Intelligent Design Proteome

How did microproteins appear from nowhere?

Spread the love


The researchers were surprised to find that the vastly younger microproteins could interact with the much older generation…

However, the ability to bind does suggest the proteins might influence each other’s functioning. Initial cellular experiments conducted at the Max Delbrück Center in collaboration with Professors Michael Gotthardt and Thomas Willnow confirm this assumption. This leads Ruiz-Orera to suspect that the microproteins “could influence cellular processes that are millions of years older than they are, because some old proteins were present in the very earliest life forms.”

Unlike the known, old proteins that are encoded in our genome, most microproteins emerged more or less “out of nowhere—in other words, out of DNA regions that weren’t previously tasked with producing proteins,” says Ruiz-Orera. Microproteins therefore didn’t take the “conventional” and much easier route of being copied and derived from existing versions. And because these small proteins only emerged during human evolution, they are missing from the cells of most other animals, such as mice, fish and birds. These animals, however, have been found to possess their own collection of young, small proteins. – Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, February 17, 2023

So… old proteins were present in the very earliest life forms (and yet, presumably, were complex enough to be identified as proteins?) And “ most microproteins emerged more or less ‘out of nowhere—in other words, out of DNA regions that weren’t previously tasked with producing proteins,’…”?

Like we said before, guys, just keep talking. Face the mike and keep talking…

The paper is open access.

4 Replies to “How did microproteins appear from nowhere?

  1. 1
    EDTA says:

    See also this story from yesterday:

    Good quote from article: “Scientist first identified telomeres about 80 years ago, and because of their monotonous sequence, the established dogma in the field held that telomeres could not encode for any proteins, let alone ones with potent biological function.”

  2. 2
    EDTA says:

    Another article on miniproteins, long neglected just due to their size:

    “Few small proteins came to light until recently because of a criterion for identifying genes set about 20 years ago. When scientists analyze an organism’s genome, they often scan for open reading frames (ORFs), which are DNA sequences demarcated by signals that tell the cell’s ribosomes, its protein making assembly lines, where to start and stop. In part to avoid a data deluge, past researchers typically excluded any ORF that would yield a protein smaller than 100 amino acids in eukaryotes or 50 amino acids in bacteria.”

  3. 3
    martin_r says:


    thanks for these links …

    This is very interesting …

    Another Darwinian dogma challenged.

    Dogma definition:

    a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

    These days, so many Darwinian dogmas challenged …

    I have to ask again, why are these people so trustworthy? They seem to be always wrong …

  4. 4
    Fasteddious says:

    Martin @ 3: the answer to your question is simple:
    Some people’s world view is materialism (or something similar) that does not recognize (or allow for) non-material causation in nature. Thus, regardless of how unlikely or debunked the Darwinian mechanism(s), that is all they have, so they have to stick with it, hoping the “science of the gaps” (an empty promissory note) will produce a miracle explanation that fits their world view. In the meantime, they will hold fast to Darwin and try to find loopholes and new processes to rescue the theory and support their world view.

Leave a Reply