Tell me more ×
Biology Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for biology researchers, academics, and students. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 29 down vote favorite
6

I'm by no means an expert in the field, merely a curious visitor, but I've been thinking about this and Google isn't of much help. Do we know of any lifeforms that don't have the conventional double-helix DNA as we know it? Have any serious alternatives been theorized?

share|improve this question
1  
I don't quite know if viruses and prions can be treated as "alive"... – user132 Dec 15 '11 at 14:28
What is considered alive? This is a good question. I think it is safe to define something as alive when it is (1) capable of sustaining and replicating itself and (2) able to interact with its environment. – Bart Jacobs Dec 15 '11 at 15:00
Irregardless if viruses and prions are "alive", those that we know cannot survive in a word without RNA/DNA. – Nick T Dec 15 '11 at 15:17
I agree with @Poshpaws it is great question – Darqer Dec 19 '11 at 12:53

4 Answers

up vote 20 down vote accepted

To follow up what mbq said, there have been a number of "origin of life" studies which suggest that RNA was a precursor to DNA, the so-called "RNA world" (1). Since RNA can carry out both roles which DNA and proteins perform today. Further speculations suggest things like a Peptide-Nucleic Acids "PNA" may have preceded RNA and so on.

However, aside from the controversial study by Wolfe-Simon et al. on arsenic, there isn't much evidence for anything occupying the place of DNA as an information carrier at present (other RNA viruses that is which are in the alive/dead grey area).

edit

I just saw this popular article in New Scientist which also discusses TNA (Threose nucleic acid) and gives some background reading for PNA, GNA (Glycol nucleic acid) and ANA (amyloid nucleic acid).

(1) Gilbert, W., 1986, Nature, 319, 618 "Origin of life: The RNA world"

share|improve this answer
Very interesting, thanks! – Phonon Dec 15 '11 at 17:51
up vote 15 down vote

There has been a recent report on Science, which had much return in the general press, in which a bacteria was identified that could live in an environment where arsenic was subsituted to phosphorus (one of the components of DNA, forming the backbone of the double helyx).

This is the original paper:
A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus
and the commentary appeared on Nature
Arsenic-eating microbe may redefine chemistry of life

There is, however, much critique on the methodology used in the paper, and on whether arsenic would really be incorporated in DNA instead of phosphorus.

Science published several of these critiques in an Editor's Note And here you will find the Response of the Authors

Other than that... well if you consider virus as life-forms, there's plenty that do not have double stranded DNA, but have instead single strand DNA or single strand RNA or double strand RNA.

XKCD on arsenic-based life

share|improve this answer
"on whether arsenic would really be incorporated in DNA instead of phosphorus." - I'm quite skeptical, too. The difference in (atomic, covalent) radii is rather big, among other things. The difference in bond enthalpies with oxygen (phosphate versus arsenate) seems substantial, too, as would be expected (the larger the atom, the weaker the bonds). – user132 Dec 15 '11 at 15:14
1  
I am also sceptical - but fascinating if correct ! – Poshpaws Dec 15 '11 at 16:07
3  
I don't want to get too deep into the controversy over this study, but from reading the paper myself and talking to others, the weight of current opinion is certainly against the arsenic result. – yamad Dec 16 '11 at 0:25
yamad, is the prevailing scepticism possible to summarize for those of us curious about the result? – Jamie Banks Dec 21 '11 at 2:52
3  
@KatieBanks, this is not my field so those interested should read the 8 critiques. One main criticism, though, is that their As+/P- medium has sufficient trace phosphorus to support the growth they attribute to arsenic incorporation. The authors argue that their As-/P- control, which shows no growth at all, indicates that it isn't just trace P supporting growth. This is a good point, but this still doesn't really require an interpretation that As is incorporated into the DNA. Their other data has also been criticized for insufficient purity in their samples/preps. – yamad Jan 9 '12 at 15:24
up vote 7 down vote

It depends whether you call prions a life form, but prions do not make (direct) use of DNA to propagate themselves. They force other proteins into a misfolded protein state.

Again, the question remains whether prions should be considered "alive".

share|improve this answer
4  
The question of them being alive is moot; prions are ultimately dependent on DNA for their propagation as the host must generate additional substrate for them to turn over. – Nick T Dec 15 '11 at 15:19
That is the reason I put "direct" between parentheses. Strictly speaking, prions do not make use of DNA to propagate. However, as you indicate, there is definitely room for debate. – Bart Jacobs Dec 15 '11 at 15:38
Prions can't however change any protein into a misfolded state... they are a misfolded state of the PrP protein, which is normally synthetised by the organism, and for which a gene exists. – nico Dec 15 '11 at 15:43
Luckily they can't. However, keeping the question above in mind, I don't think that this is of any relevance. – Bart Jacobs Dec 15 '11 at 20:46
up vote 9 down vote

There are serious speculations that the origins of life were using RNAs both as enzymes and genetic information carrier.
Later this informative RNAs evolved into a more stable and less reactive DNAs, enzymatic role was delegated to proteins and RNA only remained into most crucial parts of expression chain (mRNA and rybosome) and some regulation mechanisms.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.