Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

10-Centimeter Single-Celled Organisms Photographed 6 Miles Underwater

Posted by Soulskill on from the beware-the-leviathan dept.

New submitter roat35 tips news that researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography have used Dropcam — a relatively small, glass-walled device containing an HD camera — to make videos of lifeforms that exist in the Mariana Trench, more than six miles below the surface of the Pacific Ocean. One of the more interesting organisms at those depths is the Xenophyophore, a creature which, despite being single-celled, can grow to be over 10 centimeters wide. "Scientists say xenophyophores are the largest individual cells in existence. Recent studies indicate that by trapping particles from the water, xenophyophores can concentrate high levels of lead, uranium and mercury and are thus likely highly resistant to large doses of heavy metals. They also are well suited to a life of darkness, low temperature and high pressure in the deep sea."

34 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Heavy metals? by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can't be the only one thinking that an organism that is simple and can absorb heavy metals sounds almost too good to be true. Sounds like something that *could* be easy (in relative terms) to genetically modify for cleaning up toxic areas.

    Yes, I know, what could possibly go wrong...

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    1. Re:Heavy metals? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can't be the only one thinking that an organism that is simple and can absorb heavy metals sounds almost too good to be true. Sounds like something that *could* be easy (in relative terms) to genetically modify for cleaning up toxic areas.

      My neighbour's teenager absorbs great quantities of heavy metal every day (to the dismay of the entire neighborhood), doesn't seem to possess an IQ much higher than a single cell organism, lives in a toxic area he calls his "bedroom", and I can guarantee you no amount of genetic engineering is likely to convince him to clean it...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Heavy metals? by FishTankX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How would we go about genetically modifying it to not require 6 miles of water ontop of it?

      Generally deep sea stuff tends to explode once we bring it up due to pressure differential.

    3. Re:Heavy metals? by nomel · · Score: 2

      Removal and disposal of the now, toxic, organisms is the problem...

      They do this with the common water hyacinth. It's great for cleaning up heavy metals and many chemicals, but then you have many thousands of lbs of heavy, wet, plants to remove and do something with before they eventually die, decompose, and release everything back into the water.

    4. Re:Heavy metals? by robotkid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't be the only one thinking that an organism that is simple and can absorb heavy metals sounds almost too good to be true. Sounds like something that *could* be easy (in relative terms) to genetically modify for cleaning up toxic areas.

      Yes, I know, what could possibly go wrong...

      There are actually lots of microbes that metabolize and break down toxic wastes. Typically they are found simply by digging into a pile of hazardous waste and seeing what is growing there. The problem is that these organisms don't have to be particularly fast or efficient to defend their niche, they just need to survive where other's can't, so in their natural state they will not make a significant difference on the timescales convenient to us (i.e. a 1,000 year cleanup). So we need to at least understand enough to genetically engineer a yugo into a porche, and that isn't exactly easy.

      The second catch here is that deep sea life also typically has extremely slow metabolisms to begin with compared to terrestrial organisms. You can't spend energy faster than you take it in, and that's very slow indeed on the ocean floor. Fish down there are adapted to months inbetween feedings and can live for many decades, I can only imagine how slowly these 10 cm blobs eat and reproduce.

    5. Re:Heavy metals? by robmv · · Score: 4, Funny

      Easy, lets dump the contaminated material on the sea and call it food for Xenophyophores

    6. Re:Heavy metals? by bennomatic · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, you missed the best part: its waste product is 50% pure gold, 50% unicorn rainbow.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    7. Re:Heavy metals? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The explodyness is just to simple issues of partial pressures of gas. Just an extreme case of the bends. All you need to do is drag the thing up very slowly - trap it in a cage, put cage on rope, wheel it up over the course of weeks. Still might not survive - it's biochemistry may have evolved to function properly only at very high pressures - but at least it won't explode.

    8. Re:Heavy metals? by funkboy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe Monsanto could ask some its folks to adapt hyacinth to make some kind of container like a gourd or coconut? Object would be to have the plant store its gathered heavy metals in there, then harvest the stuff maybe wearing a Bio-Suit?

      Maybe we could just have Monsanto executives eat the heavy metals directly & save the rest of the world a lot of trouble...

    9. Re:Heavy metals? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

      >> How would we go about genetically modifying it to not require 6 miles of water ontop of it?

      We could mate it with a Giraffe. Those don't have to be underwater to live.

    10. Re:Heavy metals? by Lehk228 · · Score: 2

      starting with lead and copper

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    11. Re:Heavy metals? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Can you recall the exact moment you morphed into a caricature from an 80s comedy movie, or did it happen gradually?

      Can you remember the exact moment you forgot what a "joke" was?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:Heavy metals? by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The pressure difference isn't such an issue, the pressure differential for a single celled organism should equalize fairly well - it likely won't explode/rupture.

      The temperatures will be an issue. Many chemical reactions may fail.

      Also, certain reactions may actually require the high pressure.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  2. Largest single cells by DanTheStone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What about ostrich eggs?

    1. Re:Largest single cells by pecosdave · · Score: 2

      Came here to say this, not sure if an egg properly qualifies as an organism.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    2. Re:Largest single cells by rish87 · · Score: 3, Informative

      An egg is not one giant cell. The actual cell, the ovum, is as tiny as your own (roughly speaking). What you see of the egg is the yolk and albumin which are there to feed the embryo as it goes.

