Joined: Oct. 2009
Crud, reference the third vanished. That's OK, it gives me a chance to put off a review I don't want to do and give a bit more information on this paper.
Multiple translational products from a five-nucleotide ribozyme
Rebecca M. Turka, Nataliya V. Chumachenkob, and Michael Yarusa,1
|These data strongly and collectively support the active site model first suggested for the C3 ribozyme (6): RNA 20ð30Þ aminoacylation requires only an unusually simple center composed of three nucleotides.|
This is fascinating stuff. They are talking about RNAs that catalyze that are only five nucleotides long and the active site is only three nucleotides long.
Nonetheless, GUGGC/GCCU is unique: It binds a complex
heteroatomic substrate and facilitates group transfer from a multipart biochemical. This implies a more complex catalytic interface than in metal-catalyzed hydrolysis employing already poised 20-hydroxyl and ribonucleotide phosphate. In addition, reactions presented here do not depend on ions infrequent in biological systems, and, in fact, show little ion ependence. Thus, it is more surprising that aminoacyl transfer is accelerated by two normal Us and a G nucleotide, poised at a helix terminus.
Further, these particular reactions are central to metabolism, resembling the substrate and product of biological aminoacyltRNA synthesis.
The reactions that are central to metabolism can be catalyzed by a five unit RNA?!?!? Epic.
The ultimate importance of these observations may lie partly in the unknown number of other reactions that can be accelerated by comparably small RNAs. This is because for each such minuscule RNA reaction, there is a prima facie case that it would become accessible even after the most primitive ribonucleotide polymerization.
To see this, consider that, to pick every possible RNA pentamer sequence from arbitrary pentamers (with probability 0.9975), one needs only accumulate 4.1 × 10?18 gm of RNA. To possess every tetramer (with probability 0.9975) from a pool of arbitrary tetramers, one would need 3.4 × 10?18 gm RNA. In a real polymerization, one would have a distribution of lengths; nonetheless, with only attograms of total RNA of distributed short lengths from some geochemical source, one would have not only our ribozyme, but every activity of comparable size.
As an illustration, the ribozymic complexes characterized here demonstrate that aminoacyl-RNA and peptidyl-RNAs could have appeared in the presence of ?9 nucleotides of polymeric RNA, with six of these free to vary to other base pairs. We have previously estimated that a population containing about 1 ng of arbitrary-sequence RNA would be required before useful ribozymes
and other active RNA structures would probably occur
among this population (20).
If one particular 5 unit RNA can do this, can others? Cool, a place for further research... something ID has never done.
0.000000000000041 grams of RNA could generate every possible 5 unit length of RNA. That's ALL. That's all we need?!!? Holy cow, it's not like we need 247 pounds of the stuff to instanly make a JoeG or anything.
Now, would you like the chemically feasible pre-biotic pathways for pyrimidine ribonucleotides? Cause I can do that too?
Poor Joe, so out of his league and can't even see it. I suppose it's cruel to keep him around like the court dwarf, just to laugh at him. On the other hand, he voluntarily comes here. Too bad he's too much of a coward to actually discuss Intelligent Design... or is that he's too dumb. It's not like he's done any original research in Intelligent Design, just regurgitating whatever Dembski and Meyer say.
Poor pitiful puppy.
You're the big strong information boy, why are you scared to talk about my questions Joe? Why is that?
I'm not asking you to calculate anything, I gave up on that months ago. I know you can't actually do math. No, I'm just asking whether any of those changes are a loss of information Joe, that's all. yes or no.
If it helps, pretend that they are, oh I don't know, a piece of a larger sequence (like those first two that you chickened out of).
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.