NASA discovers unique new life form

Moon if you use the first sentence I originally put in as a Google Search, you should get an online copy. If you still have difficulties, then I can host my copy. My student status covers all scientific academic journal subscriptions which is how I obtained the original article.

lol@nerds arguing over this... you can just stop cause your arguments wont contribute to anything in science anyway. We'll let the scientists do their job even though they were like 'omg, this is interesting!' while you guys are like 'pft, we totally knew it existed!'.

I haven't really done research on this so I can't say for certain, but ALL the bacteria organisms I have come across were assumed to have a DNA composition that contains (2) phosphate. Unfortunately my specialty wasn't in bacteria based organisms.

@Kabanaw: Could you explain how As results in forming stronger bonds? Did you read it from the paper or are you deriving this from its placement in the periodic table. Because arsenic is a larger chemical element and may therefore induce steric hindrance when covalently bonded to sugar. Therefore causing massive kinks in the overall structure of the As DNA molecule. In addition, if it is in the same group it should have the same valence electrons as phosphate. Therefore I'm not sure where you are deriving the bonding strength, however I know that you probably have a good explanation and am curious to hear it. Also note that toxicity alone can't be chalked up to stronger/weaker bonds or innate elemental features. This completely ignores Biochemistry which explains how the body intakes chemical compounds and uses them for nutrition. Fundamental to this processing are a series of enzymes that are utilized in order to use chemical ions for human use.

Electronegativity. Essentially, the greater the difference in electronegativity, the more polar the bonds are. Even though Phosphorous have about the same electronegativity, so their bonds are relatively the same polarity. However, arsenate is poisonous to humans for a reason it would not be poisonous to bacteria:

Arsenate poisoning

Arsenate can replace inorganic phosphate in the step of glycolysis that produces 1,3-bisphosphoglycerate, yielding 1-arseno-3-phosphoglycerate instead. This molecule is unstable and quickly hydrolyzes, forming the next intermediate in the pathway, 3-phosphoglycerate. Therefore glycolysis proceeds, but the ATP molecule that would be generated from 1,3-bisphosphoglycerate is lost - arsenate is an uncoupler of glycolysis, explaining its toxicity.[1]

Edit: wait, this bacteria does use ATP, so I'm confused as to why Arsenic is not poisonous to these bacteria. But I do know that it doesn't have any real application for medical science, this is essentially just support for the idea that life does not need earth's exact chemical makeup to exist, which was already present.

lol@nerds arguing over this... you can just stop cause your arguments wont contribute to anything in science anyway. We'll let the scientists do their job even though they were like 'omg, this is interesting!' while you guys are like 'pft, we totally knew it existed!'.

Wow! Thank you for opening my eyes! I will stop discussing scientific matters because it doesn't contribute anything!

While I'm doing that, how about you stop making stupid posts that contribute nothing to a thread?

Did you just attempt to draw an analogy between arsenic and UV light?

What's the problem? Huge quantities with arsenic and huge quantities with UV-rays will kill you. Small doses doesn't.

I still don't see how. Okay, so now we have a type of bacteria that can eat arsenic. so far it's the only kind like it known, and my point still stands that even IF it were to be used to clean a lake it'd serve NO purpose if that lake has no arsenic. There are already DOZENS of other types of bacteria that have either been made by nature or engineered by man to absorb chemicals and such. If a lake has NO arsenic in it it'd be a waste to use this specific bacteria as there are DOZENS of other kinds that can be used.

If you have a multi-tool that can do the job of a screwdriver, bottle opener, and knife, why not use the multi-tool and not something specific? Yeah, weak-ish comparison, but why use something that can eat arsenic if there is no arsenic to be eaten?

My point is that we cannot use the bacteria to clean up a lake: I said that if the bacteria could choose between phosphorus and arsenic, it would pick phosphorus.

What's the problem? Huge quantities with arsenic and huge quantities with UV-rays will kill you. Small doses doesn't.


My point is that we cannot use the bacteria to clean up a lake: I said that if the bacteria could choose between phosphorus and arsenic, it would pick phosphorus.

with the technology that we have today (or possibly in the future), it might be possible to genetically alter this bacterium to make it consume pollutants in water sources.

Edit: wait, this bacteria does use ATP, so I'm confused as to why Arsenic is not poisonous to these bacteria. But I do know that it doesn't have any real application for medical science, this is essentially just support for the idea that life does not need earth's exact chemical makeup to exist, which was already present.

The bacteria could be making nucleotide tri-arsenates (e.g. Adenosine tri-arsenate) and using those for energy.

Just a guess, though.

with the technology that we have today (or possibly in the future), it might be possible to genetically alter this bacterium to make it consume pollutants in water sources.

[COLOR="Magenta"]
^gets it[/COLOR]

with the technology that we have today (or possibly in the future), it might be possible to genetically alter this bacterium to make it consume pollutants in water sources.

Then that same technology could be used on other bacteria.

[COLOR="Magenta"]
^gets it[/COLOR]

Yes, I do get it quite clearly, thank you.

[COLOR="Magenta"]No.
You don't.[/COLOR]

Yes.
I do.
I got a duck and Kanye West to back up my side.

Oxygen, which is part of what ARSENIC IS MADE OF /sciencegasp.

Hate to say this, but your statement confuses me and makes you look very bad.

What's the problem? Huge quantities with arsenic and huge quantities with UV-rays will kill you. Small doses doesn't.

I don't claim to be an expert on this but from what I gather, it's not just adapted to living in arsenic, it's subbing it for phosphorus in DNA.

It would be somewhat like using UV for photosynthesis (which I also don't claim to understand, being limited to high school intro biology) but more so since arsenic is actually a different atom. Different chemically.

I don't claim to be an expert on this but from what I gather, it's not just living in arsenic, it's subbing it for phosphorus in DNA.

That's what I understand. Also, they apparently grow much more slowly and when they are given the opportunity to use phosphorus they do and they grow much quicker then too.