DNA-Less 'Red Rain' Cells Reproduce At 121 C 149
eldavojohn writes "A new paper up for prepublication from the controversial solid-state physicist Godfrey Louis claims that the cells Louis collected from a Keralan red rain incident divide and produce daughter cells at 121 degrees Celsius. While unusual, this is not unheard of as the paper recalls cells cultivated from hydrothermal vents are known to reproduce at 121 C as well. Of course, caution is exercised when dealing with the possible explanation surrounding the theory of panspermia but the MIT Technology Review says researchers 'examined the way these fluoresce when bombarded with light and say it is remarkably similar to various unexplained emission spectra seen in various parts of the galaxy. One such place is the Red Rectangle, a cloud of dust and gas around a young star in the Monocerous constellation.'"
Monocerous(sp) (Score:4, Informative)
That's Monoceros - Unicorn. It's not an adjective with the "ous" ending.
Re:"Up for prepublication"? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"Up for prepublication"? (Score:3, Informative)
None of this guy's (Godfrey Louis) stuff on the subject seems to be peer reviewed.
Incorrect. Quoting from the linked article: "Louis published his results in the peer-reviewed journal Astrophysics and Space in 2006, along with the tentative suggestion that the cells could be extraterrestrial."
More recent publications... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
The official investigation concluded that they were spores from local algae, and that the initial DNA tests were flawed. Wikipedia has the details, as usual.
To go from "our test found no DNA" to "there is no DNA" to "they must be extraterrestrial" to "they look like the dust clouds in Monocerous" is a series of leaps that go wayyy ahead of the available evidence, in my view.
It would be very interesting to be proven wrong, however.
Re:"Up for prepublication"? (Score:5, Informative)
Astrophysics and Space Science publishes original contributions and invited reviews covering the entire range of astronomy, astrophysics, astrophysical cosmology, planetary and space science and the astrophysical aspects of astrobiology.
Note the last one: astrobiology is within the scope of that journal. Given that, the editors are certainly knowledgeable about who else works in that field, and can find appropriate reviewers for an astrobiology article.
Luckily... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"Up for prepublication"? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, seriously. Somebody mod the parent up here. An astrophysicist fails to extract DNA? Well how about letting a Biologist have a go. It's kinda there thing.
Besides (according to Wikipedia), the official report said they cultured them already. They are alga spores belonging to the genus Trentepohlia.
I think Occam's razor applies here.
Re:"Up for prepublication"? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Old info (Score:4, Informative)
What you're referring to is called a cell membrane which is formed by lipid bilayers. Cell walls are usually more rigid and are located outside of the cell membrane.
However, the parent is still confusing because algae, plants, protozoa, etc. all have different structures of cell walls. He doesn't really specify which specific one(s) are hard for us to explain.
Re: Old info (Score:3, Informative)
Doubtful claims (Score:5, Informative)
I am a microbiologist and this claim in my opinion is very weak. Remember, extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof to be accepted. This guy is a physicist, not a biologist, so that already raises many red flags.
In the arXiv blog linked, it says that Godfrey collected numerous samples of the "red rain". Since he is not a microbiologist, I doubt he took the necessary precautions to prevent contamination with terrestrial microbes, though it is debatable whether this is even possible. This alone is the biggest stumbling block to his claims. The blog also says that the cell "reproduce" at 121C yet also states that it has no DNA (all form of nucleic acids?). This flies in the face of all known life on earth. Even red blood cells initially have a nuclei before losing them as they mature. The point of reproduction is to pass on your genetic code to your offspring. This suggests to me that we might be looking at a abiological/chemical process. Did Godfrey try to detect the production of metabolite byproducts from his sample? Reproduction is a very energy intensive biochemical operation and should produce detectable metabolites. My research field is hyperthermophilic Archaea that grows at 90C or more and I know the existence of microbes that can grow at even higher temperatures, so this part of the claim is feasible. Overall, I caution extreme scepticism until Godfrey can provide extraordinary proof of his claims.
Re:"Up for prepublication"? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Doubtful claims (Score:3, Informative)
We've demonstrated several times that bacteria -- and I believe lichens -- can at least survive extended exposure in low earth orbit, so at that point it's not difficult to believe they could get here from somewhere else.
Yes and no. It's possible, provided they can survive for longer periods of time, to get living creatures from, say, Mars to Earth. The dynamics are tricky (it tends to take quite a while to get from one to the other, particularly if you don't want a high relative velocity when yous smack into the Earth) and lofting the material (and then landing it) in such a way as to not sterilize the rock is tricky. Couple that with the lack of conclusive evidence that life has existed on Mars in the past and I lean toward "less probable" for that route. Again, it doesn't rule it out, but it does take a backseat to local origin in my mind.
(Also, note that Mars, or any other planet in our system, doesn't solve a timescale problem. In fact, the transit time makes it worse.)
The other option is to get it here from outside our system. That does solve the timescale problem, potentially, but that adds a vast amount of time on to the transit. Any organism would have to be able to survive in space for millions, if not billions, of years. And the impact probability of a piece of interstellar junk and our system (let alone Earth) is awfully low. Plus, impact speed with an extrasolar bit of rock is a lot higher than from something already in our system. Barring a long series of orbital manuvers to alter the trajectory before meeting Earth (lower probability still), minimum relative speed at infinity is around 11 km/sec, assuming exactly optimal alignment. (More likely is in excess of 40 km/sec, and that's generously assuming that the speed relative to the Sun is very small.) Your minimum impact speed is therefore around 16 km/sec, which I can't imagine increases the odds of successfully seeding life here.
Again, this doesn't rule it out, but this is just why I feel that panspermia creates more "problems" (where I mean "low probability requirements") than it solves.
Re:"Up for prepublication"? (Score:1, Informative)
Funny, I just read the paper and the spores didn't divide at all. After being cooked in an autoclave, small spherical particles started forming inside the spores.
Emphasis mine. He proved no such thing. Not even close. Did the particles continue growing? Were they viable? Did they have any internal structure? No need to answer these questions. There were round red things inside other round red things. Clearly extraterrestrial life.
The reason to call this guy a crackpot is that he's making grand claims of certainty for patently absurd hypotheses.