×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UV-Resistant Micro-Organisms Discovered In the Stratosphere

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the insight-from-above dept.

Biotech 156

junglee_iitk writes "Three new species of bacteria, which are not found on earth and highly resistant to ultraviolet radiation, have been discovered in the upper stratosphere by some Indian scientists. These bacteria, which do not match any species on earth, were found in samples collected through a balloon sent up to the stratosphere in April 2005. The payload consisted of a cryosampler containing 16 evacuated and sterilised stainless steel probes. Throughout the flight, the probes remained immersed in the liquid neon to create a 'cryopump effect.' These cylinders after collecting air samples from different heights ranging from 20 to 41 km were parachuted down and safely retrieved, it said." Here's the Indian Space Research Organisation's press release on the discovery. Adds an anonymous reader: "This paper in International Journal of Astrobiology [PDF] speculates how microorganisms reach the stratosphere."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

156 comments

They're coming ! (4, Funny)

gx5000 (863863) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223871)

Interesting information to be sure...
But how do these micro organisms interact with Human cells ?
Can they survive down here ?
Are the body snatchers on their way ??!!

Surely, we should welcome our new microscopic overlords before they take
over our minds and......**gurgle**

How far away is the stratosphere? (2, Funny)

QuincyDurant (943157) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223933)

...if a guy could get there by balloon? In other words, how tough could it be? Couldn't a guy with a lawn chair catch a disease?

This is a serious question. I am an English major.

Re:How far away is the stratosphere? (4, Informative)

hey! (33014) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224325)

In physical space, not far. A mere 10km.

In parameter space (e.g. factors needed to support life sustainably), pretty far. By comparison, the distinction between the stratosphere and the north pole as an ecological niche is considerably greater than that between the north pole and an equatorial rain forest. Keeping in mind that the distance from the equator and the pole is 10,000km, one might say for poetic purposes (you claim to be an English major after all) that the distance between the surface of the Earth and the stratosphere in their capacities to support life is, at a minimum, over at thousand times greater than their physical separation.

Re:How far away is the stratosphere? (1, Funny)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224545)

A mere 10km.

Must of been really good weed to get them that high.

Re:How far away is the stratosphere? (0, Troll)

QuincyDurant (943157) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224635)

The f**k you mean "claim" to be an English major?

By the way, Senior Hey, I found your writing enlightening, and the way in which you delve, would earn you a twelve, on the SAT, so says me, notwithstanding the introductory fragment, which was indubitably well-meant.

Thanks, Bubba.

Re:How far away is the stratosphere? (1, Funny)

QuincyDurant (943157) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224801)

Flamebait? Flamebait? I gotcher flamebait. The responder's a gentlemen, whom I saluted in verse.

Re:How far away is the stratosphere? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27225955)

Senior? We know one thing for sure: this fella's not a Spanish major.

Re:How far away is the stratosphere? (3, Interesting)

bgray54 (1207256) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224729)

The stratosphere is about 8-15 km above sea level, depending on latitude. To put this in perspective, the top of Mt. Everest is two-ish km shy of the stratosphere.

Penis Snatchers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27223939)

I just hope they're not PENIS snatchers!! Otherwise, penis loves snatch.

Re:Penis Snatchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27224587)

I just hope they're not PENIS snatchers!! Otherwise, penis loves snatch.

Mac users exempted, of course.

Re:They're coming ! (5, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224095)

Can they survive down here?

Most extremophiles are so adapted to their environment that they can survive but have a hard time reproducing in more conventional environments.

It is amazing how life is found almost everywhere we look for it. I bet with the right equipment something primitive might even be found in RIAA offices.

Re:They're coming ! (1)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224139)

It is amazing how life is found almost everywhere we look for it. I bet with the right equipment something primitive might even be found in RIAA offices.

None of it will be intelligent life, but I suppose if you look hard enough you might find something. You'll have to ignore many automatons before you have any chance at a search for anything truly living, however.

Re:They're coming ! (3, Funny)

robinsonne (952701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224759)

I bet with the right equipment something primitive might even be found in RIAA offices.

Here comes another "Are viruses alive or not" debate....

Re:They're coming ! (3, Interesting)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226219)

Most extremophiles are so adapted to their environment that they can survive but have a hard time reproducing in more conventional environments.

I think people tend to think simple organism (like single cell bacteria) can evolve to grow into organisms that are immune to everything, but in reality they have limited DNA to work with until they evolve into a more complex organism which tend to not be able to adapt as easy.

Case in point, bacteria that live in the gas vents in pitch black almost boiling temperatures will not live if you brought it the surface area where it is cooler and has more sunlight.

