Skepticism aside, evolution is steadily being verified and analyzed thanks to cutting edge computing

Evolution in its earliest days was derided by some for what they believed was a lack of observable evidence.  However, a major piece of supporting evidence for evolution has come from computer analysis of cellular compounds.  By examining minute details in organisms’ genomes, we have observed how traits were transferred to descendants and how other traits arose at different points in the evolutionary ladder.

The University of Illinois completed a major study on the ribosome that provides documentary evidence of the path of evolution and to help us better understand the differences between domains, the broadest classification level of living organisms.  The research was an extension of the work of Illinois microbiology professor Carl Woese, who was one of the first to examine the consistent differences in ribosomal RNA and proteins, which offers insight into evolution.

Ribosomes, the body's protein factories, are made up of two subunits partly composed of RNA, similar to DNA, but with one differing molecule.  Ribosomal RNA is called rRNA for short, as there are many types of RNA in the cell.  Ribosomes are also partially composed of proteins, which form a scaffold-like support of the RNA, helping it catalyze the reaction.  Messenger RNA, mRNA, carries the genetic message from DNA to the ribosome.  The floating ribosome then makes a polypeptide, which will become a protein, the basic functional unit in a living organism.

What researchers have found is that a domain of extremely primitive microbes known as archaea actually are closer to eukarya than bacteria in its ribosomal genetics; eukarya being the branch of life that humans and all other vertebrates are part of.  These similarities indicate that archaea are a closer "relative" to us on the evolutionary tree than bacteria.

To offer full insight into the ribosome, the researchers examined both the peptide (protein) sequences and the RNA sequences which composed it.  They also examined the 3D structure of the ribosome and the orientation of proteins with respect to each other.  Graduate student Elijah Roberts led the study and wrote computer programs that combed through thousands of organism's ribosomal sequences.  Whenever a difference between organisms was found, it was cataloged and the program then examined if the difference was exclusive to the organism's domain.

Illinois chemistry professor Zaida Luthey-Schulten, one of the senior professors participating in the study describes, "The evolution of cells and the evolution of translation are really linked to one another.  To be a molecular signature a sequence has to be common to all members of a single domain of life, but not another."

Using 3D models for some bacteria and archaea, researchers were able to take the analysis a step further, examining where on the 3D ribosome the differences occurred.  Mr. Roberts explains, "Until the 2000s, when these structures became available, you weren't able to correlate where these signatures were with what was touching them in 3-D space."

What the team found was that a mere 5 percent of the ribsome's RNA contains 50 percent of the domain-specific differences between bacteria and archaea.  Interestingly, this domain is an area critical to the function of the ribosome as a protein factory.  They also found that the differences in RNA were correlated structurally to differences in proteins, indicating that rRNA and ribosomal proteins coevolved.

Professor Luthey-Schulten describes, "The ramifications of this work are it gives you a much better way to probe how this universal machinery changes from one organism to another."

Professor Woese adds, "In that the ribosome constitutes the core of the cellular translation mechanism, which is the sine qua non of gene expression, which is the essence of life as we know it, these findings constitute a major step in understanding the evolution of life, which is still a journey of a thousand miles."

Professor Luthey-Schulten says that by identifying domain-specific critical rRNA segments, manmade drugs can be developed to attack these regions.  This can lead to ultra-effective antibiotics, beyond even today's best drugs.

The new research will be published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Evolution
By Storkme on 8/19/2008 10:47:07 AM , Rating: 2
In before Christianity.




RE: Evolution
By phattyboombatty on 8/19/2008 10:51:59 AM , Rating: 2
It would be refreshing if just once, we could have an article related to evolution where the comments don't turn into a massive religion/evolution debate.


RE: Evolution
By TheDoc9 on 8/19/2008 11:22:20 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I think Jason wants the flame wars, re-read the sub title:
quote:
Skepticism aside, evolution is steadily being verified and analyzed thanks to cutting edge computing


This for example is a slap in the face to anyone who believes differently, and I promise you that nothing in that article manages to change any religions persons mind.

Remember he could've chosen any wording he wanted, any tone for the article and he choses the one that will stir up a hornets nest of comments. Hopefully people are tired of it on DT.

I believe that the writers here at DT get paid off of the number of comments to their articles, i.e. the popularity - perhaps if nothing else it's indirectly by promotion. If so, a sensationalist article like this is sure to fatten his check.


RE: Evolution
By sgw2n5 on 8/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: Evolution
By TheDoc9 on 8/19/2008 12:24:05 PM , Rating: 3
So that's you're argument, make fun of a post. How old are you?