    3. Re:Largest single cells by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Came here to say this, not sure if an egg properly qualifies as an organism.

      Ostrich egg+sperm immediately after fertilization.
      (Still doesn't count, because the organisms typical life cycle does not have it staying as a single cell.)

    4. Re:Largest single cells by ideonexus · · Score: 2

      An ostrich egg is 13-15 centimeters and is considered a cell; however, I think the scientists here are referring to this species being the largest single-celled organism. The ostrich egg isn't an organism and, IMO, doesn't qualify as life since it doesn't consume energy, reproduce, etc, but simply provides and environment for the multicelluar life to grow within it. It is definitely a single-cell, however, and so the article is technically inaccurate in its verbiage.

      --
      i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
    5. Re:Largest single cells by dissy · · Score: 2

      What about ostrich eggs?

      The single-cell "egg" (zygote? that doesn't sound like the right term...) inside that egg is still microscopic and can't be seen with the unaided eye. No where near 1 mm, let alone 1 or 10 cm.

      The rest of the stuff making up the egg (shell, yolk-food, and other fluids), is more than one cell.

    6. Re:Largest single cells by assantisz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Technically, the yolk is part of the "egg cell". The white and everything else within (besides the yolk) and including the shell is not. The only thing that is special about the yolk is that it does not partake in cell division if the egg is fertilized. There are no other cells within an egg. The white and the shell are not made from cells. All that said, I doubt, though, that the yolk of an ostrich egg is bigger than 20cm.

    7. Re:Largest single cells by cashman73 · · Score: 2

      An ostrich egg does classify as a cell, be it in the haploid (unfertilized) or diploid (fertilized) state. If fertilized, it is also a developing organism. So yes, it qualifies. Not sure if an ostrich egg is 10 cm or not, but I suspect it's pretty close,...

    8. Re:Largest single cells by Eskarel · · Score: 2

      It also doesn't count because the ostrich egg, like any other bird egg, contains, but is not, the egg which turns into an embryo. The vast majority of that egg is a food dump for the chick.

  3. Can we call them Dwarf Bandersnatchi? by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

    Please?

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  4. Mixing metric and imperial by jeorgen · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's good to see Slashdot use the metric system, in this case centimeters, to describe the size of the animal, but it gets a bit confusing when it is combined with giving the depth it is found at in miles.

  5. So, get to the point, how does it taste? by syntheticmemory · · Score: 3, Funny

    Could just be the next new item for celebrity chefs and sushi restaurants.

  6. For some reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It doesn't surprise me all that much that the fattest single-celled organism on the planet lives in the deepest, darkest place on Earth and is a fan of heavy metal.

    1. Re:For some reason... by cashman73 · · Score: 3, Funny

      OMG! We finally found CowboyNeal's mom! :-)

  7. have they found George W Bush by Barsteward · · Score: 2

    down there???

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  8. those scientists had better be careful... by wierd_w · · Score: 2

    These are giant amoebas! I think HP Lovecraft warned about giant bags of protoplasm from deep beneath the sea like these.

    Yes, by all means, bring those infant shoggoth up here for study... preferably in heavily populated areas!

    Genetically engineer them? Sure! What could possibly go wrong?!

    (Note, this is meant to be funny.)

    1. Re:those scientists had better be careful... by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      Wrong? I don't know, but some cultures believe that Sea Urchin tastes great; and the difference is minimal. Burger King,("have it your way"), you've got to love the irony.

  9. Now now... by skids · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's not get into that whole "who's xenophyophore is longer" thing, guys.

    --
    Someone had to do it.
  10. DropCam is SO COOL! by wisebabo · · Score: 2

    I mean it's like a reverse space probe (goes down instead of up) but it makes a "soft" landing and then "liftoff" to return to orbit (I mean the recovery ship). Because (I think) it's not tethered it's completely autonomous which makes it like a Mars probe in the sense that all landing decisions must be done without human intervention (because in the case of the Mars probe, the 10 min. delay makes real time control impossible).

    It's really too bad that there are no (?) feasible ways of communicating with it short of a fiber-optic cable. At a minimum 6 miles run length, I suppose this would greatly add to the complexity and cost of the mission. But maybe I'm wrong about this, what "high" bandwidth wireless solutions are there for transmitting underwater? I've seen SCUBA divers communicating with full face masks, do they use some sort of hydro-sonic transceiver? Would this work over a distance of miles? Unlike military applications, there's no need for stealth so maybe there are some overlooked solutions.

  11. Beware of large one-celled organisms. by koelpien · · Score: 3, Funny

    These can be really dangerous if brought up to the surface. Because their deep habitat has such oppressive pressure, at sea level, they will have excess energy burn, since they are out of their native high-pressure environment. They could even become airborne, seek out humans for our body heat, and take control of their cortical systems. We will slowly go mad, unless Spock saves us.

  12. pre-Cambrian sizes by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ediacaran-era (pre-Cambrian) life-forms may be single-celled, but many scientists call them "multi-cellular" without question due their size. Since there are no known living relatives of Ediacarans, it's hard to say. Fossils don't preserve enough details. The possibility of them being single-celled is still fairly strong.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.