Printer Friendly

Eukaryotes, prokaryotes: who's first?

Eukaryotes, prokaryotes: Who's first?

In plants and animals, the vast majority of DNA is never translated into protein. These stretches of silent DNA, called introns, may be a clue in evolution's mystery of first appearances: Are intron-laden eukaryotes (higher organisms) the most ancient living things? Or does that honor go to the less elaborate prokaryotes (bacteria), in which what you see in DNA more closely resembles what you get in protein?

Periannan Senapathy of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., reports that a statistical analysis shows eukaryotes to be the older of the two. Senapathy says eukaryotic DNA is similar to a randomly generated series of DNA subunits--and, he hypothesizes, to the randomly organized bits of genetic material in the "primordial soup.'

According to the report, which appears in the April PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (No. 8), there are generally no more than 200 consecutive coding bits (codons) of DNA in random sequences before a bit that would read as a "stop' message during copying. "In the first primitive cells,' Senapathy says, "the main selective pressure must have been to generate long coding sequences from short' ones, to make longer proteins. To avoid the interfering "stop' codons, Senapathy says, primordial eukaryotes evolved a splicing mechanism. The stretches whose information is deleted by the splicing machinery are the introns. Prokaryotes, with sequences of coding bits that often far exceed the limits in random DNA, may have evolved from eukaryotes, losing both introns and the splicing mechanism used to circumvent them.

It is the resemblance between eukaryotic gene structure and the hypothetically random structure of such sequences in the "primordial soup' that makes Senapathy argue for the precedence of primordial eukaryotes. But, says biologist Lynn Margulis of Boston University, "There are strong arguments against random pieces of DNA in the primordial soup. [Senapathy's study shows] probably bona fide phenomena that I see much more as a consequence of how eukaryotic cells are put together, and how they function. To go from there to primitiveness, or earliness in a geological sense--it just isn't warranted by the data.'
COPYRIGHT 1986 Science Service, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1986, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:statistical analysis on most ancient living things
Publication:Science News
Date:May 3, 1986
Words:349
Previous Article:Cancer genes: whence malignant power?
Next Article:Historical root of hypertension.
Topics:


Related Articles
The tree of life, with tangled roots.
Giardia bares all: parasite genes reveal long sexual history.
Living for dance, dancing for life.
MS awareness roundtable.
Darwin and democracy.
How will it all end? Eschatology in science and religion.
Global warming and religious stick fighting.
"Intelligent design," Natural Design, and the problem of meaning in the natural world.
We have been around only a very short time. Amy Pollack.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters