Artificial DNA: PNA & XNA

ISSN: 1949-095X (Print) 1949-0968 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/kdpx20

Natural Arsenate DNA?

Peter E. Nielsen

To cite this article: Peter E. Nielsen (2011) Natural Arsenate DNA?, Artificial DNA: PNA & XNA,
2:1, 4-5, DOI: 10.4161/adna.2.1.15657

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.4161/adna.2.1.15657

Copyright © 2011 Landes Bioscience

Published online: 31 Mar 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 386

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=kdpx20
Artificial DNA: PNA & XNA 2:1, 4-5; January/February/March 2011; © 2011 Landes Bioscience

Natural Arsenate DNA?

Peter E. Nielsen
University of Copenhagen, Department of Cellular & Molecular Medicine, The Panum Institute; Copenhagen N, Denmark

T he recent paper by Wolfe-Simon

et al.1 reporting a bacterial strain,
which is able to grow in high concen-
trations of arsenate, apparently in the
absence of phosphate, and claims that
in this strain arsenate is substituting for
phosphate, e.g. in nucleic acids (Figure 1),

©2011L
andesBiosc
ienc
e.
was highly profiled, attracted broad atten-
tion, and almost immediately resulted in
heavy scientific criticism (see e.g. 2-7).

The criticism concerned both the evi-

Donotdi
str
ibut
e.
Key words: Arsenate, DNA, evolution,
origin of life, bacteria
Submitted: 3/28/2011
Accepted: 3/30/2011
DOI: 10.4161/adna.2.1.15657
Correspondence to: Peter Nielsen;
Email: ptrn@sund.ku.dk
Commentary to: Wolfe-Simon F, Blum JS, Kulp
TR, Gordon GW, Hoeft SE, Pett-Ridge J et al.
A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic
Instead of Phosphorus. Science 2010; 17:423-9
PMID: 21127214; DOI: 10.1126/science.1197
dence (or rather lack of it) to convinc-
ingly support the very profound claim of
arsenate substitution in DNA, as well as
the fact that arsenate esters (and thus by
inference arsenate DNA which has not
yet been synthesized) are dramatically
less stable (t½ = 0.06s) than the phos-
phate esters in DNA (t½ estimated at
30.000.000 years)2. Furthermore, Wolfe-
Simon et al.1 provides no direct (chemi-
cal) evidence that arsenate nucleic acids
or their precursors are actually present in
or can be isolated from the bacteria. One
might for instance have obtained mass
spectra of isolated (mono)nucleotides.
Finally, a multitude of metabolic reac-
tions would have to substitute arsenate for
phosphate and thus requiring mutations
in the corresponding enzymes acting on
phosphate substrates (glucose phosphates,
creatin phosphate, nucleoside/tide phos-
phates, lipid phosphates etc.) in order
to sustain “arsenate life”, because the
natural enzymes selected by nature are
in general inhibited by the arsenate sub-
strates.3 Thus the overwhelming response
from the scientific community is that
the interpretation by the authors, how-
ever spectacular, seems among the least
likely to explain their results,2-4 and that
Figure 1. Chemical structures of natural
(phosphate) DNA and arsenate DNA.
the most likely explanation may be that
this extraordinary bacterial strain has
acquired an extreme ability to efficiently
scavenge minute traces of phosphates
from the environment and at the same
time effectively sequester high amounts
of toxic arsenate in vacuoles as suggested
by Gerald Joyce (referred in ref. 5).
However, if it could be verified that
life may be sustained by a “non-natural”
DNA chemistry this would be a major sci-
entific milestone in our understanding of
life and its evolution, but it is extremely
unlikely that the bacterial strain discov-
ered by Wolfe-Simon et al.1 provides such
a case, and Westheimer’s arguments for
Nature’s choice of phosphate still stand.8
From a more general point of view, the
paper by Wolfe-Simon et al.1 also reflects
on the way much science is done and
communicated today. It is well known
that scientific breakthroughs very often

4 Artificial DNA: PNA & XNA Volume 2 Issue 1


happen at interfaces between disciplines,
and that more and more scientific projects
are interdisciplinary in nature. However,
it is important to remember the obvious,
that the science should be interdisciplin-
ary and not inter disciplinary, meaning
that all science should have a solid foun-
dation in all the disciplines encountered,
©2011L
andesBiosc
ienc
e.
Donotdi
str
ibut
e.
www.landesbioscience.com Artificial DNA: PNA & XNA 5
technically, conceptually and historically,
and not “sitting in between” disciplines.
Likewise, it is of course crucial that in the
review phase of publication the work is
evaluated by experts in all (sub)fields, in
order to identify (obvious) technical and
conceptual short-comings and pitfalls.
And of course: Extraordinary claims do
(still) require extraordinary evidence.
Commentary
References
1. Wolfe-Simon F, Blum JS, Kulp TR, Gordon GW,
Hoeft SE, Pett-Ridge J et al. A Bacterium That
Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus.
Science. 2010 Dec 2. [Epub ahead of print]
2. Fekry MI, Tipton PA, Gates KS. Kinetic conse-
quences of replacing the internucleotide phosphorus
atoms in DNA with arsenic. ACS Chem Biol 2011 18:
127-30.
3. Tawfik DS, Viola RE. Arsenate replacing phosphate:
alternative life chemistries and ion promiscuity.
Biochemistry 2011; 50:1128-34.
4. Schwartz AW. Arsenate DNA--Evidence for a vital
force? Orig Life Evol Biosph 2011; 41:1.
5. Katsnelson A. Microbe gets toxic response. Nature
2010; 468:741.
6. Drahl C. Arsenic Bacteria Breed Backlash. Chemical
& Engineering News, Dec. 13, 2010; 7.
7. Wolfe-Simon F. Newsmaker interview: Felisa Wolfe-
Simon. Discoverer asks for time, patience over arsenic
bacteria controversy. Interview by Elizabeth Pennisi.
Science. 2010; 330:1734-5.
8. Westheimer FH: Why nature chose phosphates.
Science 1987; 235:1173-1178