If by the small chance you brought the bacteria to the surface waters (and by small, lets say 100 millions years using a sampling of more than trillions of trillions of bacteria) and found some that didn't die because of random mutations allowed them to live there, you still can't take that mutated bacteria and take it back to the bottom of the ocean and expect it to survive in such a location without going through the same process of 100 millions of years of evolution.

Sure, a bacteria that doesn't die in UV can live fine up there, but can it live in an environment of different temperatures, chemical compositions, other bacteria, and almost of infinite things that might just make it die.

And if by the off chance it does evolve to where it survives in our environment, who is to say that it won't loose its mutation of the UV resistance. There aren't any UV rays down here, and that is just wasted DNA and natural selection won't kill off any bacteria that mutated and lost its resistance so they'll continue to multiply.

As an aside, this is one of the key reasons I argue that hand sanitizers don't actually make "super bugs". Your insides aren't made of soap and alcohol and you don't drink purell when you are sick. So if a bacteria got immune to a hand sanitizer, then it really doesn't make a difference if it is inside of you.

What you should be concerned about is the over use of anti-biotics since that is what you take when you are already infected in which would be a common environment that doesn't have a major evolutionary hurdle to jump.

What the hell do they eat in the stratosphere? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27224141)

What the hell do they eat in the stratosphere? They must also be able to survive with very little water. Maybe they spend time in lower levels of the atmosphere.

Aliens (2, Funny)

ArcadiaAlex (1498971) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223911)

Was Rimmer right after all?

Lister: Your explanation for anything slightly peculiar is aliens, isn't it? You lose your keys, it's aliens. A picture falls off the wall, it's aliens. That time we used up a whole bog roll in a day, you thought that was aliens as well.
Rimmer: Well we didn't use it all, Lister. Who did?
Lister: Rimmer, ALIENS used our bog roll?
Rimmer: Just cause they're aliens doesn't mean to say they don't have to visit the little boys' room. Only they probably do something weird and alien-esque, like it comes out of the top of their heads or something.
Lister: Well I wouldn't like to be stuck behind one in a cinema.

Re:Aliens (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27224029)

Why do Slashdotters who do this hate so much to give a reference to the movie/book/etc they're referring to? Would it interfere with you and a few others having an obscure-reference circle-jerk if you added less than one line of text describing where it came from?

Re:Aliens (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27224069)

If you don't know where this came from, you need to eat shit and die.

Re:Aliens (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225031)

Lister: Rimmer, ALIENS used our bog roll?

So funny, i read that as "blog roll" - "ALIENS used our blog roll!" hehehehe - too much pop culture for me...

Swell... (2, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223913)

So if they're resistant to UV, which can kill many nasty bugs that plague humanity, I wonder which of our other defenses (antibiotics, autoclaves, etc.) they can survive.

Re:Swell... (5, Insightful)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224053)

They are less likely to be able to survive those things. Evolution is a set of trade-offs. Being resistant to UV light doesn't buy you heat resistance, or antibiotic resistance. Get good at something, get worse at something else. In fact, I would think that these bacteria are cryophiles and wouldn't grow at body temperature.

Re:Swell... (2, Informative)

tgd (2822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224133)

While you may be correct in this case, being good at one thing doesn't mean being bad at another... not having been exposed to something does.

If a bacteria that is resistant to heat or antibiotics was in a high UV environment, there is nothing that requires, or even suggests, that it would lose its previous resistance as part of gaining a UV resistance. I'm not even sure where you'd get that idea?

Now, its likely if this bacteria has evolved at that high altitude or came to be there through some sort of exogenesis that it hasn't been *exposed* to high temperatures or antibiotic chemicals but its lack of resistance to them has nothing to do with its UV resistance.

Re:Swell... (5, Insightful)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224283)

If a bacteria that is resistant to heat or antibiotics was in a high UV environment, there is nothing that requires, or even suggests, that it would lose its previous resistance as part of gaining a UV resistance. I'm not even sure where you'd get that idea?

I didn't get that idea. If course it's possible to be multi-resistant, but this has to come from not doing something else. The biochemical energy put into repairing DNA or heat-stable polymerases could have been put into reproduction, for example.

The idea I am countering in this thread is the idea that this is some sort of super-bacteria that will devour us all. Finding something new thriving in an extreme environment is a lot less scary than finding something new thriving in a environment close to our own body conditions.

Re:Swell... (3, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226439)

The biochemical energy put into repairing DNA or heat-stable polymerases could have been put into reproduction, for example.

So they'll eat us at a slower rate than they would if they didn't have to have multiple resistance :-P

Just kidding, sorta. As I understand it, those plasmids conferring multiple antibiotic resistance are pretty small compared to bacterial chromesomes, are replicated extremely efficiently, and don't really slow the bugs down to where that wouldn't be a problem. When I make ampycillin resistant E.Coli and grow them in amycillin , they don't seem to go much slower than nonresistant bugs on non-selective media. Granted, I'm not timing them or looking very closely, but I really can't tell a difference. And how much would the extra time for reproduction really help you if it's growing in you? Even if it doubles it's reproduction time, we're still talking a matter of minutes or hours, and it would still grow exponentially. It's still going to reproduce faster than any cancerous cells, right?

