NASA 'arsenic life' claim refuted by two new studies

The new studies refute a December 2010 finding that, if confirmed, would have revolutionized how we think about life.

Science/AAAS
This scanning electron micrograph shows a strain of the alleged arsenic-eating bacterium called GFAJ-1.

A rule-breaking bacterium, thought to not only tolerate arsenic but actually incorporate the poison into its DNA (swapping out phosphorus), has been found to be a law-abider. Two new studies detailed online Sunday (July 8) in the journal Science find the bacterium called GFAJ-1 can't substitute arsenic for phosphorus to survive.

The new studies refute a December 2010 finding that, if confirmed, would have revolutionized how we think about life. "If true, such a finding would have important implications for our understanding of life's basic requirements since all known forms of life on Earth use six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur," according to a statement released today by the editors of Science.

If an organism on Earth were found to survive without one of these building blocks, it could mean that life on other planets (as well as our own) is more adaptable than expected.

Leader of the 2010 study, Felisa Wolfe-Simon had acknowledged very low levels of phosphate within their study samples; however, they concluded the contamination would've been insufficient to allow GFAJ-1 to grow.

Now the two separate studies find that Wolfe-Simon's medium did contain enough phosphate contamination to support GFAJ-1's growth. It's just that GFAJ-1, a well-adapted extremophile living in a high-arsenic environment, is thrifty, and is likely capable of scavenging phosphate under harsh conditions, helping to explain why it can grow even when arsenic is present in its cells.

Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues discovered the bacteria in desolate Mono Lake, Calif., finding evidence the extremophiles could munch on arsenic to survive in the absence of phosphorus, an element long established as a critical building block of life. [Stunning Images of Mono Lake]

The finding soon spurred a lively debate, with outside researchers criticizing the paper's methods. "The basics, growing the bacteria and purifying the DNA, had a lot of contamination problems," said microbiologist Rosie Redfield of the University of British Columbia, in February. Redfield is the author of one of the newly published Science papers.

Follow LiveScience on Twitter @livescience. We're also on Facebook & Google+.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.