Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T20:04:43.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Three-dimensional complex architectures observed in shock processed amino acid mixtures

Subject: Earth and Environmental Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2022

Surendra V. Singh*
Affiliation:
Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics Division, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India Discipline of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar, India
Jayaram Vishakantaiah
Affiliation:
Solid State and Structural Chemistry Unit, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
Jaya K. Meka
Affiliation:
Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics Division, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India
Mariyappan Muruganantham
Affiliation:
Geosciences Division, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India
Vijay Thiruvenkatam
Affiliation:
Discipline of Biological Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar, India
Vijayan Sivaprahasam
Affiliation:
Planetary Sciences Division, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India
Balabhadrapatruni N. Rajasekhar
Affiliation:
Atomic and Molecular Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
Anil Bhardwaj
Affiliation:
Planetary Sciences Division, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India
Nigel J. Mason*
Affiliation:
School of Physical Sciences, Ingram Building, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Bhalamurugan Sivaraman*
Affiliation:
Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics Division, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India
*
*Corresponding authors. Email: surendra@prl.res.in; Email: N.J.Mason@kent.ac.uk; Email: bhala@prl.res.in
*Corresponding authors. Email: surendra@prl.res.in; Email: N.J.Mason@kent.ac.uk; Email: bhala@prl.res.in
*Corresponding authors. Email: surendra@prl.res.in; Email: N.J.Mason@kent.ac.uk; Email: bhala@prl.res.in

Abstract

Asteroid and cometary impacts have been considered one of the possible routes for exogenous delivery of organics to the early Earth. It is well established that amino acids can be synthesized due to impact-driven shock processesing of simple molecules and that amino acids can survive the extreme conditions of impact events. In the present study, we simulate impact-induced shock conditions utilizing a shock tube that can maintain a reflected shock temperature of about 5,500 K for 2 ms time scale. We have performed shock processing of various combinations of amino acids with subsequent morphological analysis carried out using Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), revealing that the shock processed amino acids demonstrate an extensive range of complex structures. These results provide evidence for the further evolution of amino acids in impact-induced shock environments leading to the formation of complex structures and thus providing a pathway for the origin of life.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Experimental shock parameters for different experiments

Figure 1

Figure 1. SEM micrograph of shocked sample 1 (containing four amino acids) showing various structures with complex morphology.

Figure 2

Figure 2. SEM micrograph of shocked sample 2 (containing eight amino acids) showing (a) long-thread morphology with fine surface texture, (b) twisted-thread morphology, and (c) folded threads.

Figure 3

Figure 3. SEM micrograph of shocked sample 3 (containing 17 amino acids) showing (a) rod-like morphological structure, (b) branching structure, and (c) zigzag structures at various length scales.

Figure 4

Figure 4. SEM micrograph of shocked sample 4 (containing 20 amino acids) showing (a) micro-ribbon structure, (b) tubular structure, and (c) folded sheet.

Supplementary material: File

Singh et al. supplementary material

Singh et al. supplementary material

Download Singh et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.3 MB
Reviewing editor:  Jennifer Beseres Pollack Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Corpus Christi, Texas, United States, 78412
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and has been sent for additional statistical evaluation and met required revisions.

Review 1: Three-dimensional complex architectures observed in shock processed amino acid mixtures

Conflict of interest statement

No conflict.

Comments

Comments to the Author: In this paper, the authors explored reprocessing and survival of aminoacids under extreme conditions of an impact event simulated by quite unique technique of shock tube with a reflected shock temperature of about 5500 K for 2 ms time scale. This paper is extremely interesting for scientific community and it is worth to be published. Except of great scientific value, I regret several language and formal issues in this paper. The body of the paper and the text should be definitely fixed with a native speaker and specialist in the field of prebiotic chemistry. I am not a native speaker, but the terminology used in this paper sounds to me strange: For example, statement that exogenous delivery by an impact event has been considered as one of the possible “methods” (I can imagine a method as a sophisticated, systematic and artificial process made by man, but not by nature). Also, next sentence: “amino acids can be manufactured.” Again, how can be aminoacid manufactured by nature? I can imagine manufacturing of a car in a factory... This is repeated also in the introduction. On the other hand, the paper is well structured and the scientific motivation is clearly presented. I agree that that further reprocessing of prebiotic molecules on the planetary surface must be definitely explored. The major issues are summarized below. The minor language and terminology issues can be fixed by the native speaker and they are not listed specifically.

Major comments:

Abstract: “impacts have been considered as one of the possible methods” replace “methods” by options, possibilities or anything appropriate. I cannot imagine that impact is a method...

“amino acids can be manufactured” replace by “originate” or “can be synthesized”

Introduction:

I recommend to cite classical work of Sagan and Chyba (https://www.nature.com/articles/355125a0), just for justification of the focus on impacts, reprocessing and delivery.

I recommend to add a few lines showing the history of impact shock simulations by shock tubes.

I recommend to compare expected conditions during the meteoroid or asteroid atmospheric entry and impact with the experimental parameters achieved in your set-up. I know that shock tubes are regularly used for this kind of simulations (such as lasers or high velocity guns), but I recommend to compare the conditions and mention also other methods. I recommend to use and cite following references and selected references therein:

a) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027311771830406X

b) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10686-020-09688-3

c) https://lia.scitation.org/doi/10.2351/1.3556591 (provides a good comparison between laser and the real impact)

d) https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Meteor-Impact-on-Solid-Surface-Opik/4f41e32666afb893a1657e122be7664a6f0d04ed

Results and discussion:

“a size of 100s of microns, “use” hundreds” instead.

Conclusion:

What I miss here is a kind of chemical analysis. How was the mixture of aminoacids changed chemically? Can you confirm that the observed structures are not just aggregates and they are made of polymers? Consider it or justify, why you did not perform this analysis and if we can be sure that the observed structures are or are not made of aminoacid polymers.

Presentation

Overall score 3.7 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
3 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.8 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
4 out of 5

Review 2: Three-dimensional complex architectures observed in shock processed amino acid mixtures

Conflict of interest statement

“Reviewer declares none”

Comments

Comments to the Author: Surendra et al. studied the growth of amino acids in impact-induced shock conditions heading towards the synthesis of complex structures. This study helps understand the origin of life problems on Earth. I found that the paper is exciting and worth publishing after including the following minor corrections.

In the introduction part, a discussion from the earlier papers is needed about the synthesis of biologically important species by the impact bombardment and related events.

If the work has four or more authors, then use the abbreviation et al. For example, use Bar-nun et al.; Martins et al., etc.

Please cite more papers in the introduction to justify the motivation of this work.

Sample 1 is considered by referring Miller & Orgel, 1974. Please mention here why they considered it. The same is true for sample 2

Give some justification for considering samples 4 and 5.

Presentation

Overall score 4 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.2 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
3 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
4 out of 5