Scientists Recreated The Ancient Chemical Reactions That May Have Sparked Life
It's difficult to imagine how life kicked off on our planet. In ecosystems today, life is so deeply entwined with itself that very few creatures live directly off Earth's raw materials. That has been the case for a very, very long time.
But the first organisms on an otherwise lifeless planet would have had to make do with what the mineral environment had to offer. There was little to no oxygen, and no photosynthesis. As you can see in the video below, some deep sea organisms still live this way, surviving on hydrothermal vents at depths where the sun don't shine.
Borrowing electrons from hydrogen as it spews from the Earth's core, the deep-sea microbes follow a recipe more ancient than the genes they use to conduct it, called the acetyl CoA pathway. It is the only method for carbon fixation – processing inorganic carbon into organic compounds – that can be re-created without enzymes.
But when this recipe was first written, in Earth's early years, seawater contained a whole lot more dissolved iron than it does today. A team led by geochemist Vanessa Helmbrecht of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in Germany wanted to test how much of a difference this dissolved iron would have made, by simulating these ancient ocean conditions in the lab.
"The ancient occurrence of hydrothermal iron-sulfide rich deposits in the geological record extend into the early Archaean eon (4 to 3.6 billion years ago) and exhibit fossil features interpreted as some of the oldest signatures for life on Earth," the team writes in their paper describing the experiment.
"However, links between abiotic H2 [dihydrogen] production in iron-sulfide chemical gardens simulating [primordial] hydrothermal systems and early life are scarce."
A single-celled microbe of the order archaea, Methanocaldococcus jannaschii, was selected as the test subject for these simulations. It was first collected from a hydrothermal vent off the western coast of Mexico, where, using the acetyl CoA pathway, it relies on carbon dioxide and hydrogen as its primary sources of energy.
"Abiotic H2 was a potentially important electron donor and CO2 served as a key electron acceptor for the first cells," the team explains. "Anaerobic organisms that use the H2-dependent reductive acetyl CoA pathway for CO2 fixation are modern representatives that have preserved vestiges of the first metabolisms."
The experiments placed M. jannaschii into a miniature version of the deep sea hydrothermal vents, neatly contained in a glass vial. By injecting sulfidic fluid into water devoid of dissolved oxygen, they formed a black precipitate that grew into a chimney structure within 5-10 minutes.
At high temperatures, the iron and sulfur in this microcosm formed the iron sulfide minerals mackinawite (FeS) and greigite (Fe3S4). When iron sulfide is hydrated, H2 is released.
Though quite different from its modern home, M. jannaschii thrived in this strange environment.
"At the beginning, we expected only slight growth, as we did not add any extra nutrients, vitamins, or trace metals to the experiment," Helmbrecht says. "As well as over-expressing some genes of the acetyl CoA metabolism, the archaeans actually grew exponentially."
The M. jannaschii cells tended to hang out right beside the mackinawite particles, in a scene much like some of the earliest traces of life found in fossil specimens. These chemical gardens, the scientists think, fuelled Earth's first microbes.
This is evidence that the recipe for acetyl CoA metabolism emerged from the extreme and energy-limited environments where Earth life may have struck its first sparks.
"Our study points to mackinawite and greigite chemical gardens as potential hatcheries of life, primordial environments that could theoretically support a continuous evolution of the first metabolizing cells," the authors conclude.
The research is published in Nature Ecology & Evolution.
Mystery of T. Rex's Debated North American Origins Finally Solved
Wild Chimps Appear to Administer 'First Aid' to Each Other
Scientists Discover Oldest Reptile Tracks, Rewriting Evolution Timeline
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
This French astronaut's food in space? Foie gras and lobster bisque.
French cuisine has a reputation for being among the world's best. So what's a French astronaut do to when faced with the prospect of spending months aboard the International Space Station eating freeze-dried food straight from the packaging? Recruit a Michelin-starred chef to reimagine French classics like foie gras and lobster bisque was the answer for Sophie Adenot, who is due to undertake her first space mission in 2026.
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Evolving Approaches in Melanoma Treatment
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello, everybody. I am Teresa Amaral, head of the Skin Cancer Clinical Trials Center at Tübingen University Hospital in Germany. I'm here directly from ASCO 2025 to discuss with you a couple of works that have been presented here and I think are important for you to know about and discuss. We are already in June, but last month was Melanoma and Skin Cancer Awareness Month. I think it's interesting that one of the posters and one of the works that was selected to be discussed here was associated with strategies and interventions to prevent melanoma and other skin cancers — namely, works and interventions that have been done in kids and young adults in order to prevent ultraviolet exposure. This is something that you don't see often. It's talked about frequently, but these kinds of interventions are not very common. It's very interesting to see that this has been selected to be discussed here. Well, that was part of the prevention, and now we go to early-stage melanoma. As you can imagine, and as you probably know, the majority of the patients that are diagnosed with melanoma are actually diagnosed at an early stage. This means stage I and stage II. Being the majority of the population that is diagnosed with melanoma, it's also the population for which we don't have any approved therapy, especially until stage IIA. What can we do for these patients? There have been a couple of works presented here at ASCO using artificial intelligence to look at slides from patients and from primary tumors of patients diagnosed with early-stage melanoma. Actually, these have been pretty promising for predicting the risk for recurrence of these early-stage patients. In this transcript to accompany the video, we've linked the posters and you can get more information if you want to look into more detail at the data that have been presented. Another work that I would like to call your attention to, for which I definitely have some bias because it's the poster that I presented here, is a gene expression profile also using the primary tumor of patients diagnosed with early-stage melanoma — so stage I and stage II. The majority of the patients had stage IA disease. We looked into the primary tumors and tried to identify the patients that are at higher risk of developing a recurrence without having the information of the sentinel lymph node biopsy. Looking into those who have high risk is one of the ways to look into this population, but also looking into those who have low risk and can safely forgo other evaluations or other interventions such as further follow-up, skin checks, ultrasounds, blood tests, and so on. Then moving into the adjuvant setting, where we already have some therapy that is reimbursed. For stage II, we have immunotherapy. For stage III, we have immunotherapy and targeted therapy for the patients with BRAF mutation. Some of the data that has been presented here are looking into different ways of not only clinical data, but also gene expression profile, next-generation sequencing, and other assays such as circulating tumor DNA, and combining all this information to try to understand who are the patients that will have a recurrence, and if we can see it from the very beginning in those patients who received adjuvant therapy. There were a couple of posters looking into this, showing that in principle, and based on these data, we might not have only one biomarker that can tell us which patients are those who, despite therapy, will recur, or which patients who, under therapy, will have a benefit. Interestingly enough, we also have other trials being presented on Tuesday, and we'll have another session looking into detail at trial data on targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting — the COLUMBUS-AD study— and also a negative trial, the Bristol Myers Squibb trial RELATIVITY-098, which looked into programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) vs PD-1 plus lymphocyte activation gene 3 in patients in stage III. I think this is a very important trial, and it's important that these negative trials are also presented and are discussed so that we can understand which patients really don't benefit and what we can use from these trials to move the investigation forward. Another interesting poster that was presented here is looking into patients receiving adjuvant therapy with immunotherapy or targeted therapy if they have a BRAF mutation. Why is this poster interesting? I would say that there are some conflicting data on what type of therapy you should use in the adjuvant setting if the patients have a BRAF mutation. There are some retrospective data showing that targeted therapy upfront might be better. The poster presented here shows that immunotherapy actually seems to do better, although the majority of the patients were indeed treated with immunotherapy, not targeted therapy. I think real-world data and retrospective data are more important every day because I don't expect to have any trial in the future looking into adjuvant targeted therapy or immunotherapy for patients with stage III melanoma. Besides the BRAF mutation, we will definitely need other biomarkers that will help to guide our decisions for patients who have BRAF -mutated stage III melanoma. Moving into the advanced setting, the most important questions that we want to get answered are not what we should use in first-line therapy because this is, I would say, pretty clear for the majority of patients. We have data from the SECOMBIT trial. We have data from the DREAMseq trial saying that patients will probably benefit more from immunotherapy upfront, even when they have a BRAF mutation. Very particular patients will be candidates for having targeted therapy upfront, as the majority of them will receive immunotherapy. This is exactly what is going to be presented on Tuesday from the DREAMseq study. The data will show that after 5 years, there is almost twice as high overall survival rate in patients that started with immunotherapy and three times better progression-free survival for patients that started with immunotherapy as compared to targeted therapy alone. There are some nuances from this trial because not all the patients that started with immunotherapy or targeted therapy did the crossover; many had brain metastases, which was one of the exclusion criteria for the crossover. Still, it shows that for the majority of the patients, you should start, if possible, with immunotherapy in the first line. It will be interesting to understand what to do for patients for whom we don't have a benefit using PD-1 therapy. There come the second-line therapies and more, I would say, experimental data on other strategies that include cell therapy and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy. There have been some data presented in a poster, showing that patients who received TIL therapy have a good long-term outcome 5 years after this therapy. This might be a therapy that could possibly be given to a specific subgroup of patients in a very selected population. Also interesting would be to look into the same strategy without using the lympho depletion that is normally associated with this type of therapy and the interleukin-2 that is also given because this is, first, one of the limitations to select the patients that will get this therapy, and second, these two therapies are responsible for the majority of the toxicity that we see with this therapy. These are really interesting data to see how we can bring this therapy to our patients, but also how we can do it with reducing toxicity. Finally, one of our other treatments that has been discussed here and will also probably come in our future discussions are treatment-directed therapies — so local therapies such as injection therapies and viral therapies. These have been coming on the scene again, with new data from a different type of viral therapy but also with a combination of PD-1 therapy, which I think is quite interesting because they are looking into patients that really didn't benefit from PD-1 therapy. For the future, these would be my two or three populations where I think we need more data and we should definitely invest more in future trials. First, for early-stage trials, and again, looking into trials that are biomarker-selected. I don't think we can go on doing adjuvant trials in all the populations of patients with stage II and stage III. Second, for patients who did not benefit from PD-1 therapy in the advanced setting, but also those who received PD-1 in the adjuvant setting and did not benefit from that. And third, for patients with brain metastasis, which is obviously a difficult-to-treat population for which we don't have many options. Finally, there were some posters also analyzing treatment for patients with acral melanoma and mucosal melanoma, which again are populations that normally are excluded. It's nice to see that some companies are still investing in that. Also, there are some retrospective data showing that, despite the fact that patients do not benefit as much as those with normal cutaneous melanoma, there is still plenty of space to investigate new treatment avenues for this population that normally is excluded from clinical trials. This was my summary from what we know so far from ASCO 2025. I'll get back to you with a second take on this interesting meeting when we have the late-breaking abstracts presented in the rapid oral communications, and also in the oral communications, which I think might also come in handy when you want to decide what to do with your patients in the clinics next week. I hope you enjoyed the meeting, and I'm looking forward to seeing you again soon. Thank you.
Associated Press
2 hours ago
- Associated Press
GeoVax Highlights Critical Role of Multi-Antigen COVID-19 Vaccines as Nimbus Variant Underscores Persistent and Evolving Public Health Threat
With COVID-19 continuing to mutate and over 40 million immunocompromised Americans still at risk, GeoVax's GEO-CM04S1 vaccine offers potential broader, more durable protection through a unique multi-antigen approach ATLANTA, GA - July 3, 2025 ( NEWMEDIAWIRE ) - GeoVax Labs, Inc. (Nasdaq: GOVX), a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing multi-antigen vaccines and immunotherapies, today emphasized the urgent need for innovation in COVID-19 vaccination as the NB.1.8.1 variant - commonly known as 'Nimbus' - spreads rapidly across the globe. Nimbus, a highly transmissible Omicron subvariant classified by the World Health Organization as a 'Variant Under Monitoring,' is now dominant in multiple U.S. states and surging across Europe and Asia. Though not more severe, its rapid spread and potential for immune escape reflect an increasingly clear reality: COVID-19 is not going away, and it will continue to evolve. 'The emergence of the Nimbus variant is a stark reminder that we need 'smarter' vaccines, not just newer ones,' said David Dodd, Chairman and CEO of GeoVax. 'Our GEO-CM04S1 vaccine was designed for this purpose and is built to potentially provide broader and longer-lasting protection, especially for the immunocompromised patients most at risk.' GEO-CM04S1: Multi-Antigen Protection for the Immunocompromised Unlike mRNA vaccines that rely solely on the Spike protein, GEO-CM04S1 delivers both Spike (S) and Nucleocapsid (N) antigens, stimulating an immune response that includes not only an antibody response, but also robust T-cell activity. This is believed to be critical for cross-variant protection and extended durability, particularly in individuals with weakened immune systems. GEO-CM04S1 is currently being evaluated in two Phase 2 clinical trials, focused on populations at greatest risk from COVID-19 complications, including blood cancer patients scheduled to receive stem cell transplant therapy. In one of the ongoing Phase 2 trials, the mRNA control arm was discontinued due to poor immunogenicity with the remainder of the trial only including GEO-CM04S1 which surpassed the immunogenicity target, reinforcing the limitations of monovalent vaccines and the important value of a multi-antigen vaccine approach in such high-risk patient populations. 'There are more than 40 million immunocompromised individuals in the U.S. alone,' said Dodd. 'They are underserved by the current, FDA-approved vaccine options that deliver only an antibody response and require a better solution with both breadth and longevity of protection.' Public Vaccine Policy and Regulatory Changes Support Platform Diversification Recent guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) calls for diversified vaccine platforms and risk-based regulatory pathways. Additionally, the CDC's narrowed 2025–2026 booster recommendations - now focused on adults 65+ and immunocompromised individuals - closely mirror GeoVax's clinical strategy and target population. GEO-CM04S1 has been proposed under BARDA's Rapid Response Partnership Vehicle (RRPV) for surge manufacturing support and integration into long-term public health preparedness efforts. The proposal, 'Innovation in Clinical Manufacturing of MVA-Vectored COVID-19 Vaccines', was selected by the RRPV, pending funding availability. 'As public health moves toward more targeted, durable, and inclusive vaccination strategies, GEO-CM04S1 is positioned to deliver where first generation COVID-19 vaccines fall short,' Dodd added. In addition to targeting today's variants, GEO-CM04S1 is structurally designed to adapt to future mutations and serve as a platform for multi-pathogen preparedness. As part of GeoVax's broader MVA-based portfolio, the platform underpins vaccine candidates for Mpox, smallpox, and hemorrhagic fever viruses, offering scale and flexibility across infectious disease threats. About GeoVax GeoVax Labs, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing novel vaccines against infectious diseases and therapies for solid tumor cancers. The Company's lead clinical program is GEO-CM04S1, a next-generation COVID-19 vaccine currently in three Phase 2 clinical trials, being evaluated as (1) a primary vaccine for immunocompromised patients such as those suffering from hematologic cancers and other patient populations for whom the current authorized COVID-19 vaccines are insufficient, (2) a booster vaccine in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and (3) a more robust, durable COVID-19 booster among healthy patients who previously received the mRNA vaccines. In oncology the lead clinical program is evaluating a novel oncolytic solid tumor gene-directed therapy, Gedeptin(R), having recently completed a multicenter Phase 1/2 clinical trial for advanced head and neck cancers. GeoVax is also developing a vaccine targeting Mpox and smallpox and, based on recent regulatory guidance, anticipates progressing directly to a Phase 3 clinical evaluation, omitting Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials. GeoVax has a strong IP portfolio in support of its technologies and product candidates, holding worldwide rights for its technologies and products. For more information about the current status of our clinical trials and other updates, visit our website: Forward-Looking Statements This release contains forward-looking statements regarding GeoVax's business plans. The words 'believe,' 'look forward to,' 'may,' 'estimate,' 'continue,' 'anticipate,' 'intend,' 'should,' 'plan,' 'could,' 'target,' 'potential,' 'is likely,' 'will,' 'expect' and similar expressions, as they relate to us, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy and financial needs. Actual results may differ materially from those included in these statements due to a variety of factors, including whether: GeoVax is able to obtain acceptable results from ongoing or future clinical trials of its investigational products, GeoVax's immuno-oncology products and preventative vaccines can provoke the desired responses, and those products or vaccines can be used effectively, GeoVax's viral vector technology adequately amplifies immune responses to cancer antigens, GeoVax can develop and manufacture its immuno-oncology products and preventative vaccines with the desired characteristics in a timely manner, GeoVax's immuno-oncology products and preventative vaccines will be safe for human use, GeoVax's vaccines will effectively prevent targeted infections in humans, GeoVax's immuno-oncology products and preventative vaccines will receive regulatory approvals necessary to be licensed and marketed, GeoVax raises required capital to complete development, there is development of competitive products that may be more effective or easier to use than GeoVax's products, GeoVax will be able to enter into favorable manufacturing and distribution agreements, and other factors, over which GeoVax has no control. Further information on our risk factors is contained in our periodic reports on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K that we have filed and will file with the SEC. Any forward-looking statement made by us herein speaks only as of the date on which it is made. Factors or events that could cause our actual results to differ may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all of them. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise, except as may be required by law. Company Contact: [email protected] 678-384-7220 Investor Relations Contact: [email protected] 212-698-8696 Media Contact: Jessica Starman [email protected]