It seems to me that the bigger hurdle for a pathogen is avoiding or defeating our immune systems, that seems like a much more complex challenge than being resistant to an antibiotic, and clearly there is no tradeoff there.

UV resistance of course isn't much of an issue, as you typically wouldn't be using UV to treat a bacterial infection, but I don't think it's at all safe to assume that being resistant to one thing makes a bug safer in other ways.

Re:Swell... (2, Insightful)

mpe (36238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224681)

If a bacteria that is resistant to heat or antibiotics was in a high UV environment, there is nothing that requires, or even suggests, that it would lose its previous resistance as part of gaining a UV resistance. I'm not even sure where you'd get that idea?

Without either heat or antibiotics being present a mutation which disables these does not negativly impact the survival odds of of the bacterium in question. Indeed if these are somehow metabolically "expensive" then getting rid of them is likely to be a plus.

Re:Swell... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27226035)

"If a bacteria that is resistant to heat or antibiotics was in a high UV environment, there is nothing that requires, or even suggests, that it would lose its previous resistance as part of gaining a UV resistance. I'm not even sure where you'd get that idea?"

Well, I'd get that idea from the E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project. When you stop selecting for a particular ability, genetic drift deteriorates that ability. As an example, in the E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project, only glucose is provided as a food source for the bacteria*. Testing has shown that later generations are much better at processing glucose, but they slowly lose their efficiency in processing other materials.

*Techniccally citrate is also present, but E. coli don't process citrate. The recent evolution of such an ability in one culture is truly astounding.

Re:Swell... (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224205)

Your point is valid, in that these bugs are probably woefully unsuited to ordinary terrestrial life(even before they make it to our defenses, they'll have to deal with competition from organisms that have evolved to do things other than resist UV all the time).

In some cases, though, resistances do come in packages; because the resistance is obtained by some underlying mechanism that has multiple uses. Things like DNA repair/redundancy mechanisms, or mechanisms for pumping undesirable compounds out of the cell, would qualify.

Deinococcus radiodurans, for instance, has extraordinary resistance to ionizing radiation(as its name suggests); but it is hypothesized that that resistance is an incidental effect of the extreme resistance to dessication that the organism also possesses.

Re:Swell... (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224437)

Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that multi-resistance wasn't possible, or that resistance in on field couldn't be exapted.

I was making the more general point that adaptation is about spending resources. Spend it on something like UV resistance, and you're not spending it on reproduction or resource acquisition.

Re:Swell... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27224267)

Evolution is a set of trade-offs.

No, evolution is just what happens. Nothing more, nothing less. It ain't an RPG.

Re:Swell... (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224379)

Great insight sparky. Now, let's tell that to all the evolutionary biologists, because they're wasting their time. "Evolution is just a bunch of stuff that happens" - job done.

Re:Swell... (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224137)

So if they're resistant to UV, which can kill many nasty bugs that plague humanity, I wonder which of our other defenses (antibiotics, autoclaves, etc.) they can survive.

Suppose those bugs are so foreign that they cannot infect us and pass through our bodies without reacting. Maybe those bugs are there in order to breed with other dangerous space bugs that _could_ infect us if they got here. Sort of like an anti-panspermia layer: Sorry boys, this rock's already taken.

they would be outcompeted (2, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225623)

resistance to uv light is expensive. meaning the cell has to expend all of this additional energy just surviving in high uv. remove the uv, and now uv resistance is a handicap. non-uv resistant bacteria can grow faster and reproduce faster because they aren't wasting their energy. uv resistance bacteria, on the surface of the earth, would simply be outcompeted at any food source, and die off

we see that with antibiotic resistance too. currently farmers pump livestock with antibiotics (it makes for bigger chickens, pigs, etc.) such that all of the microorganisms in the area of these farms become resistant to antibiotics

but this doesn't mean antibiotic bacteria will storm the planet. simply because antibiotic resistance is expensive. so if you remove antibiotics from these farms, bacteria from outside the farm, that aren't wasting their energy resisting antibiotics that aren't there anymore, simply grow faster and outcompete the resistant bacteria, and antibiotic resistant bacteria die off

its still dangerous though to use antibiotics in livestock, because antibiotic resistance normally would be something that bacteria would have to spend a lot of time and generations to evolve. but if you are actively breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria at various sites all over your country, you are seeding the environment with bacteria ready at a moments notice to jump in and take over from nonresistant bacteria. so someone using antibiotics is at sudden risk of reinfection by resistant bacteria, rather than only at risk of reinfection over many years time of antibiotic use, spent breeding resistance in their own bodies. which doesn't really happen, since normal antibiotic use implies a few weeks use

so antibiotic use meant for a few weeks time here and there will not breed armies of antibiotic resistant bacteria. but prolonged, extended use of antibiotics, for whatever reason, will seed the environment with resistant bacteria ready to render your antibiotic use completely ineffective

so we need to stop using antibiotics in livestock. but of course this meets resistance from the agriculture lobby, because now you are getting smaller chickens and pigs for the same cost of raising them

Obig... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27223917)

I, for one, welcome our new radiation resistant bacterial overlords!