RE: Evolution
By sgw2n5 on 8/19/2008 12:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
Older than you apparently.

Re-read my comment if you are still confused, son. I wasn't deriding your post, but simply pointing out the fact that if anyone for whatever reason is offended by this article (either the subject or the contents), you might just have a persecution complex.


RE: Evolution
By neogrin on 8/19/2008 12:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think he/she was making fun of you, not the post.


RE: Evolution
By Samus on 8/20/2008 3:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
The real breakthrough:

quote:
Professor Luthey-Schulten says that by identifying domain-specific critical rRNA segments, manmade drugs can be developed to attack these regions. This can lead to ultra-effective antibiotics, beyond even today's best drugs.


F%@& fighting religious beliefs. What matters is they can now identify the regions of our evolution where we became exposed to diseases that don't even exist anymore because we're immune to them. That can be a great help to understanding our immune system's capabilities and flexibility.


RE: Evolution
By JohnnyCNote on 8/19/2008 12:51:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Well, I think Jason wants the flame wars, re-read the sub title


Flame wars = more hits = more click-throughs = more money . . .


RE: Evolution
By rykerabel on 8/20/2008 1:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
In that case:
+ post
+ click
+ money
+ daily tech


RE: Evolution
By phattyboombatty on 8/19/2008 1:38:17 PM , Rating: 3
No doubt that Jason is guilty of flame-baiting in his evolution articles, although to a much lesser degree in this article than in past articles. But that doesn't mean anyone has to take the bait. My main frustration is with the same general posters making the same fundamental arguments for or against evolution in response to every article remotely related to evolution (most frustrating of all is the people who post pre-written canned responses).

If an article brings up some new research that could affect the evolution/creation debate in some meaningful way, then its fine to argue about how the new research further supports or detracts from an argument. Just don't devolve into arguments about the fundamentals which we've all seen a million times.


RE: Evolution
By wordsworm on 8/20/2008 7:57:15 AM , Rating: 1
If, suddenly, Jesus comes back and God writes 'evolution is wrong, I created all you buggers' in flames which span all around the earth, I am sure the creationists would be all too happy to state that evolution theory is dead with much greater fervor than what Mick has implied in his article. There is no point in arguing with creationists aside from entertainment value. But, I suppose it's not morally sound. That would be like making fun of mentally challenged folks. Nonetheless, I have a hard time not laughing at the religiously challenged. Though, I rarely participate since they are all better at goading each other than I'll ever be.

As it is, this article is as patiently as ever pointing out that evolution is clearly more logical and sensible than the silly notion of creationism.


RE: Evolution
By omnicronx on 8/19/2008 4:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This for example is a slap in the face to anyone who believes differently, and I promise you that nothing in that article manages to change any religions persons mind.

You would not be singing the same tune if this article proved that evolution did not exist.(judging by your comments you do not believe in evolution)

Frankly I have no problem with people believing what ever they want, but there is scientific explanation that shows with a very high certainty that evolution does exist. This is not like calling the world flat without sailing around it, as there have been countless scientific studies which would indicate that evolution does exist.

Presenting information should not be a slap in the face to anybody, and I really do not see any problem with the title either, its 100% true. Evolution is being steadily verified and analyzed. Does this mean that scientists can prove this with 100% certainty? No.. but personally, I find it is pretty convincing.



RE: Evolution
By GTVic on 8/19/2008 5:25:47 PM , Rating: 3
I think the biggest problem (besides people getting offended for no reason) is the mindset that it is either evolution or creation with no middle ground.

The central idea of creation is that the universe and life is not an accident. The exact mechanics of how it happened, whether it is evolution or the sneeze of the Great Green Arkelsiezure is not so important as the central idea.


RE: Evolution
By ShaolinSoccer on 8/19/2008 7:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. There are plenty of people who believe God created evolution. It's really not that big of a deal. And considering there's really no way to prove God doesn't exist, all athiests should be agnostic.


RE: Evolution
By v3rt1g0 on 8/19/2008 9:53:01 PM , Rating: 4
..and by the same tenet, there's no way to prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist, either. Are you on the fence on the existence of invisible pink unicorns? ..No?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


RE: Evolution
By therealnickdanger on 8/20/2008 7:42:42 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

i.e.:
God
Evolution
Pink Unicorns

Once again (here comes a canned response), trying to use science to prove/disprove the supernatural is a waste of time and energy. Just stop. This goes for both believers in God and nonbelievers.


RE: Evolution
By wordsworm on 8/20/2008 7:59:31 AM , Rating: 1
Are you a thought cop or something? Is there a law against this debate? If you don't like the debate, why'd you waste your time reading and replying to the thread?