An Animal That Lives Without Oxygen

Julie188 writes "Scientists have found the first multicellular animals that apparently live entirely without oxygen. The creatures reside deep in one of the harshest environments on earth: the Mediterranean Ocean's L'Atalante basin, which contains salt brine so dense that it doesn't mix with the oxygen-containing waters above."

Comments

Strange

[Pojut]

I find it odd that the article mentions absolutely NOTHING about the implications of this discovery as it pertains to life on other planets.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it odd that TFA is only about twice as long as the summary.

If it is under 300 words, it's not a real article and I can admit I read it right?

Re:Strange

[CorporateSuit]

Or how a bucket of these might taste! They live in brine, are from the sea... Imagine these on french fries and potato chips!

Re:Strange

[tiedyejeremy]

Wasn't oxygenic life a relative latecomer anyway?

Re:Strange

[gstoddart]

I find it odd that the article mentions absolutely NOTHING about the implications of this discovery as it pertains to life on other planets.

Maybe because terrestrial biologists aren't always thinking in terms of extra-terrestrial biology? It's just not everyone's field of study.

Of course, the exo-biologists (and geeks here on Slashdot) will make the connection, but I'm hardly surprised TFA didn't. Me, I'm no longer surprised to hear that there are such organisms -- the longer we have known about "extremophiles" the more it makes it fairly obvious that critters adapt to all sorts of condition, and quite likely originated in them. For me, it makes it fairly obvious that in the big-honking galaxy (let alone universe) that at least *some* form of life ha evolved elsewhere.

Now, knowing this doesn't make it any easier to look for life on other planets. It broadens the search parameters, but I don't think it gives us a tool to say "there could be life there". But, who knows, astronomy has grown quite a lot in my lifetime.

Cheers

Re:Strange

[Adustust]

I agree that this article is very lacking on details. I would like to know more about how the hydrogenosomes affect the creature's mobility and whether or not a larger animal could be sustained with these organelles.

Re:Strange

[Chris Burke]

We already knew of anaerobic monocellular life, so hypothetically life could arise on a planet without oxygen. The only thing this changes is that it means we could hypothetically also find multicellular life on such a planet. I don't think existing theory said such life was impossible, meaning it was already a hypothetical possibility, so now it's no longer hypothetical on earth, and somewhat less hypothetical for alien worlds.

Which is still pretty cool. I myself previously assumed that we'd find multicellular life only on planets with oxygen from either geologic sources or as a result of microorganisms producing it. Still I'm hardly surprised that a short article on oceanic biology doesn't cover every tangentially related field of science that I'm interested in. :)

Re:Strange

[srmalloy]

There are other articles with more coverage -- Live Science, BMC Biology (PDF of 20-page article with pictures available), New Scientist, Nature, and others. The provisional PDF available at BMC Biology is the full article as it was accepted, and details the experimental procedure that confirmed that these were completely anaerobic organisms.

Re:Strange

[AndGodSed]

Also, the rule of "Pictures or it didn't happen" should apply... right?

Re:Strange

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Or how a bucket of these might taste! They live in brine, are from the sea... Imagine these on french fries and potato chips!

Why were Futurama, Fry and anchovies the first things that immediately came to my mind when reading this?

Re:Strange

[Enderandrew]

Aerobic life was fairly early in the phylogenic tree. It isn't uncommon to find anerobic life even today, it is uncommon to find multicellular anaerobic life.

Re:Strange

[theguyfromsaturn]

This probably does not answer your questions, but it covers a bit more details than the original post. Also, if you click on the title, you will link to the source article.

http://thedragonstales.blogspot.com/2010/04/anaerobic-metazoans.html

Re:Strange

[publiclurker]

Great, now I can't read this article without doing it in Zoidberg's voice.

Re:Strange

[Jello B.]

Ha ha ha, the phrase "french fries" was at one point replaced with the phrase "freedom fries" and you referenced this in your comment. Your wit astounds me.

Re:Strange

[noidentity]

Of course, the exo-biologists (and geeks here on Slashdot) will make the connection, but I'm hardly surprised TFA didn't. Me, I'm no longer surprised to hear that there are such organisms -- the longer we have known about "extremophiles" the more it makes it fairly obvious that critters adapt to all sorts of condition, and quite likely originated in them.

Yes, I've learned about a life form that can live without sunlight, members of the opposite sex, and surive entirely on pizza and soda pop. There's even a website devoted to this life form, but I forget the name right now.

Re:Strange

[Sulphur]

Global oxygenation killed it.

Re:Strange

[electrons_are_brave]

There is a link to the PDF of the whole article if you click on the word "published" in the mini-article.

There is no Mediterranean Ocean

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no Mediterranean Ocean. There is however a Mediterranean Sea.

Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean

[oldhack]

Oh the Mediterranean Ocean, where the Jumbo Shrimps frolic happily.

Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean

[idji]

A sea is effectively landlocked and hence has no real tides or surfing waves. Of course, things like "Sargasso Sea" don't fit. Oceans are not landlocked - they have 1000's of kilometers of "borders" to other oceans. You could even say "An ocean touches Antarctica, a sea does not". If you like the concept of "Arctic Ocean" then say "An Ocean reaches to a Pole". Or an ocean has an average depth of more than 3000m.

Unsurprising

[thepike]

Given that there are plenty of bacteria that can do this (including those that find oxygen toxic) it's not surprising that multicellular creatures have evolved to take advantage of low oxygen environments. There are probably numerous, people just haven't been looking hard enough. Plus, when you store your samples in places with air, you get serious sampling bias for things that like air.

Re:Unsurprising

[ElectricTurtle]

This has interesting implications for biosphere models during and before the Oxygen Catastrophe of the Siderian period. It also reveals an alternative evolutionary path which with these exceptions was otherwise prevented by those events. It fundamentally changes the possibilities of pre-Siderian life.

Re:Unsurprising

[hallucinogen]

The thing is that multicellular organisms require a lot more energy than unicellular organisms and for that there's the citric acid cycle. However there's no citric acid cycle without oxygen. This is the reason we haven't found any multicellular anoxiphiles (?) so far. I think. BTW there's a horrible mistake on the second sentence of the original article and they say it went thru peer-review. WTF! Hint: google "anoxia tolerance"

Re:Unsurprising

[Lunar_Lamp]

The second sentence is:

"Although a few metazoans can survive temporarily in the absence of oxygen, it is believed that multi-cellular organisms cannot spend their entire life cycle without free oxygen."

I did Google for a bit, and couldn't find anything to disagree with this, except the word 'temporarily'. While I'm not particularly familiar with anoxia tolerance, my quick searching suggests that certain species of turtle can have up to 3months without oxygen in cold water. There may be others out there, but this is the largest number I found. This is clearly a temporary phase in the life cycle of the organism. Are you trying to argue that they are implying that this is more than merely 'temporary' but a major chunk of the life cycle? Personally, were I reviewing the paper, I'd not have had a problem with allowing that phrase to be used (with the caveat that there is no information that I am not privy to currently, and there is no controversy in this area currently).

The naivety of mankind

[assemblerex]

To think that all life needs oxygen or even a sun to exist goes back to our belief that the earth is the center of the universe.In reality we are a blip on the map.

Re:The naivety of mankind

[postglock]

Ultimately, these animals are still dependent on a source of energy such as a sun. These animals are not capable of capturing such energy themselves, but rely on photosynthetic organisms such as plants or algae at the bottom of the food chain. As another poster pointed out, carbon dioxide is necessary for this photosynthesis, not oxygen. This is converted into sugar, which animals subsequently consume. Hydrogenosomes function similarly to mitochondria in converting sugar into ATP (more accessible energy), but differ in that they produce (surprise, surprise) hydrogen as a byproduct.

Re:The naivety of mankind

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, plant life needs oxygen. Plants respire just like most other multicellular organisms. They just also happen to produce oxygen through photosynthesis as a byproduct of their food production.

Re:Been there...done that!

[milgram]

I think this might be more in line with an organism that doesn't use O2, rather than one that does but can exist for periods of time without it.

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

Core Paper

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary discusses an article which is talking about an abstract of the provisional paper available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-8-30.pdf .

Re:Been there...done that!

