Posted on 02/11/2009 8:36:55 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Tiny Ocean Plants Offer Biochemical Enigma
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Phosphorus, number 15 on the periodic table of elements, is considered a basic component of all cell membranes. But the recent discovery of single-celled photosynthetic organisms surviving without the chemical element in their membranes is going to require some major rewrites to biochemistry textbooks.1
Phosphorus is in short supply in the Sargasso Sea, located in the north Atlantic, where researchers from numerous institutions and universities found several autotrophs, including some diatoms and four different genera of photosynthetic bacteria, that can make cell membrane substitutes. In their study published online in Nature, the scientists report that the bacteria substitute a sulfur molecule called sulphoquinovosyldiacylglycerol (SQDG) in place of the standard phosphorus-containing molecule.2 Not only does the bacteria’s SQDG not need phosphorus, but it doesn’t need nitrogen either! These tiny creatures still require phosphorus for their DNA, but they can get along with less of this nutrient by manufacturing their own phospholipid substitutes.
What makes phosphorus a preferred element for membrane construction? These atoms can easily provide their molecule with a negative charge. This way, the oily ends of the phospholipids automatically interlock, while the charged, phosphorus ends automatically orient toward either ocean water outside of the cell, or watery cytoplasm within the cell. The sulfonate group of SQDG, with its negative charge, is functionally similar to the phosphate groups of the phospholipids. Though not as efficient, and perhaps requiring more energy to synthesize, “sulfonic acids of this type are chemically very stable and strongly acidic.”3 Both the stability and acidic charge enable SQDG to perform its required role.
These tiny plant cells can only make this chemical substitution because they have the necessary engineering to do so. They already have all the specified machinery (enzymes), along with the ATP and UTP (energy-providing chemicals), as well as the cofactor DHAP.4 Thus, these plants are well-equipped to survive, even when times are tough. “Cyanobacteria can make membranes that require essentially no nutrients, no phosphorus and no nitrogen. Totally no nutrients at all,” stated lead author Benjamin Van Mooy.1
The new discovery challenges the standard understanding of biochemical processes. Van Mooy, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, said in a press release, “Maybe there is an underlying principle here that we will uncover.”1
Perhaps the most significant principle is that these cells’ “plan B” membranes, which require structures and information storage systems to manufacture, were not invented by any natural process. Rather, they are a backup system that the Creator planned from the beginning. The creation model predicts that more backup systems like these will be discovered.
References
1. Phytoplankton Cell Membranes Challenge Fundamentals of Biochemistry. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution news release, February 2, 2009.
2. Van Mooy, B. A. S. et al. Phytoplankton in the ocean use non-phosphorus lipids in response to phosphorus scarcity. Nature. Published online February 1, 2009.
3. Howard, K. P. and J. H. Prestegard. 1996. Conformation of Sulfoquinovosyldiacylglycerol Bound to a Magnetically Oriented Membrane System. Biophysical Journal. 71 (5): 2573-2582.
4. Kleppinger-Sparace, K. F., and Mudd, B. J. 1990. Biosynthesis of Sulfoquinovosyldiacylglycerol in Higher Plants. Plant Physiology. 93: 256-263.
it’s usually a bad idea to cite a site that distorts and downplays everythign because it fits their agenda- your citation of a ‘refutaiton’ relies on nothign but assumptions- but you of course wil lexcuse htose assumptions and probably htink them science because they mesh with your preferred hypthesis eh? Yeah- thought so! Lemme know when Random mutaitons and ‘natural selection’ can happen in 9 days eh? Furthermore the ‘objection is void’ statement is crap- Even the reasearchers admitted trouble with the assumptions- but by golly Talkorigins has no problems downplaying hte situaion to fit hteir fancy eh? The researchers specifically made it clear it wasn’t from frame shift- but that doesn’t stop TO from asserting it is- Yep- let’s just make crap up as we go and call it ‘science’ and pretend it refutes something.
Beleive what you like, but let’s not pretend that anything Talkorigins does is established scientific fact. When you can find a valid ‘refutation’ that doesn’t include a copious amount of ‘seems to have’ and ‘it is thought’, and ‘we assume’ etc- lemme know, but till then let’s not pretend the aig explanation has been ‘refuted’ when no such refutaiton has occured.
and hmmm- Coem to find out, these bacteria coded for a protein called EII with a special ability to break down small, circularized proteins to begin with- & lo and behold, nylon is very protien like- the inventor who created it created it specifically based on the structure of known protien chemistry.
Oh & by the way, the efficiency of digestion is very very low, and the bacteria lose the ability to feed on normal food material- again showing loss of info. Didn’t read about any of that in the TO article did ya? Nah- they wouldn’t mention this- Seems it doesn’t takem uch at all to spark nylon digestion via code that was predesigned to feed on very similar protien structures- Microadaption at it’s finest.
bye bye kid- your petty little taunts and assinien quesitons both in htis htread and the other one have earned you an ignore result-
You must be precoded for ignorance.
Bye Bye kid- it is apaprent you aren’t interested in anythign but insulting Creationists- By the way- Einstein was terrible at match, was he ignorant too? Only hte dimwitted htink spelling is morei mportant than the message.
Here- I’ll help you out since it seems you’ve once again run away fro mthe situaiton:
Turns out that not even those studying the nylonase issue agree it didn’t infact come from preexisting info (Yet Talkorigins somehow knows better than the researchers I guess):
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/280/47/39644 is also by Negoro and says “we conclude that the nylon oligomer hydrolase utilizes nucleophilic Ser112 as a common active site both for nylon oligomer- hydrolytic and esterolytic activities. However, it requires at least two additional amino acid residues (Asp181 and Asn266) specific for nylon oligomer-hydrolytic activity. Here, we propose that amino acid replacements in the catalytic cleft of a preexisting esterase with the {beta}-lactamase fold resulted in the evolution of the nylon oligomer hydrolase.” They conclude “the nylon oligomer-degrading enzyme (EII)is considered to have evolved from preexisting esterases with {beta}-lactamase folds.”
Whip out you insult book- you’re goign to need it apparently- Ther’e a saying that when the going gets tough, and oyu’ve got no ammo- the only recourse is to resort to name calling and childish taunts- You’ve portrayed this process to a T.
Evolved. Interesting word. Thanks.
[[Evolved. Interesting word. Thanks.]]
No problem- Microevolution is a wonderful thing eh?
As I said- I’m done with your assinine questions and insulting tone- You’ve proven you aren’t serious about any of the science presented and are only looking for any way you can find to insult Creationists and ID folks with petty accusaitons and comments- Have a nice day
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.