CLOSE
Original image

Scientist Says Our Oldest Ancestor May Have Been Only ‘Half Alive’

Original image
Home, sweet home in the heat and chemical chaos of a hydrothermal vent. Image credit: NOAA Vents Program via Wikimedia Commons // Public Domain

Here are some things we think we know about the first organism to ever appear on Earth: Its name was LUCA. It lived on the hot sea floor about 4 billion years ago. And although it eventually gave rise to every person, plant, and virus alive today, scientists now say LUCA itself might only have lived a sort of half-life. They published these controversial findings in Nature Microbiology.

LUCA (our Last Universal Common Ancestor) may have been cruder than a single-celled bacterium, but that doesn’t make it uninteresting. Quite the opposite, in fact: This older-than-old organism could teach us volumes about the appearance of life on Earth as we know it.

The tricky part of studying an ancient, formless organism is that it could leave no footprints, feathers, or bones behind. Fortunately, LUCA left something better: its genes, moving forward through time.

Researchers at Heinrich Heine University (HHU) in Dusseldorf, Germany set out to find LUCA’s genes in its single-celled descendants, bacteria and archaea. They combed the genomes of 1847 bacterial and 134 archaeal species, looking for shared genetic material. Any proteins that appeared in at least two groups of bacteria and two groups of archaea would likely signify a common parent.

The team found 355 overlapping protein clusters out of the 286,514 they examined. The shared proteins suggested that LUCA was even more primitive than scientists had previously imagined. The genetic lines drew a picture of an organism getting by in the dark of a boiling, oxygen-less hydrothermal vent, feeding on hydrogen gas and metals.

The life LUCA led was so very different from our own that study co-author William F. Martin told The New York Times it could be considered just “half alive.”

If you consider LUCA a biological bridge between a lifeless planet and the life forms that came after it, this framework makes sense. But that theory has its detractors.

Biochemist Steven Benner, a distinguished fellow at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, told the Times that if LUCA could synthesize proteins—and the genetic analysis suggests it could have—the organism could likely synthesize other, simpler things as well, even if the HHU team didn’t find them. “It’s like saying you can build a 747 but can’t refine iron,” he said.

Chemist John Sutherland of the University of Cambridge had his own objections. He says that LUCA’s dependence on its environment was not as extreme as Martin makes it out to be. “It’s like saying I’m half alive because I depend on my local supermarket.”

Sutherland and Benner don’t disagree with the HHU researchers’ conclusion that LUCA was, well, our LUCA, and they’re fine placing it on a hydrothermal vent. But they don’t think LUCA was the first life form, and they say a lot more research is needed before we can really pin down just what that ancient little weirdo was up to. 

Know of something you think we should cover? Email us at tips@mentalfloss.com.

Original image
YouTube
arrow
Animals
Why Do Female Spotted Hyenas Give Birth Through Their Pseudo-Penises?
Original image
YouTube

At the zoo, you can sometimes tell the difference between male and female animals by noting their physical size, their behavior, and yes, their nether regions. Hyenas, however, flip the script: Not only are lady spotted hyenas bigger and meaner than their male counterparts, ruling the pack with an iron paw, they also sport what appear to be penises—shaft, scrotum, and all.

"Appear" is the key word here: These 7-inch-long phalluses don't produce sperm, so they're technically really long clitorises in disguise. But why do female hyenas have them? And do they actually have to (gulp) give birth through them? Wouldn't that hurt … a lot?

The short answers to these questions are, respectively, "We don't know," "Yes," and "OW." Longer answers can be found in this MinuteEarth video, which provides the full lowdown on hyena sex. Don't say we didn't warn you.

Original image
Steve Wood/Express/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
arrow
science
Are Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n' Roll Really Linked? Researchers Investigate
Original image
Steve Wood/Express/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Around the world, sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll are said to go hand-in-hand. But do they? As PsyPost reports, a pair of Pennsylvania psychologists recently dove into the empirical evidence tying the three together, asking college students to talk about their drug use, sex lives, and music preferences and talents to suss out whether people who play and enjoy rock music really do have more active sex lives and drug use.

Published in the journal Human Ethnology Bulletin, the study [PDF] of 467 students relied on self-reporting, which isn't typically the most reliable evidence—people are wont to exaggerate how often they've had sex, for instance—but the survey also asked them about their desires, posing questions like "If you could, how frequently would you have sex?" It also asked about how often the students drank and what drugs they had tried in their lifetimes. They also described their musical experience and what kind of music they listened to.

The results were mixed, but the researchers identified a relationship between liking faster, "harder" music and having more sex and doing more drugs. Acoustic indie rock aficionados weren't getting quite as wild as heavy metal fans. High-tempo-music lovers were more likely to have taken hallucinogenic drugs like LSD, for example, and tended to have had more sexual partners in the previous year than people who favored slower types of music. According to the study, previous research has found that attention-seeking people are more likely to enjoy "hard" music.

The study didn't have a diverse enough group either in age or in ethnicity to really begin to make sweeping generalizations about humans, especially since college students (the participants were between 18 and 25) tend to engage in more risky behaviors in general. But this could lay the groundwork for future research into the topic. Until then, it might be more accurate to change the phrase to "sex, drugs, and heavy metal."

[h/t PsyPost]

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios