Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document New Ribosomal Research Offers Fresh Evidence, Understanding of Evolution

by Daily Tech

Thanks to Shaden for the link

http://www.dailytech.com/New+Ribosomal+Research+Offers+Fresh+Evidence+Understanding+of+Evolution/article12700.htm

New Ribosomal Research Offers Fresh Evidence, Understanding of Evolution
Skepticism aside, evolution is steadily being verified and analyzed thanks to cutting edge computing


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)



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 1 - 17 of 17 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #233372 by Greyman on August 19, 2008 at 8:20 pm

 avatarNice link Shaden.  Quite informative and interesting.

Other Comments by Greyman

2. Comment #233395 by mdowe on August 19, 2008 at 9:16 pm

 avatar
This can lead to ultra-effective antibiotics, beyond even today's best drugs.


Why does everything in the biological sciences have to be justified in terms of medicine? Most annoying...

On another note, I just finished a grad degree on the topic of modelling and comparing rRNA ... this article makes me feel so main-stream =)

Other Comments by mdowe

3. Comment #233396 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 9:21 pm

 avatar"Why does everything in the biological sciences have to be justified in terms of medicine?"

Cause thats where the money comes from.

When NSF grants can even come close to NIH grants perhaps we'll have more science for science's sake.

Other Comments by J Mac

4. Comment #233397 by mdowe on August 19, 2008 at 9:24 pm

 avatarRE: Comment #233396 by J Mac

Hmm ... good answer ... a bit sad.

Other Comments by mdowe

5. Comment #233398 by hobar on August 19, 2008 at 9:27 pm

 avatarI think linking evolution to medicine also helps make findings like this relevant to the average, god-fearing person.

"Evolution? Bah! Medicine you say?"

Other Comments by hobar

6. Comment #233400 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 9:31 pm

 avatarFunny how fast faith goes out the window when they're sick.

A sick Christian's family and friends all pray for them. The sick Christian goes to a scientist for help.

Antibiotics work better than prayers, worship the fungi.

Other Comments by J Mac

7. Comment #233413 by mdowe on August 19, 2008 at 10:19 pm

 avatarIf we were keeping score, I wonder what percentage of the medical wonders that save the loved ones of said religious folk (not to mention virtually all other scientific advances) exist due to the hard work of atheists? The vast majority I'd bet.

Other Comments by mdowe

8. Comment #233414 by crabsallover on August 19, 2008 at 10:20 pm

 avatarI'm trying to track down the original publication in PNAS. Not in this issue: click here or prior issue.

must be next weeks.

Other Comments by crabsallover

10. Comment #233456 by crabsallover on August 20, 2008 at 12:37 am

 avatarI've started to look at the history of life as elucidated by Carl Woese ribosomal and previous studies: http://hassers.blogspot.com/2008/08/evolutionary-tree-of-life.html

Other Comments by crabsallover

11. Comment #233577 by padster1976 on August 20, 2008 at 4:06 am

 avatar'Skepticism aside, evolution is steadily being verified and analyzed thanks to cutting edge computing '


'Skepticism aside'? Er,...

Other Comments by padster1976

12. Comment #233606 by Raiko on August 20, 2008 at 5:12 am

 avatar
Why does everything in the biological sciences have to be justified in terms of medicine? Most annoying...


It's all about funding, and keeping those that fund you happy. ;)

Other Comments by Raiko

13. Comment #233638 by Shaden on August 20, 2008 at 6:29 am

 avatarGrats mdowe on the the grad degree!


I too agree that it is sad that we need immediate and tangible benefits from scientific research. People don't understand that it's the knowledge that is most valuable. Yes, it's nice if it will someday cure cancer, but if it doesn't, is it a waste? I hear it all the time with people complaining about the space program, what a waste of money it seems, especially when we can't say that going to mars will cure some terrestrial disease. Have people lost their sense of adventure, their pursuit of knowledge?

Other Comments by Shaden

14. Comment #233697 by Lucas on August 20, 2008 at 9:37 am

 avatarYes, Shaden, in large part they have. I personally am willing to take that one-way ticket in a tin bucket to Mars, any day, even right now. The wonder of seeing space, and Earth from space, and perhaps touching Martian dust, is more than enough compensation for everything I have here on Earth.

Other Comments by Lucas

15. Comment #233704 by gpeplinskie on August 20, 2008 at 9:45 am

But where are the transitional Ribosomes???

Other Comments by gpeplinskie

16. Comment #233918 by Border Collie on August 20, 2008 at 2:59 pm

'Evolution in its earliest days ...' What? It still is.

Other Comments by Border Collie

17. Comment #234150 by Jesus86 on August 20, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Why is it "sad" that scientists collectively have to justify what they do by producing something useful from time to time?

Science for the sake of science is only possible if somebody else is out there busting his nuts to pay your lab bills, which can be quite high. The least you (i.e. scientists collectively) could do by way of showing some gratitude is come up with a medical applicaiton or two once in a while.

Which, of course, scientists do, all the time, in spades. I just don't think they should feel they have to do it begrudgingly or "sadly." It should be part of the joy or the reciprocal relationship between taxpayer and scientist.

Other Comments by Jesus86
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: