The Origins of Life
A mineralogist believes he's discovered how life's early building blocks connected four billion years ago
- By Helen Fields
- Photographs by Amanda Lucidon
- Smithsonian magazine, October 2010, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 3)
In a windowed corner of a lab building at the Carnegie Institution, Hazen is drawing molecules on a notepad and sketching the earliest steps on the road to life. “We’ve got a prebiotic ocean and down in the ocean floor, you’ve got rocks,” he says. “And basically there’s molecules here that are floating around in solution, but it’s a very dilute soup.” For a newly formed amino acid in the early ocean, it must have been a lonely life indeed. The familiar phrase “primordial soup” sounds rich and thick, but it was no beef stew. It was probably just a few molecules here and there in a vast ocean. “So the chances of a molecule over here bumping into this one, and then actually a chemical reaction going on to form some kind of larger structure, is just infinitesimally small,” Hazen continues. He thinks that rocks—whether the ore deposits that pile up around hydrothermal vents or those that line a tide pool on the surface—may have been the matchmakers that helped lonely amino acids find each other.
Rocks have texture, whether shiny and smooth or craggy and rough. Molecules on the surface of minerals have texture, too. Hydrogen atoms wander on and off a mineral’s surface, while electrons react with various molecules in the vicinity. An amino acid that drifts near a mineral could be attracted to its surface. Bits of amino acids might form a bond; form enough bonds and you’ve got a protein.
Back at the Carnegie lab, Hazen’s colleagues are looking into the first step in that courtship: Kateryna Klochko is preparing an experiment that—when combined with other experiments and a lot of math—should show how certain molecules stick to minerals. Do they adhere tightly to the mineral, or does a molecule attach in just one place, leaving the rest of it mobile and thereby increasing the chances it will link up to other molecules?
Klochko gets out a rack, plastic tubes and the liquids she needs. “It’s going to be very boring and tedious,” she warns. She puts a tiny dab of a powdered mineral in a four-inch plastic tube, then adds arginine, an amino acid, and a liquid to adjust the acidity. Then, while a gas bubbles through the solution, she waits...for eight minutes. The work may seem tedious indeed, but it takes concentration. “That’s the thing, each step is critical,” she says. “Each of them, if you make a mistake, the data will look weird, but you won’t know where you made a mistake.” She mixes the ingredients seven times, in seven tubes. As she works, “The Scientist” comes on the radio: “Nooooobody saaaaid it was easyyyy,” sings Coldplay vocalist Chris Martin.
After two hours, the samples go into a rotator, a kind of fast Ferris wheel for test tubes, to mix all night. In the morning, Klochko will measure how much arginine remains in the liquid; the rest of the amino acid will have stuck to the mineral powder’s tiny surfaces.
She and other researchers will repeat the same experiment with different minerals and different molecules, over and over in various combinations. The goal is for Hazen and his colleagues to be able to predict more complex interactions, like those that may have taken place in the earth’s early oceans.
How long will it take to go from studying how molecules interact with minerals to understanding how life began? No one knows. For one thing, scientists have never settled on a definition of life. Everyone has a general idea of what it is and that self-replication and passing information from generation to generation are key. Gerald Joyce, of the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, jokes that the definition should be “something like ‘that which is squishy.’”
Hazen’s work has implications beyond the origins of life. “Amino-acids-sticking-to-crystals is everywhere in the environment,” he says. Amino acids in your body stick to titanium joints; films of bacteria grow inside pipes; everywhere proteins and minerals meet, amino acids are interacting with crystals. “It’s every rock, it’s every soil, it’s the walls of the building, it’s microbes that interact with your teeth and bones, it’s everywhere,” Hazen says.
At his weekend retreat overlooking the Chesapeake Bay, Hazen, 61, peers through binoculars at some black-and-white ducks bobbing around in circles and stirring the otherwise still water. He thinks they’re herding fish—a behavior he’s never seen before. He calls for his wife, Margee, to come take a look: “There’s this really interesting phenomenon going on with the buffleheads!”
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (16)
+ View All Comments
He is stupid
Posted by on November 1,2012 | 06:29 PM
To understand origin of life, the first thing that needs to be understood is, which of the properties of matter can possibly account for inanimate to animate transformation. Last Universal Common Ancestor has been held to be the common ancestor of all the organisms that are known to exist on Earth. However, it is not correct and therefore ruled out. http://sciencengod.com/blog/whether-or-not-last-universal-common-ancestor-is-even-probable/ http://www.sciencengod.com http://sciencengod.com/buynow.php
Posted by Dr Mahesh C. Jain on October 9,2012 | 10:49 PM
Hazen gives good lectures, I heard him here in Uppsala at his Linné lecture.
Creationists shouldn't comment on science:
@ MPK:
Pyruvate is C3H3O3 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyruvic_acid ].
