-3
$\begingroup$

In order to make proteins, a cell uses ribosomes, which itself is a structure made out of proteins. The first ribosome couldn't have been created with the help of ribosomes though, as the ribosomes weren't there yet! So where did the first proteins came from? Before the advent of ribosomes, which, when they arrived on the scene (in some primitive form), subsequently could be used to make increasingly complex proteins.

In prokaryotes, ribosomes are roughly 40 percent protein and 60 percent rRNA. In eukaryotes, ribosomes are about half protein and half rRNA. Ribosomes are usually made up of three or four rRNA molecules and anywhere from about 40 to 80 different ribosomal proteins.

Amino acids were abundantly present though before ribosomes came into existence. Most of them were left-handed as is life itself (look at the Softenon babies). You can compare this with the matter-antimatter problem in physics (which is not really a problem in my theory, but I won't bother you with that sh*t). A scenario to achieve is easy to come up with.
While competing-self-replicating molecules were present too, they could make good use of them. A rudimentary ribosome emerged (with earlier formed proteins, by accidentally combined amino acids so these proteins came first, actually).
Behold the creation of life! Once started life exploded, leading to us (some say that there is some kind of hyper evolution going on: the rise of the robots with no ticker, no tears, no feelings but a high calculating power).

Is my reasoning reasonable?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You raised what appears to be a similar point four years ago: Was there originally a non-ribosomal way of synthesizing proteins?. I am not sure what your actual question is this time. You do not seem to elaborate on your title and just state that proteins could have been formed from amino acids. $\endgroup$ – David Aug 11 at 8:10
  • $\begingroup$ I'm asking now if they could have emerged by accident, just as amino acids did. Ain't it probable that in a soup full of amino acids these amino acids will react with each other to form a big collection of protein? $\endgroup$ – Deschele Schilder Aug 11 at 11:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Before the question can be addressed I think you need to clarify or revise the statement “:…proteins, one of which could have been primordial life”. How can a protein be life? $\endgroup$ – David Aug 11 at 12:19
  • $\begingroup$ A "soup full of amino acids" reacting with one another does not explain one of the great conundrums of ribosomal protein synthesis: why are all amino acids of the L-form (glycine excepted as it is not chiral)? Unless the 'soup' consisted of all L-amino acids but, if so, where did that come from? D-amino acids do, of course, exist in nature (in the bacterial cell wall, for example), and we humans have the enzyme D-amino-acid oxidase $\endgroup$ – user1136 Sep 11 at 18:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Now you have changed your question to the merely asking whether a theory you propose is reasonable your question is clearly off-topic for this list and I have voted to close it on this basis. $\endgroup$ – David Sep 13 at 22:11
4
$\begingroup$

As their name suggests, the majority of a ribosome's structure and function come from ribonucleic acid (RNA), not protein. While ribosomes are about 35%-40% protein on average, a majority of ribosomal proteins are not essential for the catalytic functions of the ribosome, and none are in direct contact with the catalytic reaction site where peptide bonds are formed. Thus, it's hypothesized that the earliest ribosome analogs consisted entirely of RNA in what some might consider a pre-biotic RNA world.

In this "RNA World" framework, it is posited that other macromolecular structures, like proteins, DNA, and lipid membranes all arose after the existence of some primitive form of self-replicating RNA molecule.

References:

Khaitovich, Philipp, et al. "Characterization of functionally active subribosomal particles from Thermus aquaticus." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96.1 (1999): 85-90.

Nissen P, Hansen J, Ban N, Moore PB, Steitz TA. The structural basis of ribosome activity in peptide bond synthesis. Science. 2000;289(5481):920-930. doi:10.1126/science.289.5481.920

Davidovich, Chen, et al. "The evolving ribosome: from non-coded peptide bond formation to sophisticated translation machinery." Research in Microbiology 160 (2009): 487e492.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think you will find a similar RNA world answer to the poster’s previous question. This present question is either a duplicate, and should be ignored, or deserves an answer either criticising the poster’s proposal or explaining the views of those who have considered the nature of early proteins. You may not be aware that there are some eminent scientists that argue against the RNA world, and even if you accept it there are problems about the appearance of proteins. $\endgroup$ – David Aug 11 at 21:39
  • $\begingroup$ It's pretty obvious that the prebiotic world consisted of lf-replicating molecules. These molecules slowly merged with proteins to make ribosomes fit for producing proteins. Life got started! $\endgroup$ – Deschele Schilder Sep 12 at 10:56
  • $\begingroup$ Bacterial ribosomes stripped of their proteins still function. they are slower, more error prone, and breakdown faster but they still function. proteins are not needed for the creation of proteins. uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:408601/FULLTEXT01.pdf $\endgroup$ – John Sep 12 at 13:15
  • $\begingroup$ I edited fro upvoting so I could upvote and accept. $\endgroup$ – Deschele Schilder Sep 15 at 21:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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