Miller–Urey experiment
The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment[2]) was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario. The experiment used methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), in ratio 2:2:1, and water (H2O). Applying an electric arc (the latter simulating lightning) resulted in the production of amino acids.
It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating the origin of life (abiogenesis). It was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Nobel laureate Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year. At the time, it supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that the conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.[3][4][5]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that more amino acids were produced in the original experiment than Miller was able to report with paper chromatography.[6] While evidence suggests that Earth's prebiotic atmosphere might have typically had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment, prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple-to-complex organic compounds, including amino acids, under varying conditions.[7] Moreover, researchers have shown that transient, hydrogen-rich atmospheres – conducive to Miller-Urey synthesis – would have occurred after large asteroid impacts on early Earth.[8][9]
History
Foundations of organic synthesis and the origin of life
Until the 19th century, there was considerable acceptance of the theory of spontaneous generation, the idea that "lower" animals, such as insects or rodents, arose from decaying matter.[10] However, several experiments in the 19th century – particularly Louis Pasteur's swan neck flask experiment in 1859[11] — disproved the theory that life arose from decaying matter. Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species that same year, describing the mechanism of biological evolution.[12] While Darwin never publicly wrote about the first organism in his theory of evolution, in a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker, he speculated:
But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [...]"[13]
At this point, it was known that organic molecules could be formed from inorganic starting materials, as
But the scientific literature of the early 20th century contained speculations on the origin of life.[15][17] In 1903, physicist Svante Arrhenius hypothesized that the first microscopic forms of life, driven by the radiation pressure of stars, could have arrived on Earth from space in the panspermia hypothesis.[18] In the 1920s, Leonard Troland wrote about a primordial enzyme that could have formed by chance in the primitive ocean and catalyzed reactions, and Hermann J. Muller suggested that the formation of a gene with catalytic and autoreplicative properties could have set evolution in motion.[19] Around the same time, Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's "Primordial soup" ideas were emerging, which hypothesized that a chemically-reducing atmosphere on early Earth would have been conducive to organic synthesis in the presence of sunlight or lightning, gradually concentrating the ocean with random organic molecules until life emerged.[20] In this way, frameworks for the origin of life were coming together, but at the mid-20th century, hypotheses lacked direct experimental evidence.
Stanley Miller and Harold Urey
At the time of the Miller–Urey experiment, Harold Urey was a
Stanley Miller arrived at the University of Chicago in 1951 to pursue a PhD under nuclear physicist Edward Teller, another prominent figure in the Manhattan Project.[24] Miller began to work on how different chemical elements were formed in the early universe, but, after a year of minimal progress, Teller was to leave for California to establish Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and further nuclear weapons research.[24] Miller, having seen Urey lecture on his 1952 paper, approached him about the possibility of a prebiotic synthesis experiment. While Urey initially discouraged Miller, he agreed to allow Miller to try for a year.[24] By February 1953, Miller had mailed a manuscript as sole author reporting the results of his experiment to Science.[25] Urey refused to be listed on the manuscript because he believed his status would cause others to underappreciate Miller's role in designing and conducting the experiment and so encouraged Miller to take full credit for the work. Despite this the set-up is still most commonly referred to including both their names.[25][26] After not hearing from Science for a few weeks, a furious Urey wrote to the editorial board demanding an answer, stating, "If Science does not wish to publish this promptly we will send it to the Journal of the American Chemical Society."[25] Miller's manuscript was eventually published in Science in May 1953.[25]
Experiment
In the original 1952 experiment, methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2) were all sealed together in a 2:2:1 ratio (1 part H2) inside a sterile 5-L glass flask connected to a 500-mL flask half-full of water (H2O). The gas chamber was intended to represent Earth's prebiotic atmosphere, while the water simulated an ocean. The water in the smaller flask was boiled such that water vapor entered the gas chamber and mixed with the "atmosphere". A continuous electrical spark was discharged between a pair of electrodes in the larger flask. The spark passed through the mixture of gases and water vapor, simulating lightning. A condenser below the gas chamber allowed aqueous solution to accumulate into a U-shaped trap at the bottom of the apparatus, which was sampled.
After a day, the solution that had collected at the trap was pink, and after a week of continuous operation the solution was deep red and
Materials and samples from the original experiments remained in 2017 under the care of Miller's former student,
Chemistry of experiment
In 1957 Miller published research describing the chemical processes occurring inside his experiment.
For example, here is a set photochemical reactions of species in the Miller-Urey atmosphere that can result in formaldehyde:[31]
- H2O + hv → H + OH[34]
- CH4 + OH → CH3 + HOH[35]
- CH3 + OH → CH3OH[36]
- CH3OH + hv → CH2O (formaldehyde) + H2[37]
A photochemical path to HCN from NH3 and CH4 is:[39]
- NH3 + hv → NH2 + H
- NH2 + CH4 → NH3 + CH3
- NH2 + CH3 → CH5N
- CH5N + hv → HCN + 2H2
Other active intermediate compounds (acetylene, cyanoacetylene, etc.) have been detected in the aqueous solution of Miller–Urey-type experiments,[40] but the immediate HCN and aldehyde production, the production of amino acids accompanying the plateau in HCN and aldehyde concentrations, and slowing of amino acid production rate during HCN and aldehyde depletion provided strong evidence that Strecker amino acid synthesis was occurring in the aqueous solution.[29]
Strecker synthesis describes the reaction of an aldehyde, ammonia, and HCN to a simple amino acid through an aminoacetonitrile intermediate:
- CH2O + HCN + NH3 → NH2-CH2-CN (aminoacetonitrile) + H2O
- NH2-CH2-CN + 2H2O → NH3 + NH2-CH2-COOH (glycine)
Furthermore, water and formaldehyde can react via Butlerov's reaction to produce various sugars like ribose.[41]
The experiments showed that simple organic compounds, including the building blocks of proteins and other macromolecules, can abiotically be formed from gases with the addition of energy.
Related experiments and follow-up work
Contemporary experiments
There were a few similar spark discharge experiments contemporaneous with Miller-Urey. An article in The New York Times (March 8, 1953) titled "Looking Back Two Billion Years" describes the work of Wollman M. MacNevin at Ohio State University, before the Miller Science paper was published in May 1953. MacNevin was passing 100,000V sparks through methane and water vapor and produced "resinous solids" that were "too complex for analysis."[25][42][43] Furthermore, K. A. Wilde submitted a manuscript to Science on December 15, 1952, before Miller submitted his paper to the same journal in February 1953. Wilde's work, published on July 10, 1953, used voltages up to only 600V on a binary mixture of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water in a flow system and did not note any significant reduction products.[44] According to some, the reports of these experiments explain why Urey was rushing Miller's manuscript through Science and threatening to submit to the Journal of the American Chemical Society.[25]
By introducing an experimental framework to test prebiotic chemistry, the Miller–Urey experiment paved the way for future origin of life research.
Modified Miller–Urey experiments
Much work has been done since the 1950s toward understanding how Miller-Urey chemistry behaves in various environmental settings. In 1983, testing different atmospheric compositions, Miller and another researcher repeated experiments with varying proportions of H2, H2O, N2, CO2 or CH4, and sometimes NH3.
In 1999, after Miller suffered a stroke, he donated the contents of his laboratory to Bada.[27] In an old cardboard box, Bada discovered unanalyzed samples from modified experiments that Miller had conducted in the 1950s.[27] In a "volcanic" apparatus, Miller had amended an aspirating nozzle to shoot a jet of steam into the reaction chamber.[7][55] Using high-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, Bada's lab analyzed old samples from a set of experiments Miller conducted with this apparatus and found some higher yields and a more diverse suite of amino acids.[7][55] Bada speculated that injecting the steam into the spark could have split water into H and OH radicals, leading to more hydroxylated amino acids during Strecker synthesis.[7][55] In a separate set of experiments, Miller added hydrogen sulfide (H2S) to the reducing atmosphere, and Bada's analyses of the products suggested order-of-magnitude higher yields, including some amino acids with sulfur moieties.[7][56]
A 2021 work highlighted the importance of the high-energy free electrons present in the experiment. It is these electrons that produce ions and radicals, and represent an aspect of the experiment that needs to be better understood.[57]
After comparing Miller–Urey experiments conducted in borosilicate glassware with those conducted in Teflon apparatuses, a 2021 paper suggests that the glass reaction vessel acts as a mineral catalyst, implicating silicate rocks as important surfaces in prebiotic Miller-Urey reactions.[58]