Symbiotic relationship (1)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225057)

And... if they infiltrate our tissues, they'll develop a symbiotic relationship with us and we'll all be UV resistant ourselves! Sell your Coppertone stock!

Who's surprised it was the Indians who found this? (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223935)

If anyone is expert at outsourcing work, it'd be the Indians.

First callcenters. Next, diseases.

A good ol' boy just can't catch a break.

I hope they washed their hands after (1)

bossanovalithium (1396323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223943)

Seriously .. resistancy to UV means they are tough buggers to kill? Clorox is not gonna phase these tiny invaders...

Re:I hope they washed their hands after (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27223987)

This is completely wrong. They're resistant to UV because the upper atmosphere is constantly bombarded by UV rays. Clorox and UV rays' methods of cell destruction are completely different. In fact, they are probably less resistant to bleach/antibiotics etc than bacteria down here because they've never been exposed to it.

Ozone and UV [Re:I hope they washed their hands] (2, Interesting)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224939)

Seriously .. resistancy to UV means they are tough buggers to kill? Clorox is not gonna phase these tiny invaders...

This is completely wrong. They're resistant to UV because the upper atmosphere is constantly bombarded by UV rays. Clorox and UV rays' methods of cell destruction are completely different. In fact, they are probably less resistant to bleach/antibiotics etc than bacteria down here because they've never been exposed to it.

Not necessarily. Clorox is a highly reactive oxidizer. Much like ozone. Which is produced by ultraviolet light, thus producting the ozone layer, which is in the stratosphere. Where the microorganisms under discussion are found.

So if they live in the stratosphere, they're likely to be somewhat resistant to ozone as well, which means they'd likely be resistant to clorox.

Re:Ozone and UV [Re:I hope they washed their hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27226413)

That has got to be the shittiest logic I have seen in a while. Are you in politics by any chance?

Re:I hope they washed their hands after (2, Insightful)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224093)

No, that's not what it means. It means they are resistant to UV. They are probably relatively easy to kill, because they have evolved for such a specialised environment. I bet they don't grow at very well at room or body temperature for example.

Re:I hope they washed their hands after (1)

fiendo (217830) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224111)

And how long before they can interbreed with the bacteria down here and pass on the UV resistance trait to some that currently plague us? This whole venture doesn't seem terriibly well thought out.

Intelligent design (1, Funny)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223957)

That's no atmosphere! That's a swarm of radiationresistent-bacteria reflecting radiation!

Re:Intelligent design (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27224117)

If this is the case, then couldn't we culture and regrow our ozone-layer?

Atmosphere of Venus? (5, Interesting)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 5 years ago | (#27223985)

Who knows what we'll find in the upper atmosphere of Venus. Maybe we've been looking for life in the wrong places all alon.

What about Enceladus? (3, Interesting)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224297)

Not so long ago we had this theory announced that you would only find life on planets in a region between, in effect, too much solar radiation and so little that water only existed as ice, the idea being that this was a small zone and this made life more unlikely. But now there's evidence that there is long term liquid water under a frozen sea on Enceladus, far beyond that zone, and it looks like gravitational forcing may result in relatively high temperatures on many moons of the giant planets. (incidentally Carolyn Porco [edge.org] is now my favourite female scientist.) So in fact it is even possible that life may be most common on moons, because it looks like there are so many of them.

Without any kind of background in the subject (disclaimer disclaimer) I've begun to wonder if the substrate for the emergence of life on Earth may have been carbon nanotubes or graphene on clays, with various oxidising agents as the energy source. This could apply also to remote moons.

two things: (2, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226305)

1. panspermia, which these uv bacteria represent, means where life started isn't the issue, nor is how life started the issue. that discovering, for example, life on mars simply is no big deal, because life is simply EVERYWHERE. and that, in certain conditions ideal for life, such as you identify, the concern is not so much how life can start independently, but the new conception is that these are simply places that tiny intergalactic travelers can settle down in, colonize, and then give rise to more complex life forms, like us

2. ewoks on endor. enough said

Re:Atmosphere of Venus? (1)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224647)

The news is indeed very interesting.

