NASA discovers unique new life form

Except if the lakes aren't contaminated with arsenic...

Your statement confuses me and makes you look very bad.

Your statement confuses me and makes you look very bad.

Okay, so you say we can use this arsenic-eating bacteria to clean out lakes. See, they eat arsenic. for us to use them to clean out lakes, lakes have to have arsenic in it. No arsenic in the lakes? Waste of time, and since these things eat arsenic what's to say they dont excrete arsenic-based wastes? So yeah.

Okay, so you say we can use this arsenic-eating bacteria to clean out lakes. See, they eat arsenic. for us to use them to clean out lakes, lakes have to have arsenic in it. No arsenic in the lakes? Waste of time, and since these things eat arsenic what's to say they dont excrete arsenic-based wastes? So yeah.

[COLOR="Magenta"]I'm angry because the scientist talking about this is from ASU.

Otherwise, yay, now we can clear [B]our contaminated water supplies [/B]with said bacteria.

+ What's to say they DO excrete arsenic-based waste.
[/COLOR]

Totally bringing this up in science today. Pretty sure we aren't doing life science or whatever but who cares.

I'm kinda sad, in biology we just finished anything that would relate to this and in chemistry we won't be on the chemistry of life for another 2-3months. =/

+ What's to say they DO excrete arsenic-based waste.
[/COLOR]

My point still stands. If the lakes do not have arsenic in them, THEN THE BACTERIA SERVE NO PURPOSE. Yes, I get it, you said contaminated; as did i.

and if you can tell me of a creature that does nothing but consume without expelling wastes, i'll retract that part of my statement.

[COLOR="Magenta"]You're still missing my point. I said contaminated WATER SOURCES. As in, oh hay look there's a pond/river/stream/BODY OF WATER with arsenic running through it because of that factory farther up the plant, why don't we use that new bacteria we discovered that eats arsenic to clean up the water YEAH.



And I'm not stating whether or not it excretes waste. I'm stating that MAYBE its waste is Oxygen, which is part of what ARSENIC IS MADE OF /sciencegasp.
So I would appreciate if you would stop critisizing my posts kthx. I'm just being the optamist, not, OH MY GAWD YOU GUYS UR SO DUM ITS CAUSE WE USE THIS BACTERIA 4 HELPIN DA PLANTZ K???[/COLOR]

You're still missing my point. I said contaminated WATER SOURCES. As in, oh hay look there's a pond/river/stream/BODY OF WATER with arsenic running through it because of that factory farther up the plant, why don't we use that new bacteria we discovered that eats arsenic to clean up the water YEAH.

Refer to bold, then refer to my posts.

>New life form discovered
>Lives differently than ''normal''
>Scientists and crap are surprised
>I'm not

My point still stands. If the lakes do not have arsenic in them, THEN THE BACTERIA SERVE NO PURPOSE. Yes, I get it, you said contaminated; as did i.

and if you can tell me of a creature that does nothing but consume without expelling wastes, i'll retract that part of my statement.

It's not an arsenic-based life form, so yo. It will prefer phosphorus over arsenic anyday, but can survive with arsenic. That means it won't use arsenic if it got the possibility to get phosphorus.

This is not a huge step for the evolutionary science I'm afraid: This most likely evolved from life not able to cope with arsenic. It's like when animals couldn't handle the UV-rays and got cancer because of it. Now we're more resistant to it, and we don't die if we walk outside.

It's not an arsenic-based life form, so yo. It will prefer phosphorus over arsenic anyday, but can survive with arsenic. That means it won't use arsenic if it got the possibility to get phosphorus.

This is not a huge step for the evolutionary science I'm afraid: This most likely evolved from life not able to cope with arsenic. It's like when animals couldn't handle the UV-rays and got cancer because of it. Now we're more resistant to it, and we don't die if we walk outside.

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

It's not an arsenic-based life form, so yo. It will prefer phosphorus over arsenic anyday, but can survive with arsenic. That means it won't use arsenic if it got the possibility to get phosphorus.

This is not a huge step for the evolutionary science I'm afraid: This most likely evolved from life not able to cope with arsenic. It's like when animals couldn't handle the UV-rays and got cancer because of it. Now we're more resistant to it, and we don't die if we walk outside.

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?

They did not DISCOVER it.

They created it. It's a theoretical test-tube baby. They replaced phosphorus with arsenic. It became arsenic.

They did not DISCOVER it.

They created it. It's a theoretical test-tube baby. They replaced phosphorus with arsenic. It became arsenic.

They did not create it. They cultivated it. And then analyzed it.

