Topic: Nanobacteria, a "new" form of life?

[IKV Nemesis D7L]

Link to article

Quote:
Spheres of influence

The particles are also recognised by a dye for DNA and absorbed uridine, a key chemical component of RNA, which the researchers argue is evidence the particles are constantly synthesising nucleic acids.

Viewed with electron microscopy, the particles also appeared to have cell walls.

The nano-scale objects showed up in tissue from patients with calcified arterial aneurysms but not uncalcified samples.

Nannobacteria have been implicated by some scientists in the formation of kidney stones and psammona bodies - calcified (mineralised) structures in ovarian cancer.

But many other scientists dispute that they are actually life forms.

The article makes me wonder several things.  Some of which are brought up in the article.

1/ Are they alive?
2/ Are they part of the human body?
3/ Are they a more primitive life form that has survived from the earliest times?
4/ Are they a disease, parasite or a symbiont?

Quote:
 "I don't see any convincing evidence for nannobacteria or DNA [in this study]," Dr John Cisar, of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, US, told BBC News Online.

"If you know you're dealing with a life form, you can use the staining techniques [they used]. But there are false positives in these types of techniques."

This quote makes an assumption, that all (earth)life is based on DNA.  Perhaps an unwarrented assumption.

Another link to a different but interesting story and perhaps related story.  Requires registration to read the full article (which I read in the print magazine).  

It has an interesting discussion on ways that early life could have formed, life without DNA.  It also discusses way to create such life.  

[Stormbringer]

I rather think rather than new form of life they are probably the oldest form of life possible in carbon biology. These are likely the first self organizing chemistry that had metabolic processes. Then as they mutated "mistakes" in thier coding introduced complexity. eventually archae class bacterial formed and then full sized bacteria. These learned to form colonies which eventually evolved into more integrated organisms with specialized cell functions.


EDIT: Meanwhile the original critters also thrived and soon invaded the others to make the first symbiont or parasite.

[IKV Nemesis D7L]

What did you think of the second linked story which has a possible mechanism by which cellular life could have first occured?

Then there is the BBC article about potential microbial life in the Venusian clouds.

2nd link  

[IKV Nemesis D7L]

Link to article

Quote:
Spheres of influence

The particles are also recognised by a dye for DNA and absorbed uridine, a key chemical component of RNA, which the researchers argue is evidence the particles are constantly synthesising nucleic acids.

Viewed with electron microscopy, the particles also appeared to have cell walls.

The nano-scale objects showed up in tissue from patients with calcified arterial aneurysms but not uncalcified samples.

Nannobacteria have been implicated by some scientists in the formation of kidney stones and psammona bodies - calcified (mineralised) structures in ovarian cancer.

But many other scientists dispute that they are actually life forms.

The article makes me wonder several things.  Some of which are brought up in the article.

1/ Are they alive?
2/ Are they part of the human body?
3/ Are they a more primitive life form that has survived from the earliest times?
4/ Are they a disease, parasite or a symbiont?

Quote:
 "I don't see any convincing evidence for nannobacteria or DNA [in this study]," Dr John Cisar, of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, US, told BBC News Online.

"If you know you're dealing with a life form, you can use the staining techniques [they used]. But there are false positives in these types of techniques."

This quote makes an assumption, that all (earth)life is based on DNA.  Perhaps an unwarrented assumption.

Another link to a different but interesting story and perhaps related story.  Requires registration to read the full article (which I read in the print magazine).  

It has an interesting discussion on ways that early life could have formed, life without DNA.  It also discusses way to create such life.  

[Stormbringer]

I rather think rather than new form of life they are probably the oldest form of life possible in carbon biology. These are likely the first self organizing chemistry that had metabolic processes. Then as they mutated "mistakes" in thier coding introduced complexity. eventually archae class bacterial formed and then full sized bacteria. These learned to form colonies which eventually evolved into more integrated organisms with specialized cell functions.


EDIT: Meanwhile the original critters also thrived and soon invaded the others to make the first symbiont or parasite.

[IKV Nemesis D7L]

What did you think of the second linked story which has a possible mechanism by which cellular life could have first occured?

Then there is the BBC article about potential microbial life in the Venusian clouds.

2nd link  

[IKV Nemesis D7L]

Link to article

Quote:
Spheres of influence

The particles are also recognised by a dye for DNA and absorbed uridine, a key chemical component of RNA, which the researchers argue is evidence the particles are constantly synthesising nucleic acids.

Viewed with electron microscopy, the particles also appeared to have cell walls.

The nano-scale objects showed up in tissue from patients with calcified arterial aneurysms but not uncalcified samples.

Nannobacteria have been implicated by some scientists in the formation of kidney stones and psammona bodies - calcified (mineralised) structures in ovarian cancer.

But many other scientists dispute that they are actually life forms.

The article makes me wonder several things.  Some of which are brought up in the article.

1/ Are they alive?
2/ Are they part of the human body?
3/ Are they a more primitive life form that has survived from the earliest times?
4/ Are they a disease, parasite or a symbiont?

Quote:
 "I don't see any convincing evidence for nannobacteria or DNA [in this study]," Dr John Cisar, of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, US, told BBC News Online.

"If you know you're dealing with a life form, you can use the staining techniques [they used]. But there are false positives in these types of techniques."

This quote makes an assumption, that all (earth)life is based on DNA.  Perhaps an unwarrented assumption.

Another link to a different but interesting story and perhaps related story.  Requires registration to read the full article (which I read in the print magazine).  

It has an interesting discussion on ways that early life could have formed, life without DNA.  It also discusses way to create such life.  

[Stormbringer]

I rather think rather than new form of life they are probably the oldest form of life possible in carbon biology. These are likely the first self organizing chemistry that had metabolic processes. Then as they mutated "mistakes" in thier coding introduced complexity. eventually archae class bacterial formed and then full sized bacteria. These learned to form colonies which eventually evolved into more integrated organisms with specialized cell functions.


EDIT: Meanwhile the original critters also thrived and soon invaded the others to make the first symbiont or parasite.

[IKV Nemesis D7L]

What did you think of the second linked story which has a possible mechanism by which cellular life could have first occured?

Then there is the BBC article about potential microbial life in the Venusian clouds.

2nd link