I might have been living under a rock, but I never thought that the possibility of bacteria living in the atmosphere far from the ground and from most of the organisms, was a real possibility. I did a quick search and I couldn't find how high we assume that the biosphere extends at the moment, but I suspect that these bacteria are living almost isolated up there. If that is true, it opens the possibility for life in the atmosphere of Venus, and in the atmosphere of the gas giants. Some people have suggested that the latter is possible, but since this discovery they are one more step away from fiction and closer to real possibility.

However, it only shows that life can exist and survive in these conditions, floating freely in a gas, which is not exactly a surprise. And since it is possible, because of the abundance (or existance?) of life on our planet and it's tendency to spread to every environment it can adapt to, it's natural that it got there, too. But nothing more -- the condition on Venus are quite different, the chemical composition of the atmosphere is different, and the conditions for life survival don't tell us much about the conditions under life can spring into existence.

One of the articles speculated about extraterrestrial origin, I don't buy that either. It is certainly possible, but the thriving biosphere just beneath it is certainly a better and simpler explanation than a hypothetical extraterrestrial source.

One thing that isn't mention in any of the articles I skimmed through... They say we suspected that UV-resistance was impossible in any life as we know it, and there is no word on if and how different these bacteria were from the life as we know it. My suspicion would be that there would be no difference, and they would just have some interesting mechanism to protect them from UV light for which we just didn't think of. Which would still be cool, but I fear that extraterrestrial sources wouldn't be much likely. Unfortunately, again nothing groundbreaking.

However, it is still one of the most interesting discoveries I read about in the last several years. Both the UV resistance, and the fact that there is life up there were unexpected. And both would certainly have many implications, and I still think that this is huge news.

Re:Atmosphere of Venus? (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225001)

I might have been living under a rock, but I never thought that the possibility of bacteria living in the atmosphere far from the ground and from most of the organisms, was a real possibility. I did a quick search and I couldn't find how high we assume that the biosphere extends at the moment, but I suspect that these bacteria are living almost isolated up there. If that is true, it opens the possibility for life in the atmosphere of Venus, and in the atmosphere of the gas giants. Some people have suggested that the latter is possible....

Also the former:
Astrobiology: the Case for Venus [nasa.gov]

Re:Atmosphere of Venus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27224807)

Maybe we've been looking for life in the wrong places all alon.

Wow that was some freudian slip.

Re:Atmosphere of Venus? (2, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224935)

Both the Americas and the Soviets put a number of probes in or through the Venus atmosphere, including 2 French-Soviet balloons [harvard.edu] .

The Soviet Vega landers actually detected some interesting things in the upper atmosphere of Venus with a light backscatter experment [harvard.edu] :

Lots of submicron particles between 60 and 30 km - roughly 10,000 per cubic cm [harvard.edu] .

In the "F zone" (~ 30 - 45 km) a possible detection of "extremely large" [harvard.edu] particles in the mm size range.

It's not a current driver for space exploration, but based on this I would by no means rule out a possible biosphere in the upper levels of the Venusian atmosphere.

Re:Atmosphere of Venus? (1)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225083)

Looking for life in all the wrong places,

Looking for life in too many places.

Yeah, I'm writing a country song.

Its just the first wave (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27223993)

Of an attack by Xenu. As foretold by L. Ron Hubbard.

And in other news, AIG executives have once again failed to kill themselves. Thus proving once again sludge and micro-organisms can be hard to get rid of. Head Klingon, Senator Grassley is quoted as saying: "They have no honor!"
 

Potentially huge, and this is why: (2, Interesting)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224011)

I trust you all know about the TB bacteria, which in recent years has regained prominence, due mainly to the fact that (multi) resistive strains are being encountered in patients worldwide with ever increasing incidence. But, we also know that TB is not so easy to transmit and that it's killed very easily by the rays of the sun. It's susceptible to UV and this keeps a lid on TB epidemics.

Now, imagine if somehow TB could be made UV resistant.

Wet dreams of some mad dictator in his efforts to conquer the world? Or destroy humankind altogether? This could be it.

Re:Potentially huge, and this is why: (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224157)

Now, imagine if somehow TB could be made UV resistant.

We'd have to call it something new and ominous. Like anthrax.

Re:Potentially huge, and this is why: (3, Funny)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224751)

Personally, to destroy human kind I would first find some sort of virus that is produced in a plant in fertile Africa. Preferably this virus would grant superhuman strength and ability to a few, but would be highly toxic and deadly to most people. I would then create a giant pharmaceutical corporation to both research the virus, in small cells so no on knew too much, and fund the research of the virus. Any incidental profit is a plus.