Geomicrobiology of GFAJ-1. Mono Lake, located in eastern California is a hypersaline and alkaline water body with high dissolved arsenic concentrations (200 μM on average, 9). We used lake sediments as inocula into an aerobic defined artificial medium at pH 9.8 (10, 11) containing 10 mM glucose, vitamins, trace metals but no added PO4 3- nor any additional complex organic supplements (e.g. yeast extract, peptone) with a regimen of increasing AsO4 3- additions initially spanning the range 100 μM to 5 mM. These enrichments were taken through many decimaldilution transfers greatly reducing any potential carryover of measured traces of As by ICP-MS analysis of extracted nucleic acid and protein/metabolite fractions from +As/-P grown cells (11) (table S1). We then used high-resolution secondary ion mass spectrometry (NanoSIMS) to positively identify As in extracted, gel purified genomic DNA (Fig. 2A). These data showed that DNA from +As/-P cells had elevated As and low P relative to DNA from the -As/+P cells. NanoSIMS analysis of the DNA showed that the As ratio on an atom per atom basis was significantly higher in the +As/-P versus -As/+P grown cells (Fig. 2A, 11¸table S2). Whether expressed as an ion ratio relative to C, (75As-:12C-, Fig. 2A) or 31P-:12C- (11) (table S2) or normalized by relative ion yield and expressed as a concentration in parts per billion (11) (table S2), we saw a similarly consistent trend, with significantly higher As in the +As/-P DNA, and higher P in the -As/+P DNA. In both cases, the non-amended element concentration was equal or less than background levels. These measurements therefore specifically demonstrated that the purified DNA extracted from +As/-P cells contained As. Our NanoSIMS analyses, combined with the evidence for intracellular arsenic by ICP-MS and our radiolabeled 73AsO4 3- experiments demonstrated that intracellular AsO4 3- was incorporated into key biomolecules, specifically DNA.

This discovery has potential. This discovery can lead to new analytical techniques in the field of molecular biology, gains for biotechnology, and has significant impact in the field of evolutionary genetics and biology. I think that bringing sci-fi concepts are going off track... but this discovery could be very important to the development of modern science.

Not a huge shocker to me. Arsenic is just a step down the table from phosphorous. It's just poisonous to more complex life because of the stronger/weaker reactions arsenic has over phosphorous, but if this bacteria isn't dependent on those reactions to survive, then it can function with arsenic. The first bacteria couldn't survive with oxygen present. But then others came around that could. This is pretty much just another nice example of evolution.

Not a huge shocker to me. Arsenic is just a step down the table from phosphorous. It's just poisonous to more complex life because of the stronger/weaker reactions arsenic has over phosphorous, but if this bacteria isn't dependent on those reactions to survive, then it can function with arsenic. The first bacteria couldn't survive with oxygen present. But then others came around that could. This is pretty much just another nice example of evolution.

Evolution. That's that thing that requires DNA. Right?

Evolution. That's that thing that requires DNA. Right?

Oh look, DNA uses phosphate groups. Arsenic is a nonmetal in the same group. It just makes the same molocules. The difference between AsO4 and PO4 is the AsO4 has stronger bonds, making the Os more negative, making it interact more strongly with other molocules. As I said, maybe in this bacteria it doesn't matter that Arsenic has stronger bonds. but there's a reason why it's poisonous to humans.

Oh look, DNA uses phosphate groups. Arsenic is a nonmetal in the same group. It just makes the same molocules. The difference between AsO4 and PO4 is the AsO4 has stronger bonds, making the Os more negative, making it interact more strongly with other molocules. As I said, maybe in this bacteria it doesn't matter that Arsenic has stronger bonds. but there's a reason why it's poisonous to humans.

But it is not an example of evolution because the phosphate groups in question are the ones responsible for the phosphate-sugar covalent bond that forms the backbone to the DNA molecule. Evolution requires a DNA molecule in order to inflict change. It is assumed that DeoxyriboNucleic Acid contains three core elements: (1) deoxyribose sugar, phosphate head, and nucleic base. This assumption has driven the basic molecular biological assumption behind evolution.

But it is not an example of evolution because the phosphate groups in question are the ones responsible for the phosphate-sugar covalent bond that forms the backbone to the DNA molecule. Evolution requires a DNA molecule in order to inflict change. It is assumed that DeoxyriboNucleic Acid contains three core elements: (1) deoxyribose sugar, phosphate head, and nucleic base. This assumption has driven the basic molecular biological assumption behind evolution.

So it's an outlier. there's plenty of other examples in science.

So it's an outlier. there's plenty of other examples in science.

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.

Swerve where did you find the original paper?