Why Do All Known Life Forms Thrive in Oxygen-Rich Environments?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Yoni
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Life Oxygen
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the role of oxygen in the evolution of life forms on Earth, particularly why all known life thrives in oxygen-rich environments. Participants explore the implications of oxygen's reactivity, the potential for complex organisms to evolve in anaerobic conditions, and the historical transition from anaerobic to aerobic life forms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why life thrives in oxygen-rich environments despite oxygen being an active and potentially dangerous substance for cellular processes.
  • Another participant suggests that physicists may not be the best suited to answer this question, indicating a preference for insights from biochemists or molecular biologists.
  • It is noted that oxygen serves as a terminal electron acceptor in the electron transport chain, facilitating biosynthesis and ATP production, with other molecules being less efficient.
  • A participant mentions that some organisms lack the enzymes to manage the by-products of oxygen usage, leading them to be anaerobic and inhabit isolated environments.
  • Discussion includes the idea that life originally began in anaerobic conditions, with a later transition to aerobic life involving cyanobacteria and the evolution of mitochondria, which significantly increased ATP production efficiency.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of oxygen for life evolution, with some emphasizing the historical transition to aerobic respiration while others question the necessity of oxygen for complex life forms. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the potential for life to evolve in oxygen-lacking environments.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the historical context of life's evolution and the biochemical processes involved, but there are limitations in the assumptions made about the necessity of oxygen and the potential for alternative elements to support life.

Yoni
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
This is not exactly physics, but I'm interested in a physicists opinion:
Oxygen is considered a very active substance, very dangerous to many physiological processes of the cell. Even though or maybe as a result of this fact, we know that all life on Earth thrives on reach in oxygen atmospheres. Aerobic surroundings are inhabited by forms of the simplest bacteria, Why is this so?
Can complex organisms evolve in oxygen lacking atmospheres, or is there some rule that prevents this? If so, is there another kind of element that can substitute oxygen in it's role in the evolution of life?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Physicists can not help you in answering your question; I think that Biochemists or Molecular Biologists can do that better.
 
Oxygen is used as a terminal electron acceptor in the electron transport chain to drive biosynthesis and ATP production.

Other molecules work, but don't release as much energy. We have enzymes to break down the dangerous by-products of using oxygen as a terminal electron acceptor (like catalase). Other organisms, namely some types of bacteria, don't have the enzymes necessary to prevent free radicals forming through using oxygen as a TEA, so they're anaerobic and live in very secluded places and use other molecules as a terminal electron acceptor.
 
Orginially, life began in an anaerobic environment. The transition to aerobic life is a very interesting story, one I wish I knew better. It involves cyanobacteria, and the evolutionary story behind mitochondria. The transition to aerobic respiration occurs around 2 Gyr ago, rapidly precipitated out iron from the ocean, and lead to the development of multicellular organisms.

One hypothesis as to why this occurred is that aerobic respiration leads to a much more efficient conversion of glucose to ATP (22 vs. 2, IIRC).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
26
Views
20K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
9K