In order to test the virus I would have secret facilities around the US as well as facilities in Africa which are staff by poor Africans desperate for jobs. I would then have those facilities have a fake disaster which is actually a releasing of the virus to test it on the populace. After my secret American facility and the city which it lays underneath are destroyed by the US government in order to contain the infection, and my company eventually collapses. I would hire a striking attractive brunette to investigate a parasite that is capable of control humans. This parasite will conveniently pop up in Spain.

I would then conduct research on the parasite, strengthening it, using a facility in Africa that is based over where the original virus came from. I would then blend the virus and parasite to create a super bio-weapon which either consumes the host or allows the host superhuman abilities. The whole plan hinges on the fact that I inject myself with a parasite that allows me to control all the other infected by the engineered parasite. With this, I unleash the bio weapon on earth, destroying most of humanity while leaving the rest of the infect in a state where I can control them.

Re:Potentially huge, and this is why: (3, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224937)

The whole plan hinges on "my terribly naive view of biology".

Re:Potentially huge, and this is why: (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225119)

Are you on the screen play team for the next Resident Evil direct to DVD movie?

Re:Potentially huge, and this is why: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27225151)

Yeah, you'll need something like this
#ifdef THIS_IS_ME_THE_MAD_HIVE_QUEEN
#define BEHAVIOUR (CONTROLLER)
#else
#define BEHAVIOUR (CONTROLLED)
#endif

and then make sure you
#define THIS_IS_ME_THE_MAD_HIVE_QUEEN
only for you, otherwise there will be more hive queens and they'll go against each other. Not cool so you'd better watch for that brunette's defines!
Of course, not that I know about it, I'll just inject some disabler code in everybody's threads.

Re:Potentially huge, and this is why: (1)

Heather D (1279828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27226227)

I trust you all know about the TB bacteria, which in recent years has regained prominence, due mainly to the fact that (multi) resistive strains are being encountered in patients worldwide with ever increasing incidence. It's susceptible to UV and this keeps a lid on TB epidemics.

Now, imagine if somehow TB could be made UV resistant.

Wet dreams of some mad dictator in his efforts to conquer the world? Or destroy humankind altogether? This could be it.

TB was not exposed to modern drugs until humans started using them. That is it never had an evolutionary reason to work out a solution so it didn't waste the energy needed to do that. It is exposed to UV though. Even the low amount at sea level kills it. Odds are, if it could develop a resistance to UV it probably would have by now.

It's ten o'clock, here's stoopid. (2, Insightful)

bytesex (112972) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224025)

Of course I haven't RTFA and I certainly don't mind micro-organisms reaching the stratosphere. But how come they don't fall down - that's what I want to know !

Re:It's ten o'clock, here's stoopid. (4, Funny)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224121)

They are lighter than very small rocks.

Astrobiology paper is not an experimental result. (5, Interesting)

Hozza (1073224) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224035)

I checked the linked paper, from 2005, and while is presents some interesting arguments, it is not a thorough discussion of the subject.

Too many possibilities of Earth origin are rejected with the phrase "it seems unlikely", and there's no mention of the most obvious method by which the micro-organisms get there: random motion (OK, particle velocities in the atmosphere will not be truly random, but you'd still expect a few outliers with very high velocities.)

So, their conclusions may not necessarily be wrong, but they need to do a few more experiments before making a convincing argument that they're right.

(P.S. yes I am a professional Astrophysicist)

Re:Astrobiology paper is not an experimental resul (3, Interesting)

stiggle (649614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225183)

Random motion might be a method if it wasn't for the tropopause - which they mention. What they do not mention is the other more likely cause - the amount of stuff humans throw up into the atmosphere, as all of their data comes from after the start of the Space Age.

Space craft, supersonic aircraft and weather balloons all regularly go into the stratosphere and could carry particles. 10 years of bacterial evolution would be enough to develop some UV resistance (if we work from the bacteria being deposited there in the late 60's and then sampled in 1978).

Loads of strange organisms are out there (2, Interesting)

dwhitaker (1500855) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224067)

This is interesting. but not wholly surprising. Bacteria exist in basically every part of the world, including areas even a "reasonable" person might find incredible. NASA clean rooms [scienceline.org] have turned up a lot of exotic, unique bacteria which defy common sense (like bacteria who live solely on aluminum IIRC). So, UV resistant bacteria in the stratosphere is nifty in that they confirmed it exists, but isn't revolutionary.

UV resistance and mitochondria (3, Informative)

peter303 (12292) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224073)

Mechanisms for resistance radiation damage are extremely old in life. Half of Earth's history there was insufficient free oxygen to produce the productive ozone layer. Yet bacteria evolved mechanisms to colonize the energy rich top inches of the ocean surface and resist UV damage.

Many of these same chemical pathways were co-opted in aerobic cells. Free oxygen is toxic to many cells and parts of cells. Yet they figured out how to incorporate the toxic mitochondria energy engines. Mitochondria help cells generate an order of magnitude more energy than aerobic cells, setting the stage for later mobile animal life which requires lots of energy.