[ElectricTurtle]

You're ignoring the huge, huge chasm between unicellular and multicellular organisms, one which was not bridged by evolutionary processes for over 3 billion years by most estimates. It was previously thought that multicellular life without an oxygen-based metabolism was impossible, because previous models of microorganism evolution pegged multicellular development to a point after the Oxygen Catastrophe of the Siderian period. This discovery may lead to wholesale revision of models of microorganism evolution over geologic time.

Re:Been there...done that!

[Hognoxious]

The key part is multicellular. As in what your brain isn't.

Re:It is an entrenched thought

[Locke2005]

I'm bi. Does that have any effect on the frequency that you spend the night alone in your mom's basement? If it does, I know some slashdotters that may be willing to give it the old college try...

Re:Mediterranean Mystery

[mindbrane]

Sorry I just read the linked to page. Do Not Go There. Again Sorry. Try the Miracle Planet Episode. So sorry...

Not really accurate

[johno.ie]

Water is 89% oxygen by weight.

Re:It is an entrenched thought

[Locke2005]

Glad you took that well. Yes, that was yet another lame attempt at humor based on the cliche of slashdotter as nerd living in mom's basement. On the one hand, nobody really needs to know your orientation unless they are planning on dating you. On the other hand, one of my pet peeves is people like Anne Heche that claim "I'm a lesbian!" when they are dating women, and "No, really, I'm straight!" when they are dating men, when they should just STFU and admit to themselves they are bi. So in that respect, I commend you. Prior to Prop 8 I used to say that nobody needed to know, but now it seems imperative that everyone voluntarily out themselves to increase acceptance of these minority sexual preferences. (For the record... I'm straight, but don't regard those who are not any differently than I regard those that are left-handed. I just don't want to hear the details of anybody else's sexuality. Even if they are ambidextrous.)

Re:It is an entrenched thought

[Anonymous Coward]

/literal reply to joke
 
You might think this is the case, that being bisexual 'automatically' doubled ones dating pool, but thats really not the case. As a bi male myself, I have found a significant number of heterosexual females and a notable number of homosexual males to be less than open to a bisexual partner, at least in terms of a serious relationship. Most of what I HAVE found has been more interested in open relationships or the possibility of a threesome, or something to that effect... and threesomes really aren't all they're cracked up to be, for the record.
 
As far as the serious relationship bit, I've never really gotten a clear answer why. Being bisexual has its own stigmas; a surprising number of people believe someone who is bisexual is actually homosexual but in denial- but really, if I was denying my interest in other guys, why would I still pursue said interest? Straight girls, in particular, seem to be somewhat averse to a serious relationship with a bi guy. I imagine it has to do with a general lack of trust, and the idea that I'd be twice as likely to cheat given twice as many potential partners, but as I mentioned that really isn't the case.
 
I'd say, all in all, being bisexual gives you better chances of hooking up, but makes finding a meaningful relationship more difficult overall, but your mileage may vary.

Re:What's the big deal

[Yosho]

Technically, zombies unlive without oxygen.

Fantastic!

[grikdog]

Begs the question, is this an evolved form of some other oxygen-using Earth native? Or does it share absolutely NO ancestors with any other form on Earth? The latter is strong evidence for life as we don't know it elsewhere in the cosmos. A pretty strong hint, iow, that life is cheap and ubiquitous.

Re:It is an entrenched thought

[ElectricTurtle]

I grew up in very religious conservative circles with very homophobic parents. I've taken the path of least resistance, dating women and even marrying (to a wonderful woman who accepts everything about my sexuality, luckily). I haven't given myself much of an opportunity to express my homo side, but I don't live in denial. I get off to gay, straight, and transgender pr0n. If I'm attracted to a guy I'll probably comment on him to my wife, though we never seem to agree on which guys are hot (or girls for that matter).

I think that being forthright about these things really separates valuable, tolerant people from the assholes. People who are bigoted, or the sort you talk about that think men are stereotypically unrestrained, sex-crazed pigs who can't be trusted (or that being bi just means you haven't "made up your mind" and are likely to change horses midstream and leave them), need to be culled from any sort of pool of serious relationships anyway. They are essentially insulting and demeaning by their very opinions, as though who you are and what you like automatically makes you untrustworthy, disloyal, and otherwise deficient of character. I don't associate with such people.