General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Protein Synthesis

Started by Tomhendricks474 · · Last activity · 2 posts · 457 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
19 June 2004
Last activity
19 June 2004
Original author
Tomhendricks474
Posts
2
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
457
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–2 of 2
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Here's a quote from Strickberger on 2 ways protein synthesis
    might have evolved. I agree with both. And think both
    happened at the same time.

    "Protein synthesis might then have evolved through (2 ways)
    specific amino acids directly interacting with specific
    nucleotide sequences...."

    One idea is that first coding would favor two divisions
    hydrophilic or hydrophobic and later this would be refined
    to what we have today. But I say why have two at first?
    That seems unrealistic and highly complicated and refined
    for the origin.

    Instead I suggest that the first peptides to be selected
    were all or mostly hydrophilic. Thus those that could react
    in water were exclusively selected at first. Hydrophobic
    would be a later reaction against water.

    Almost all nucleotides (and they are sparse in prebiotic
    experiments) are purines. Also pyrimidines may have been
    selected against because of UV caused dimers. Also we have 3
    bases in a codon to separate bases and prevent dimers. For
    these and other reasons most of the earliest RNA strands
    would be purines, and would NOT be two pyrimidines together
    ( could make dimer).

    Thus we have two separate conditions going on at the
    same time:
    1. chemical selection favoring hydrophilic amino acids.
    2. chemical selection favoring purine nucleotides.

    Together they set up the first match mostly hydrophilic
    amino acids with mostly purine coding. (Any mismatch would
    be chemically selected against)

    Later (in a way that is still very murky) its opposite would
    be chemically selected for due to the improvements they
    would bring: hydrophobic amino acids , and pyrimidine
    nucleotides

    ******

    "...or, perhaps through indirect placement of amino acids
    into such sequences by intermediary adaptor molecules that
    brought amino acids to the nucleotide chain."

    I think the 'intermediary adaptor molecules were
    polyphosphate chains (pre-ATP). Any nucleotides or peptides
    that were in the vicinity of polyphosphate chains would have
    the advantage they gave (chemical energy) and would be
    chemically selected.

    Those isolated without polyphosphate chains would have no
    chemical energy source.

    Thus we would have islands of prebiotic chemistry where
    there was polyphosphate chains. The rest of the prebiotic
    soup would be mostly inert to change.

    Comment?

  2. << "...or, perhaps through indirect placement of amino acids
    into such sequences by intermediary adaptor molecules that
    brought amino acids to the nucleotide chain."

    I think the 'intermediary adaptor molecules were
    polyphosphate chains (pre-ATP). Any nucleotides or peptides
    that were in the vicinity of polyphosphate chains would have
    the advantage they gave (chemical energy) and would be
    chemically selected.

    Those isolated without polyphosphate chains would have no
    chemical energy source.

    Thus we would have islands of prebiotic chemistry where
    there was polyphosphate chains. The rest of the prebiotic
    soup would be mostly inert to change.

    ***

    Follow up:

    There is some interesting evidence that seems to support
    the above.

    1. RNA binding to ATP "Some cellular RNA molecules catalyse
    reactions that include bindng to ATP, the common energy
    transfer molecule. - Sassanfar and Szostak

    2. RNA binding to amino acids "Zhang and Cech demonstrated
    that even a selected non cellular ribozyme can perform
    ... amino acid binding function (peptide formation)

    Therefore I suggest: All the following 3 things happened at
    about the same time and in the same temperature zones and
    that each step helped the other 2 better survive.

    3. RNA strands evolve to tRNA,mRNA, etc.
    4. polyphosphate chains evolve to ATP
    5. amino acids evolve to protein.

    And RNA was connected to ATP was connected to Amino acids
    was connected to RNA etc.

    Let's go further and say this:

    Job one for the above set of 3 was polymerization, or
    getting the water out. At first the sun/dry/ heat cycle did
    that. Then a sun substitute chemically evolved (involving
    polyphosphate chains or ATP) that allowed chemical energy in
    water as well as the original sun energy outside of water. (
    In water monomers would be more safe from UV dimer damage on
    pyrimidines) and Job 2 making variants from these longer
    polymerized molecules whether they were nucleic acids,
    proteins, polysachharides, lipids,, and Job 3 Chemical
    selection on these variants that produced ribozymes,
    denatured and annealed hybrids of all kinds of folded and or
    paired nucleotide strands, etc.

    Selection pressure would be mostly from the heat cycle. Then
    out of two identically thermal stable molecules, that which
    best survives would be chemically selected.

    Tom Hendricks

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.