|
|
|
|
|
by don_esteban
10 days ago
|
|
There is no contradiction: simple amino acids as a basic building block being coopted by replicating RNA to build more sophisticated structures. You can conceive other than nuclear-acids based replicant, using the same ubiquitous amino-acids to build a protein life not using RNA/DNA but some other encoding structure. The question is what is the chemically most likely 'other'?
Also, what could be alternatives for ATP/sugars? |
|
But the adenosine "backbone" of the ATP is more-or-less arbitrary. Other forms of life can use something different. Or they might use the phosphorus bonds themselves where terrestrial life uses peptide bonds.
Disulfide bonds exhibit similar properties, and terrestrial life also uses them to give additional "rigity" to certain proteins. It's also likely a late addition to the genetic code, cysteine is nestled between two stop codons (it clearly used up the initially reserved block of the address space tagged for future expansion).
And if you look at meteorites, sulfur compounds are _much_ more common. Sulfur chemistry also doesn't require scarce fixed nitrogen that could only be replenished by lightning before nitrogen-fixing enzymes first evolved.
So I don't believe at all that exactly our RNA/amino acids are going to be universal.