@ Hans Hollis, MPK:
We have testable evidence for chemical to biological evolution.
Bottom up, both AMP/ATP and lipid protocell membranes form spontaneously. Top-down we now know that the earliest gene families handled ATP. Hence ATP sits at a nested sets of traits or a tested phylogeny.
The RNA world is that bottleneck environment, and you have to go to Szostak et al for that. We also now know that RNA selfreplicators can get long enough spontaneously, and that they interact well with self-replicating protocell membranes. The trick is to put the pieces together - they are working on it.
More generally, astrobiology has gone from coming up with new pathways to try to reject those who doesn't work. Among those that will remain will be the one taken in our case.
Posted by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on February 24,2012 | 10:57 AM
Wow this is a really cool project. I might be able to try it out and use it for my science project. Thanks whoever the creator is :)
Posted by Kayla on October 5,2011 | 08:25 PM
Thomas Gold's "Deep Hot Biosphere" discussed the possibilty of life originating under the surface of the earth back in the 1980's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deep_Hot_Biosphere#Origins_of_petroleum
There are compelling reasons why this should be. If "life" originated by a lucky chance out of random combinations of organic chemicals, then it would be most likely to originate in a region where the chemical reactions were at their peak density and peak reaction rate: at high pressures and temperatures that naturally occur under the surface.
Posted by john b on November 16,2010 | 05:39 PM
Wow, this is my next science project. Thanks Smithsonian
Posted by Q on October 23,2010 | 06:03 PM
I think I am a sane, well educated person. However, I have had some psychic ability that I don't understand and usually try to avoid. One of the recurring messages I have been getting for years is "The answer is in the rocks." Maybe this article explains that message.
Posted by Gwen Hays on October 20,2010 | 12:47 PM
Great article. How could people not find this kind of topic utterly fascinating?
Posted by Bob on October 13,2010 | 05:48 PM
I have subscribed to Smithsonian magazine for some 25 years and often enjoy the articles presented. Before There Was Life in the October 2010 issue is a rare exception. The idea that life somehow arose around hydrothermal vents was dismissed by Stanley Miller himself. In an interview appearing in Astrobiology Magazine on the 50th anniversary of Miller’s original experiment and subsequent paper, Miller stated ”the conditions of such ocean venting decomposes rather than enhances prebiotic chemistry.”
Chemist Jeffrey L. Bada of the University of California, (as reported in the New York Times) added: “This is probably the most unlikely area for the origin of life to occur”.
As a side note, Stanley Miller’s obituary appeared in The New York Times on May 23, 2007. In part, it stated “Despite the brilliant beginning, neither he nor others were able to take the next step, that of providing a plausible mechanism by which these chemicals could have been assembled into living cells or macromolecules, DNA and proteins – on which cells depend.” Mr. Hazen has only shown that amino acids can be formed under certain conditions, something that is already widely known. He, too, has failed to provide a plausible mechanism by which these chemicals could have been assembled into living cells.
Sincerely,
Hans Hollis
Posted by Hans Hollis on October 12,2010 | 02:43 PM
Thanks to scientists who continue to explore new ways of looking at how life could have started we have a more complete idea of what could have happened here on Earth about 4 billion years ago. Let's go to mars, drill down and find out if life is still there. Just a suggestion.
Posted by Bob Wiersma on October 8,2010 | 04:28 PM
This is shallow science for such a bold title. "I do wish that creationists would actually know the science they decry...The only thing organic chemical means is that it has carbon in it." Wrong, elitist Vel, Pyruvate, as a compound, has no carbon in its structure. Soup in is still soup out. Maybe there’s something useful still to come, but for now, this column describes nothing more than expensive alchemy.
Posted by MPK on October 7,2010 | 10:24 PM
I do wish that creationists would actually know the science they decry and realize that organic chemicals aren't only those that are made by life. We known how to make organic chemicals from inorganic. They are made that way in nature. We have done so since around 1832 when Wohler synthesized urea from inorganic chemicals. The only thing organic chemical means is that it has carbon in it.
Posted by vel on September 29,2010 | 12:46 PM
@Rick Powell: The article states that we've been able to synthesize amino acids (basic organic compounds) from ammonia, methane and hydrogen (inorganic elements) in early-earth-like conditions since the 1960s. To quote, "Hazen says that by 2000 he had concluded that 'making the basic building blocks of life is easy.'" Once you've mastered synthesizing organic compounds, you move on to the next question. "How did the right building blocks get incorporated? Amino acids come in multiple forms, but only some are used by living things to form proteins. How did they find each other?"
You may also be interested in this article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18623-did-midwife-molecule-assemble-first-life-on-earth.html
Posted by Marie Torborg on September 29,2010 | 09:53 AM
The writing was as great as the story. Darwin would be proud. Rock on!
Posted by Tom Stohlgren on September 21,2010 | 11:13 PM
+ View All Comments