| ▲ | A cell so minimal that it challenges definitions of life(quantamagazine.org) |
| 85 points by ibobev 5 hours ago | 37 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | stevenjgarner 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Isn't replication the single most important act of metabolism for an organism? I am trying to reconcile their ""lost genes include those central to cell metabolism, meaning it can neither process nutrients nor grow on its own" with their "The organism’s “replicative core” — the genetic components needed to reproduce itself — remains, making up more than half of its genome". Replication (making DNA, RNA, and proteins, and ultimately dividing) is a highly energy-intensive and material-intensive process. What appears to be lost by Sukunaarchaeum are the genes to build basic building blocks (amino acids, vitamins, nucleotides) from scratch. It cannot find a sugar molecule and break it down for energy (it can "neither process nutrients nor grow on its own"). Yet it can take pre-made energy and building blocks and assemble them into a new organism. What is the exact line between the host's metabolic contribution and the archaeon's replicative assembly? How "finished" are the raw materials that the host provides, and how does the archaeon's extremely reduced genome still manage the subsequent steps of self-replication? |
|
| ▲ | pretzellogician an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Very impressive! To be clear, this is not the smallest known bacterial genome; only the smallest known archaeal bacterial genome, at 238k base pairs. In the article they mention C. ruddii, with a smaller 159k base pair genome. But according to wikipedia, it seems N. deltocephalinicola, at 112k base pairs, may be the smallest known bacterial genome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasuia_deltocephalinicola |
| |
| ▲ | oersted 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s interesting. The main difference seems to be that those other tiny organisms only encode how to produce some metabolic products for the host but cannot reproduce independently, so they are quite close to being organelles. Instead, this new one pretty much only produces the proteins it needs to reproduce and nothing else. The new one with 238 kbp: > Sukunaarchaeum encodes the barest minimum of proteins for its own replication, and that’s about all. Most strangely, its genome is missing any hints of the genes required to process and build molecules, outside of those needed to reproduce. Referencing the 159 kbp one: > However, these and other super-small bacteria have metabolic genes to produce nutrients, such as amino acids and vitamins, for their hosts. Instead, their genome has cast off much of their ability to reproduce on their own. | |
| ▲ | flobosg an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A nitpick: Although similar in some aspects, archaea are not bacteria; they are classified under their own phylogenetic domain. | |
| ▲ | api an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Still far, far too complex to occur "randomly," which is fascinating. The odds of 112k bases arranging in any meaningful way by chance within a membrane are the kind of thing you wouldn't get if you ran a trillion trillion trillion universes. There's many hypotheses, basically all different variations on "soup of organic compounds forming complex catalytic cycles that eventually result in the soup producing more similar soup, at which point it begins to be subject to differential selection." It's a reasonable idea but where did this happen, and do the conditions still exist? If we went to that place would it still be happening? There's reason to believe the answer would be no because modern lifeforms would probably find this goo nutritious. So life may have chemically pulled up the ladder from itself once it formed. This of course assumes no to more fanciful options: panspermia that pushes the origin back to the beginning of the cosmos and gives you more billions of years, creation by a God or some other kind of supernatural or extra-dimensional entity, etc. | | |
| ▲ | smallmancontrov 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 1. Autocatalytic RNAse reaction networks -- "soup producing more soup" -- are easily replicated in the lab, subject to Darwinean processes, and are at the center of ongoing study. "0 to Darwin" is now easy and God of the Gaps must retreat once again. 2. Spores hitchhiking on impact ejecta sounds exotic until you realize that anywhere life is present at all spores will be everywhere and extremely sturdy. That desktop wallpaper you have of planets crashing together and kicking off an epic debris cloud? Everything not molten is full of spores. 3. Religious explanations are not in the same universe of seriousness as 1 and 2. Opening with a religious talking point and closing with a false equivalence is mega sus. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | tete a minute ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Talking about tiny cells and staring at a tube with liquid. Made me chuckle. |
|
| ▲ | freakynit 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I’ve been thinking about a wild theory regarding the incredible biological complexity we see in mammals today. What if our bodies (apart from the brain) are actually the result of an ancient aggregation of once-separate "organisms" that evolved to live symbiotically? Over millions of years, their DNA might have fused and co-evolved into a single, unified genome. What began as cooperation between distinct life forms could have gradually become inseparable, giving rise to the intricate multicellular systems we now take for granted. |
| |
| ▲ | luxcem a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | It's called Symbiogenesis [0] and it's not at all a wild theory. But it's limited to cell components, not multiples organs fusing to create something as complex as a mammal. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis | |
| ▲ | Noaidi a minute ago | parent | prev [-] | | I believe that we’re living in that situation now. I don’t think life can be divided into smaller organisms. That there is just one complex life that we failed to see based on our past prejudice. |
|
|
