The problem with studying the past is filling the gaps in history. It is a problem for historians as much as it is for molecular biologists. Professionals and theorists discover ancient artifacts from given periods but the the space in between to the next known artifact is left only to imaginational renderings. An example of this is the Archaeopteryx and how it led to the postulate of the evolution of birds.

Cast of the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica, from the collections of UCMP.
Original at Humboldt University, Berlin.

Recently, a team of scientists have bridged a conceptual gap. A brief background: it is believed that all life evolved from one common ancestor. This mother of a mother cell was something of a basic bacteria, and used RNA instead of the more complex double stranded molecule DNA, which we use now. That change from the molecule of life changing from single stranded RNA into DNA is what allowed a boom of complexity leading to the eukaryotic cell and eventually you and I. What the team from The Scripps Research Institute created was an enzyme that they dubbed ribozyme, which helps to make a complementary strand from a parent RNA strand. Now when we think about DNA replication, there are multiple enzymes that are involved in the process (Helicase, Ligase, Gyrase just to name a few). Ribozyme might not be the whole answer but it is certainly a start. Further research could reveal the mechanism of this transition. I can't help but think that the genetic sequence of this enzyme is incredibly valuable. Could it be preserved? But this answer only leads us to further questions. In a world of RNA organisms, how did this enzyme come to be? Did it make copies of itself? It follows the nature of a dog chasing it's own tail.

1. Jonathan T. Sczepanski & Gerald F. Joyce. A Cross-chiral RNA Polymerase Ribozyme. Nature, 2014 DOI: 10.1038/nature13900

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141029141216.htm

Don't blink, you might miss this

Have you ever wondered how we have become so complex? This is because of an incredibly simple force, though many fail to understand it's basics. I am talking about evolution. Most simply put, if you don't have the means to survive, you can't leave your traits to future generations. If you have what it takes to make it to the age of reproduction, congratulations you will leave some variation of yourself walking around this floating rock through space. This process has taken roughly 3.5 billion years to form our ironically beautiful species. What if we could see this process happen right before our eyes, in our own lifetime? Researchers from The University of Texas at Austin have seen this driving force in a population lizards on islands off the coast of Florida. What drives evolution is selectivity. This can be anything from climate to soil content to a pesky neighbor and in this case, it was the latter. An invasive species forced these lizards to climb higher in the trees and their toe pads are getting larger. What makes this special is the fact it's only taken 15 years. Yeah, compare that to the millions it usually takes. But this makes me wonder, could we ever see this change in humans? Our longer generations suggest we can't. There are some cases where some populations are growing larger, most likely due to better nutrition and food availability. I think a human experiment would provide invaluable information on the mechanism behind evolution. But would that be considered eugenics? Is it unethical to selectively breed our own species?

Source : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141023142306.htm

Is Every Cell In Your Body Full of Billion-Year-Old Parasites?

The endosymbiont theory is something that is taught in every biology class. A larger cell gobbled up a smaller bacterial ATP synthesizing cell. Since then, eukaryotic cells rely on this mitochondria as an energy making organelle. Dr. Wu from the University of Virginia proposed a different idea as to how we became such good friends with the mitochondria. He proposes that the bacteria was parasitic, seeking larger cells as hosts. But he shatters the textbooks more. Contrary to popular belief he proposes the parasitic mitochondria stole ATP from the host cell! I must agree that this theory is indeed more parsimonious. (Famous biochemist and author Nick Lane might contend this, check it out HERE.) The article is vague, but leaves much to imagination. For example, if mitochondria were once parasitic organisms, does that mean chloroplasts, another organelle falling under the endosymbiont theory, were also parasites?
What makes this theory come to life is analyzing how parasites attach and then enter cells. For example, the protozoan parasite that is malaria "produce a protein called the tight junction marker and use it to attach to and drill into red blood cells", says Jake Baum from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne, Australia. Broadly, if protein mechanisms like this were sequenced and compared to mitochondrial DNA, it may be determined just how the mitochondria first entered the cell. After all, mitochondrial DNA is known to be extremely stable and preserved, maybe the perforating mechanism parasites use is unchanged as well.  Check out the video below: could it be that billions of years ago, the event that fostered the evolution of plants and animals looks something like this?

Ebola Dog- Euthanasia Necessary?

It is hard to ignore the barrage of new reports on Ebola virus victims and statistics this past summer and now fall. The press obsession does have reason however. Just last Sunday, October 5th, Ebola claimed 121 lives marking the deadliest day for the virus this year. The WHO (World Health Organization) estimates a whopping total of 4,000 deaths from the virus. As numbers climb, paranoia fills the air. Precautions are becoming more and more meticulous. Teresa Romero, a Spanish nurse, contracted the virus while aiding an infected victim. As her case gathered popularity, people began to question if man/ woman's best friend could be a vector for the disease, meaning that if contracted could harbor and spread the virus. Studies have indicated that dogs can contract Ebola and in fact, show an antibody (defense) response. With ignorance to whether or not the dog could possibly spread Ebola, it was ordered to be euthanized. While some science professionals rejoice as they could again wipe the sweat from their fuzzy brows, others claim the case was valuable, and the dog should have been studied. A separate party, animal rights advocators protested in Madrid. 

Was this move justified with by the rapid growth of Ebola? Could this dog have served a more ethical purpose before its death? I like to believe that something could have been learned from Excalibur. The structure or sequence of the antibody protein targets this virus could be monumental for vaccine development. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29547432

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/sierra-leone-faces-deadliest-day-ebola-outbreak/