Red Rain of Kerala (2, Interesting)

djtachyon (975314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224115)

I always find it interesting how local events, lore, and legends end up affecting future thoughts and research. I have no doubt that events like the Red Rain in Kerala [wikipedia.org] lead researchers to come up with these ideas and projects.

I'm sure if I had more coffee this morning, I would list a few other examples I have come across in the past.

Seed the solar system/galaxy (1)

worip (1463581) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224173)

1. Cross these UV-resistant bacteria with these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans [wikipedia.org] > radioactive-resistant bacteria.
2.Blast them towards the planets/exo-planets
3.Let life take hold
4. ????
5. Profit!

Re:Seed the solar system/galaxy (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225077)

Cross these UV-resistant bacteria with these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans [wikipedia.org] > radioactive-resistant bacteria

One of the disadvantages of the world moving to a more urban lifestyle is a lack of knowledge about animal breeding. Several generations have been raised to believe buffalo wings are descended from buffalo and chicken, leading to even stranger ideas.

Consider that horses and donkeys are almost infinitely closer related than those two bacteria, yet their offspring, although useful, is not as cool as a unicorn nor can it reproduce.

What A Cool Idea! (2, Interesting)

BigBlueOx (1201587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224263)

Ok, so here's my plot: They, like, scoop immortal UV resistant clone bacteria from the upper reaches of the atmosphere and, get this, it EATS radiation and so if you ...

It has?? When?? Oh.

Ok, so how bout this: So, like, this plane crashes on an island and the survivors run into a giant killer mutant iguana from the Badassic era but Ron Perlman shows up with this HUGE rail gun ...

And they wonder why they're laughed at (1)

Ora*DBA (101576) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224383)

What a bunch of brain-dead idiots. That decision rates up there with the Brazilians importing Africanized bees to improve honey production - anyone in the southern US knows how well *that* worked out. What the h*** do we have the International Space Station for?!!

Comparable to the surface f Mars (4, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224493)

These bacteria were retrieved at "different heights ranging from 20 km to 41 k".

These altitudes bracket the surface pressures on Mars, and the conditions at 41 km are quite comparable to those
on the Martian surface (full UV flux, lower atmospheric pressure).

Given that material is exchanged between the Earth and Mars, I have to wonder if these might not be Martian bacteria.

Re:Comparable to the surface f Mars (3, Funny)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225115)

Given that material is exchanged between the Earth and Mars, I have to wonder if these might not be Martian bacteria.

Great! That's all we need in these tough economic times: more illegal aliens!

no, its stranger than that (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225155)

anything living at that atmosphere level, or on mars, has been living there perhaps for a very long time. for such a long time, you couldn't say whether it was native to mars, or native to the upper atmosphere of earth

for such a long time in fact, that these bacteria might not even be native to this solar system, or even this part of the galaxy

for such a long time in fact, you could even speculate that the initial identification of these critters as being some exotic mutation of life on earth, is in actuality the reverse: life in earth, us, we are an exotic mutation of THEM

you can begin to talk about the idea that these indian scientists have the first inklings of panspermia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia [wikipedia.org]

tha the seeds of life, these critters, are absolutely everywhere in the galaxy

and its not just earth they could have descended upon, many billions of years ago

Panspermia (3, Interesting)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224603)

There is another article [nrc-cnrc.gc.ca] from last year regarding the meteorites found in Antarctica, which were found to be loaded with amino acids. I also remember reading something about actual microbes/bacteria that were found to have entered the atmosphere from space quite recently, but I can't remember the link. It could have been this current story, considering the paper dates from 4 years ago.

I see no reason that this could not be valid. Comets and asteroids have near misses with planets quite regularly and the occasional glancing blow will surely take some of whatever is on the planet out into space. As the paper states, these micro-organisms are viable but don't respond to culturing. Which could mean they were alive but are dormant and don't respond to conditions here on earth.

Being previously undiscovered doesn't really prove anything as the Amazon is full of insects and other life that have yet to be "discovered" by man, but this is not definitively disproving panspermia. IMHO, this is one of the prime reasons for humans to visit Mars, as it is very difficult to get a robot to be able to spot these kinds of organisms, especially if they are not currently alive. The conditions on Mars are not favourable for large organisms, but if there is water ice, then you have the capability of getting H2 and O2 at the least. And as Mars has no magnetic field (to speak of), there would be large amounts of mutating cosmic rays hitting the surface continually for billions of years. It would be odd if nothing came of it.

