I was notified of this review in PLoS-Biology by Richard Robinson. It gives a nice outline of the current thought in the field and delineates the genes first vs. metabolism first views (although in my not-to-much-of-an-expert opinion, I don't think that the "metabolism first" theory is likely ... but what do I know.)
Ref: Richard Robinson. Jump-Starting a Cellular World: Investigating the Origin of Life, from Soup to Networks. PLoS Biology (2005) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030396
- Log in to post comments
More like this
David Goldstein, a geneticist at Duke, has critiqued the current focus on large-scale genomwide associations before. Now he is taking to the next step, as his group has a paper out which suggests that the reason that association studies have been relatively unfruitful in terms of bang-for-buck is…
I want to bring your attention to a somewhat dense and possibly inconclusive (but important) paper accompanied by a very informative overview in PLoS Biology, concerning mutations in the human genome.
Mutation rates and patterns of mutation are important for a number of reasons. For one thing, the…
Last year, Craig Venter became the first single person to have his genome sequence published (doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050254). That genome was sequenced using the old-school Sanger technique. It marked the second time the complete human genome had been published (which led to some discussion as…
A couple of years ago, there was talk in the bioblogosphere about getting the general public interested in bioinformatics and molecular evolution:
Amateur bioinformatics?
Lowering the Ivory Tower with Molecular Evolution
Molecular Evolution for the Masses
The idea was inspired by the findings of…
I would phrase it as a "replicator-first vs. chemistry-first" distinction, since both "gene" and "metabolism" have multiple connotations that tend to get the basic focus ahead of where it should be. If you ask the question "What is Life?" and answer that Life implies existence of a self-replicating molecule with capability of mutation, then you can always salvage the genes-first position. So, it's a sort of semantic distinction.
But as the Robinson article points out -- and I wouldn't say he's exclusively arguing the metabolism-first position -- you almost certainly must have some reasonably structured organic molecules to build a replicator. Catalysis on a reactive redox surface such as metal sulfides is a very appealing way to make a lot of delicious precursors. Unlikely to be RNA at the get-go. If you're a genes-first advocate, you can say "that's just chemistry, not Life."
As a biochemist, I like the conjunction of these two lines of thinking that now seems to be emerging. Enough to be done to keep a lot of people with good ideas busy for some time.
Incidently, Cairns-Smith proposed a model several years ago that tried to join the chemistry and replication threads together on strictly inorganic structures, but that one hasn't been given much attention of late, especially since Wachterhauser's more detailed model has gained attention.