Slashdot Mirror


Revived Microbe May Hold Clues For ET Lifeforms

krou writes "Science Daily is reporting that a microbe, Herminiimonas glaciei, buried some 3 km under glacial ice in Greenland, and believed to have been frozen for some 120,000 years, has been brought back to life (abstract). The microbe, some ten to fifty times smaller than E. coli, was brought back over several months by slowly incubating it at gradually increasing temperatures. After 11.5 months, the microbe began to replicate. Scientists believe that it could help us understand how life may exist on other planets. Dr. Jennifer Loveland-Curtze, who headed up the team of scientists from Pennsylvania State University, said: 'These extremely cold environments are the best analogues of possible extraterrestrial habitats. ... [S]tudying these bacteria can provide insights into how cells can survive and even grow under extremely harsh conditions, such as temperatures down to -56C, little oxygen, low nutrients, high pressure and limited space.' She also added that it 'isn't a pathogen and is not harmful to humans, but it can pass through a 0.2 micron filter, which is the filter pore size commonly used in sterilization of fluids in laboratories and hospitals. If there are other ultra-small bacteria that are pathogens, then they could be present in solutions presumed to be sterile. In a clear solution very tiny cells might grow but not create the density sufficient to make the solution cloudy.'"

6 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. This doesn't look good by arizwebfoot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    but it can pass through a 0.2 micron filter... If there are other ultra-small bacteria that are pathogens, then they could be present in solutions presumed to be sterile.

    Okay, I'm sufficiently worried enough to get my tin hat.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
  2. The Plague 2.0 by curtix7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can't wait until "is not harmful to humans" turns into "wasn't supposed to be harmful to humans"

  3. Re:Watch out! by yenne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... assuming of course that the microbes didn't revive themselves in order to prevent the launch in the first place.

  4. Re:Dead? Not so much,,,, by Itninja · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's just the point. It have had some metabolic function and internal chemical reactions. I am pretty sure that's required for all carbon based life, no matter how simple. It's like saying that the Sea Monkeys I had as a kid were dead and 'brought them back to life' at home. They were not dead.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  5. Re:Dead? Not so much,,,, by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's just the point. It have had some metabolic function and internal chemical reactions.

    Is that true though? If the bacteria's temperature is dropped low enough, all metabolic functions would stop (it's hard to say that all chemical reactions would stop, but that's the case for nearly everything, living or not). When the temperature is raised, the reactions would start occurring again and metabolism would start up.

  6. Re:Don't want to be a party pooper by easyTree · · Score: 2, Interesting

    but rather things like our collective genomes losing resistance to things that are supposed to have disappeared from our ecosystems.

    Hopefully that's not the way it works.. I mean, isn't the genome mostly stuff which 'appears' to have no value? Maybe this is the archive of things useful from past ages.

    *touches plastic-covered glue-and-wood-chips*