Is Life Asymmetrical?

[Sebastianlobo]

“ The Universe is asymmetric and I am persuaded that life, as it is known to us, is a direct result of the asymmetry of the Universe or an indirect consequence of it”, wrote Luis Pasteur. We now realize how far – reaching and profound his remarks were. Not only did he bring into the realm of Biology concepts of Cosmology, but he also raised the question of whether life has a handedness and , if so , what its consequences are ,not to mention the other basic point : why?

Asymmetry, the difference between left and right being one way of expressing it, seems to be essential. DNA coils as a right – handed screw, preferably, and is that a accident or a design? If designed, what designed it? Chance ? If so, chance would have a choice…

Most life molecules appear in L and D forms, and life apparently uses one of these two mirror – image forms. We are made of only L - amino - acids. What are the implications of it? At the same time some argue that we are all children of the Big Bang. Symmetry giving birth to asymmetry. What about our asymmetrical brains as compared to those of other mammals? Where might the investigation into this aspect of life lead us to? I am well aware that I am on the brink of being off – topic, and will leave to anybody who joins this forum to delve into that if necessary.

[HydrogenBond]

If one looks at righthanded and lefthanded biomaterials, one is bioactive and the other is not. This suggests one version is at higher potential, thereby inducing activation energy easier, for forward chemical reactions. The other is at lower strucutral potential making it harder to achieve the needed enzymatic activation energy making it inert.

 

If one also looks at the fact that cells preferentially produce the potentiated state of biomaterials, one could also conclude that the chemical environment associated with production is also potentiated, such that local equilibrium favors the potentiated state. As a loose analogy, it is sort of like trying to make molecular oxygen with a lot of UV around, this would favor ozone. Take away the UV and it would favor O2. Continuing the analogy the potential in the cell combined with the stability provided by hydrogen bonds creates stable high energy states at ambient conditions.

 

This is all related to the potential within hydrogen bonding, with the cell being a type of hydrogen bonding energy amplifier. The result being the preferential formation of potentiated helixes held together by hydrogen bonds, with the hydrogen bonds storing the extra potential.

 

In most of nature lower energ is usually favored, tending to slant things toward lower energy side of the symmetry. But life is sort of backwards, favoring the higher energy side of symmetry, thereby keeping itself in a continue flux, with nature trying to pull it back toward lower energy.

[Sebastianlobo]

But don't you yhink this is in conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

[InfiniteNow]

Hydrogen Bond,

 

Please support your claims with a source or delete them. I am struggling to figure if any of the information you presented is more than just personal anecdote, and would like to see some evidence of and backing for your ideas and statements.

[HydrogenBond]

I think the observations speak for themselves. One takes two proteins, one left handed and the other right handed, only one is active, this implies the active one is more energetically favorable for catalysis.

 

Enzyme catalysis, in a very generic way, lowers activation energy for chemical reactions. This means the attachment of the reactant to the enzyme, causes the bond electrons of the reactant to get excited so it is easier to break the bond. This is because the active enzyme is lowering potential by sharing these electrons, i.e, reflected by shape change, thereby causeing the reactant to become potentiated for reaction.

 

This is totally logical but the question becomes how does one helix become potentiated more than the opposite helix, since the atom count is exactly the same, shouldn't these add up to the same?

 

If we react A and B to get C and D, depending the conditions of reaction one can favor either C or D. It is like making octane for gasoline. It is not one molecule but a distribution of 8-carbon molecules. One can shift this distribution by setting particular reaction conditions. In the case of a cell, for it to make left handed helixes ,exclusively, implies that equilibrium is set within the cell to favor this result. As was shown before, left handed is higher in potential allowing better enzyme activity. This would imply it being the more endothermic of the two helix directions, with the potential stored in the hydrogen bonds. Anything that stretches or alters bond angle from 180, will add potential to hydrogen bonds.

[InfiniteNow]

I think the observations speak for themselves.

Well that's dandy, but it still doesn't provide support or evidence as I requested.

[InfiniteNow]

This is totally logical but the question becomes how does one helix become potentiated more than the opposite helix

Actually, the question becomes, since when do protiens have hands?

[HydrogenBond]

If we combust n-butane and iso-butane, the linear n-butane will give off more heat. The chemical formula is the same for both C4H10. The reason n-butane gives off more energy is that it begins at a higher potential since both reach the same products. The difference in potential is due to the three carbon atoms bonded together within iso-butane. This is little more stable and therefore lowers the final combustion energy output.

 

If we look at DNA, it is normally right handed. Left handed DNA has been made and exists both as a single helix or as a more expanded double helix. There is no difference at the level of the covalent bonding between the two different DNA helixes. The difference lies only in secondary bonding and structure. The left handed DNA creates more potential within the hydrogen bonds, i.e, reflected by the expanded state. The right handed DNA is lower in energy and therefore less likely to spontaneously transcribe. The left handed helix is more charged up.

 

The left handed nature of amino acids do the same thing. They help charge up proteins.

[InfiniteNow]

If we look at DNA, it is normally right handed. Left handed DNA has been made and exists both as a single helix or as a more expanded double helix. There is no difference at the level of the covalent bonding between the two different DNA helixes. The difference lies only in secondary bonding and structure. The left handed DNA creates more potential within the hydrogen bonds, i.e, reflected by the expanded state. The right handed DNA is lower in energy and therefore less likely to spontaneously transcribe. The left handed helix is more charged up.