I've been reading some of Asimovs later scientific essays, and he describes how you can predict with some certainty which planets are likely to have a magnetosphere. Basically, you need a reasonably rapid rotation, and a molten or high temperature metallic core which "sloshes" about as the planet spins. This core acting against the outer layers of the planet causes the magnetic field. The only real reason our planet is special, regarding life, is that we have an exceptionally large moon, too large in fact as conventional wisdom goes, to have been formed by capturing passing debris. We are almost a binary planet system, and that is pretty rare. So the possibility of life forming actually in space (rather than on another planetary body) has to be considered.

If we send men to Mars and they find similar micro-organisms there, then it is possible they came from space rather than evolved natively. Especially if there are no other traces of activity that can be construed as being the result of living organisms.

Interesting stuff, which can never be verified while we sit here exploring from a distance.

Re:Panspermia (1)

conureman (748753) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225013)

The first thing that I thought when I RTFA was that these rascals were probably common, throughout our region of the galaxy, at least. Any testing of my hypothesis awaits funding. Does it threaten the children?

Re:Panspermia (4, Interesting)

Entropy2016 (751922) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225023)

As the paper states, these micro-organisms are viable but don't respond to culturing. Which could mean they were alive but are dormant and don't respond to conditions here on earth.

Whoa, woah there buddy. Did you consider the possibility that maybe they "don't respond to culturing" because bacteria that exclusively exist in an upper atmosphere don't like being stuck to a semi-wet petri dish at 1 atmosphere of pressure? They're totally different environments. Granted, I doubt their culturing technique was honestly as crude as conventional petri dish work, but I was making a general point about it being likely a limitation of "how" they tried to culture it.

When you make the agar or whatever medium you plan to use to cultivate any microscopic critter en masse, you're inevitably going to create a selection pressure (sometimes on purpose, sometimes it's a side effect), depending on what nutrients it supplies. I've glanced at a lengthy catalogue of agars I once saw in a microbiology lab. There's a lot of types, but they need them all for different situations. Again, I have no clue how they tried to culture them, but I'm guessing stratospheric microbiology is a relatively new thing, so I wouldn't expect the culturing techniques to be as good they should be for this purpose.

On top of that, from what I understood, we can only culture a surprisingly small fraction of microorganisms anyway. Also, culturing extremophiles has always been very hard. And I'm pretty sure this one counts as an extremophile.

There are going to be plenty of terrestrial explanations for them being uncultivable which do not lend any support to them having a population outside of Earth's biosphere.

While this is indeed cool... (4, Funny)

BorgCopyeditor (590345) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224619)

...I can't help thinking of the headline like this: "Creatures that Can Breathe Underwater Discovered Underwater."

Sounds like a perfect SyFy Movie Of The Week! (1, Interesting)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 5 years ago | (#27224643)

The new dempgraphic [slashdot.org] will eat this up! Just think of it... we can tie in balloons, fashionable climate change zealotry, a discussion about sun screen... and because it was Indian scientists, they can really stretch the pop-culture connections, and have a sort of Slum Dog Xenobiologist thing where the scrappy kid from the wrong part of town discovers that we can stop the bacteria from creating dancing Bollywood zombies by sprinkling them with Splenda. I'm calling my agent - the screenplay just writes itself.

Speaking of which, has there been a Bollywood zombie movie yet? Sort of a Michael Jackson's Thriller thing, but with more colorfully dressed zombies?

Re:Sounds like a perfect SyFy Movie Of The Week! (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225207)

Here's the opening sequence....

Indus River: Funeral Party is sending a loved one down the river amongst all the other lost loved ones on floating funeral barges, dressed in their finest apparel... suddenly they all stand up on their barges and begin dancing to a groovy pop song with Indian guitar twangs... ;-p

Pan Out to see everyone elated and cheerful to have their loved ones back, until all the zombies begin complaining about how they were not dressed well enough and that they are sure to come back as dung beetles because their sons/daughters have disgraced them so on their funeral day.

Reminds me of a book I read.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27224825)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Andromeda_Strain

That's it!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27224849)

They have finally proof that the Thetan exist! ;-)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/16/scientology_xenu_confirmation/

Hype (1)

Orleron (835910) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225291)

I love the way the media hypes up science stories. For one thing, the article says the organisms are "unmatched on earth". What does that mean? There are no other bacterial species with the same exact DNA? Big deal, if the DNA still can be fit into Earth's phylogenic tree. The article would have been more compelling if they said something to the effect that the new bacteria cannot be classifed as bacteria at all, from a phylogenic Kingdom standpoint, because their DNA do not seem to descend from anything else on the tree.
But no, they gave one of the species the genus Janibacter, and the other two new ones are Bacilis.... both geni that exist already on earth, which means at least from the standpoint of characteristics they've tested so far, these bacteria still show basic metabolic behaviors found on earth, save UV resistance at that level.

A little more up .. (1)

milindss (963310) | more than 5 years ago | (#27225887)

A little more up and they could have collected all the space garbage on their way down ;)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...