Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Frog Foam Photosynthesis

Posted by samzenpus on from the how-green-are-your-frogs dept.

Garrett Fox writes "University of Cincinnati researchers describe a method of getting photosynthesis from a high-surface-area foam containing enzymes that produce sugar using light and CO2 (abstract). Oddly, the foam itself is derived from a species of frog. More interesting is that the technique doesn't use whole cells or apparently even chloroplasts. The researchers claim 'chemical conversion efficiencies approaching 96%,' as well as tolerance for deliberately high-CO2 environments."

7 of 21 comments (clear)

  1. Misleading headline by jfengel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    TFA is so brief that we might as well just post it:

    We present a cell-free artificial photosynthesis platform that couples the requisite enzymes of the Calvin cycle with a nanoscale photophosphorylation system engineered into a foam architecture using the Tngara frog surfactant protein Ranaspumin-2. This unique protein surfactant allowed lipid vesicles and coupled enzyme activity to be concentrated to the microscale Plateau channels of the foam, directing photoderived chemical energy to the singular purpose of carbon fixation and sugar synthesis, with chemical conversion efficiencies approaching 96%.

    If I'm reading that right, the frog connection isn't really part of the photosynthesis cycle. It's there to provide more surface area and channel the various bits of the reaction together, but the reaction itself is well known. It's part of the regular plant-based photosynthesis.

    So it's a nice bit of chemical engineering, but the headline "frog foam photosynthesis" is deeply misleading: the frogs don't photosynthesize, and one of their chemicals is being put to a novel purpose.

    1. Re:Misleading headline by Mathinker · · Score: 5, Informative

      TFA is actually a six-page article behind a paywall, but everyone can get a 13 page PDF with the supplementary information, (most of which is pretty Greek to me as a non-bio geek) behind the "Supporting Info" link.

      If I read the article correctly, this research group had already got 95% efficiency using a different kind of foam, it's just that this frog-protein-foam enables more sugar to be generated before the foam breaks. OTOH, I'm pretty sure I'm not really qualified to even have an opinion.

      And judging from the summary of the article, the researchers are not expecting this to be able to be more efficient than the most efficient plants. So that 95% number is just not comparable to the maybe 10% photosynthetic yield of the best plants from sunlight because it's measuring something different.

    2. Re:Misleading headline by dan828 · · Score: 4, Funny

      OTOH, I'm pretty sure I'm not really qualified to even have an opinion.

      You must be new here.

  2. first by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Funny

    you lick the frog...

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:first by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      .. licking the frog is ok. You see, we use only the finest baby frogs, dew-picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in the finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk chocolate envelope, and lovingly frosted with glucose.

      I guess with this frog-based foam, they've just put the finishing touches on the lightest of sugary whipped fondant frog confection.

  3. Here's a longer article from the University by bruce_the_moose · · Score: 4, Informative

    University of Cincinnati article about frog foam and photsynthesis.

    --
    To reduce crime, make fewer things against the law.
  4. Hrm... by blue+l0g1c · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So frog foam converts light and CO2 into sugar, and yeast converts sugar to alcohol and CO2, it stands to reason that light is alcohol. Now I understand why they call it Light Beer!