Hmmm... let me ask this another way.

 

 

Can you cite any research to support the claims you've made?

[HydrogenBond]

The difference between right-handed DNA and left handed DNA can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-DNA. What holds the DNA together are hydrogen bonds. The more expanded z-DNA or left handed DNA is more expanded and zig-zag. This causes the hydrogen bonds to be more expanded increasing their potential.

[Dov Henis]

And further re life/energy:

 

I think that for all we comprehend presently life is life is life, all forms of Earth life are members of one single family, and they are in essence bubbles of energy formed and maintained by energy as temporary energy storage bubbles.

 

I also suggest that life and black holes have this in common, both formed and maintained by energy as temporary energy storage systems...

 

Dov

[InfiniteNow]

The difference between right-handed DNA and left handed DNA can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-DNA. What holds the DNA together are hydrogen bonds. The more expanded z-DNA or left handed DNA is more expanded and zig-zag. This causes the hydrogen bonds to be more expanded increasing their potential.

Sorry. Try again. You linked to wiki, which is questionable to begin with, but even if I allowed it be accepted as a qualified source, you provided a link to one single (and short) article to support myriad claims.

 

Citations please. Also, please be sure to reference the claim for which you intend the citation to provide support.

[HydrogenBond]

The orginal article I saw was from a journal source. Upon web search it did not appear again. But they used the same graphics as the link provided. Just by looking at it, one can see the more expanded nature of z-DNA. The z-DNA is not common because it does not form the lowest energy double helix but forms both single and odd ball double helixes. Its higher energy is connected to the extended hydrogen bonding, with hydrogen bonding potential increasing with distance and bond angle away from 180 degrees.

 

With logic it is time to move on to step two. With empiricism one needs to spend a year incubating step one in the black box. What a waste of scarce resources. That's why I call it alchemy.

[InfiniteNow]

With logic it is time to move on to step two.

 

Moving on would not be the correct next step, as all previous steps are still under question. I did not have issue with zdna, and appreciate the link you provided, however, it did nothing to substaniate the rest of your claims and assumptions. Your statements have less support than a bra made out of warm chocolate, and this issue isn't specific to just this thread.

 

Perhaps I'm not being clear. Is my request unreasonable? I don't think it is, but apologize if that's how it comes across.

 

Here's how I see it working properly.

1) You make a claim

2) You provide citations or support of that claim through previous studies, other works, or authors. You provide the background which led to this conclusion, provide other alternatives, and demostrate how those other alternatives are incorrect.

 

You are not doing this. You are asked for supporting evidence, and you give analogy or stories. That's not science. Now, I'll go back and try to reference the claims for which I want citation or evidence to make this less abstract for you:

 

Claim 1:

If one looks at righthanded and lefthanded biomaterials, one is bioactive and the other is not.

Claim 2:

The other is at lower strucutral potential making it harder to achieve the needed enzymatic activation energy making it inert.

Claim 3:

This is all related to the potential within hydrogen bonding, with the cell being a type of hydrogen bonding energy amplifier.

Claim 4:

The result being the preferential formation of potentiated helixes held together by hydrogen bonds, with the hydrogen bonds storing the extra potential.

Claim 5:

life is sort of backwards, favoring the higher energy side of symmetry, thereby keeping itself in a continue flux, with nature trying to pull it back toward lower energy.

Claim 6:

Enzyme catalysis, in a very generic way, lowers activation energy for chemical reactions.

Claim 7:

This is because the active enzyme is lowering potential by sharing these electrons, i.e, reflected by shape change, thereby causeing the reactant to become potentiated for reaction.

Claim 8:

It is not one molecule but a distribution of 8-carbon molecules.

Claim 9:

Anything that stretches or alters bond angle from 180, will add potential to hydrogen bonds.

Claim 10:

The reason n-butane gives off more energy is that it begins at a higher potential since both reach the same products.

Claim 11:

There is no difference at the level of the covalent bonding between the two different DNA helixes. The difference lies only in secondary bonding and structure.

Claim 12:

The right handed DNA is lower in energy and therefore less likely to spontaneously transcribe. The left handed helix is more charged up.

Claim 13:

The left handed nature of amino acids do the same thing. They help charge up proteins.

Claim 14:

Just by looking at it, one can see the more expanded nature of z-DNA.

Right, but you don't even know where the drawing came from. What if there was a footnote that it wasn't to scale, or was not a direct representation of things...

 

Claim 15:

The z-DNA is not common because it does not form the lowest energy double helix but forms both single and odd ball double helixes.

 

 

Why do I have to go all "lawyer" on you get you to backup what you say? I shouldn't have to do this for someone who claims to understand science. Those individuals recognize that baseless claims are not acceptable.

 

With empiricism one needs to spend a year incubating step one in the black box. What a waste of scarce resources. That's why I call it alchemy.

Okay champ, but you need to remember that this isn't an alchemy forum, it's a biology (and science) forum, and you will be expected to back-up what you say with supporting evidence and citations of research which lends more than analogy as reference to your comments.