| ▲ | empiricus 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think the genome might be mostly just the "config file". So the cell already contains most of the information and mechanisms needed for the organism. The genome is config flags and some more detailed settings that turn things on and off in the cell, at specific times in the life of the organism. From this point of view, the discussion about how many pairs/bytes of information are in the genome is misleading. Similar analogy: I can write a hello world program, which displays hello world on the screen. But the screen is 4k, the windows background is also visible, so the hardware and OS are 6-8 orders of magnitude more complex than the puny program, and the output is then much more complex than the puny program. |
|
| ▲ | codedokode 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > the bacterium Carsonella ruddii, which lives as a symbiont within the guts of sap-feeding insects, has an even smaller genome than Sukunaarchaeum, at around 159,000 base pairs 159 000 base pairs is ~320 Kbit, or 40 KBytes. I wonder, if that is the minimum size of a cell firmware. Also, if the cell is that simple, can we study it exhaustively and completely? Like, decipher every base pair in DNA, and determine what it is responsible for. And make an interactive website for that. |
| |
|
| ▲ | djoldman 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| From the paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.05.02.651781v1 > ... we report the discovery of Candidatus Sukunaarchaeum mirabile, a novel archaeon with an unprecedentedly small genome of only 238 kbp —less than half the size of the smallest previously known archaeal genome— from a dinoflagellate-associated microbial community. |
| |
| ▲ | russdill an hour ago | parent [-] | | For comparison, the smallest bacteria genome, nasuia deltocephalinicola, is 139 kbp. |
|
|
| ▲ | Noaidi 3 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Life is the process of decreasing entropy. If they stick with that definition, they’d be fine. And they’d find out that life is even more abundant than they can imagine. |
|
| ▲ | flobosg 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| See also: “Microbe with bizarrely tiny genome may be evolving into a virus” – https://www.science.org/content/article/microbe-bizarrely-ti... |
| |
| ▲ | HarHarVeryFunny 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe devolving would be a better term if that's the case | |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Which, BTW, is about the same researcher and microbial host/parasite pair. More info, so I'm not complaining. | | |
| ▲ | flobosg 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, I should have mentioned that. Article about the same topic and preprint, but released earlier this year. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | smollOrg 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > According to the shocked researchers What is this, some content creator run Biohacker Lab in some basement on Microflix premises? Ominous voice: the tiny cell withdrew into the cracks of existence and saved it's entire code to be in the lines between, the Singular Point which was neither a fraction of space, nor a unit of time, hidden in the void of Chututululu's (33rd degree cousin of Cthulhu) dreams, written in the unspeakable language of the subtext of the book of neither life nor death, that nobody would decipher until the time was right AND GODZILLA GETS TO WALK THE EARTH AGAIN. |
| |
|
| ▲ | zkmon 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The ultimate form of outsourcing. |
| |
| ▲ | b3lvedere an hour ago | parent [-] | | Which makes C. Regius a very tiny CEO? :) | | |
| ▲ | falcor84 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Only if it has a mechanism to send signals into the host and cell. For the CEO metaphor to hold, I'll accept that these signals can be entirely ignored, but they need to be transmitted. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | XorNot 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Reminds me of how the discovery of giant viruses - like truly huge viral particles - was immediately also followed by discovering "virophages" which parasitized them. Which of course makes sense to some degree: if an adaptive strategy is successful enough, then parasitizing something which successfully implements it is going to be resource favorable (and likely, presumably by being a member of that species and just shedding components you don't need if you take them). |
| |
|
| ▲ | cnnlives1987 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| We don’t even fundamentally understand physics yet. Certainly there is much to life that we don’t understand. |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is not so much about the understanding of life as it is about the definition of life. | | |
| ▲ | tshaddox 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I don’t think a precise definition of life is particularly important or of particular interest to most biologists. This thing is life in the sense that it’s definitely in scope of being studied by biologists (same is true for viruses, of course). And the reason it is speculated that it may be crucial to understanding life is mentioned in the article: “This organism might be a fascinating living fossil—an evolutionary waypoint that managed to hang on.” | |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Eh, you're quibbling with words. We're getting closer to the quantum (indivisible) definition of life, and that's understanding. | | |
| ▲ | willis936 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don't think that they are. The term life, as it's currently defined, is not very useful. The reality is that there is a very colorful spectrum of microscopic biology and that a single bin of "alive" and "not alive" is like trying to paint the mona lisa with a single pixel. This scishow video gives a good look at the tip of the iceberg. https://youtu.be/FXqmzKwBB_w |
|
| |
| ▲ | bloomingeek 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Let SCOTUS have a look, they seem to know what life is without the benefit of any bothersome science. | |
| ▲ | russdill an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | We understand enough physics to model all the possible interactions life might have on this planet. Unless this planet is having a really bad day. | | |
| ▲ | HarHarVeryFunny a few seconds ago | parent [-] | | Maybe better to say "We understand enough physics to model all the possible interactions PHYSICS might have on this planet". There are many levels of abstraction between quantum/particle physics and life, or even just cosmology (things like dark matter, etc), that we really know very little about. |
|
|