Slashdot Mirror


Highly-Conductive Shark Jelly Could Inspire New Tech (gizmag.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Researchers from UC Santa Cruz, the University of Washington, and the Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason found shark jelly to have the highest proton conductivity ever seen in a biological material. The jelly's conductivity begins to approach that of leading proton-conducting polymers. Tiny organs in the skin of sharks, skates and rays, called the ampullae of Lorenzini, are key to the ability. Scientists believe that the jelly is what has been able to allow these animals to detect weak electric fields produced by their prey, as the organs, which are visible as pores in the skin, are connected to electrosensory cells via long, jelly-filled canals. Marco Rolandi, a co-author on a paper detailing the findings in Science Advances, sees potential use for the "shark jelly" in the development of new or enhanced materials or even the creation of new sensor technology. "The observation of high proton conductivity in the jelly is very exciting," Rolandi said. "We hope that our findings may contribute to future studies of the electrosensing function of the ampullae of Lorenzini and the organ overall, which is itself rather exceptional."

45 comments

  1. fricken lasers by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    Seems like that might be useful for having sharks with fricken laser beams attached to their heads.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:fricken lasers by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      When I clicked the headline of this story I said please please please let it be lasers. I'm so greatful for the first post to be about that.

    2. Re: fricken lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RIP Sharks.

      We will harvest them for their delicious jelly.

  2. That's what she said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The observation of high proton conductivity in the jelly is very exciting"

  3. Right.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because sharks don't have enough problems by getting turned into shark-fin soup in alarming numbers.

  4. Batteries and fuel cells. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    This discovery might lead to significant improvements in batteries and/or fuel cells.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Batteries and fuel cells. by Rei · · Score: 2

      Or at least improvements in meat-flavoured toast spreads.

      --
      Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
  5. Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Tiny organs in the skin of sharks, skates and rays, called the ampullae of Lorenzini, are key to the ability. Scientists believe that the jelly is what has been able to allow these animals to detect weak electric fields produced by their prey, as the organs, which are visible as pores in the skin, are connected to electrosensory cells via long, jelly-filled canals.

    I believe those things might turn into some kind of eyes after some evolution. Just like snakes thermal sensitivity might become, too.

    1. Re:Hey! by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      the ampullae of Lorenzini

      Hands down the coolest name in all of biology.

      Even better that it's an electric jelly canal that helps track down dinner.

      I am envisioning a Venetian gondola scene, our young protagonist staring out at the horizon, "One day, Immmma gonna use my electrospatial jelly senses to find that evil sea bass and avenge my father!"

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    2. Re:Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone tell the Oatmeal. Need some cool shirts.

  6. Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why would anyone kill endangered sharks for their jelly? That's sickening. And besides, why is shark jelly necessary? There are plenty of other highly conductive substances that already exist. This isn't useful. It doesn't solve any problem. It's a waste of time and money. Can anyone give me a single practical use of this? The answer is surely no. But I'll be modded down to -1 for pointing this out. It's easier to hide the truth than it is to address it. I don't expect a single legitimate response, but I expect ad hominem attacks and to be censored at -1.

    1. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Practical uses? None yet, but the stuff is apparently quite interesting.
      Kill sharks for their jelly? Not at all. If there's a good use for the jelly it'll probably be made by the metric ton in a factory with no sharks involved.

    2. Re:Why does this matter? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      No one said they were going to harvest sharks.

      The challenge is to study the physics and synthesize the material.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you're a troll masquerading as SJW for replies, it's the slashdot version of convergent evolution.

    4. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easier to hide the truth than it is to address it.

      As demonstrated by your own post being more than half repetition or whining unrelated to your point, and wording that is (or effectively is) trolling, so as to further bury any actual discussion.

    5. Re: Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't kill them idiot, you jack them off.

    6. Re:Why does this matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone kill endangered sharks for their jelly? That's sickening.

      This is what happens when you make people into anthrophobes. Can't even have a reasoned discussion about a discovery involving a animal without these people freaking out.

    7. Re:Why does this matter? by tsqr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Posts like yours get modded down because of their hysterical tone and detachment from reality. No one said anything about killing endangered sharks for their jelly. They did, however, say something about the development of new materials. And bio research as well; as the article said, "We hope that our findings may contribute to future studies of the electrosensing function of the ampullae of Lorenzini and the organ overall, which is itself rather exceptional."

  7. Jelly by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    It must be shark jelly, because shark jam don't shake like that.

    https://youtu.be/eR6J4XLXPAI

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Jelly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be shark jelly, because shark jam don't shake like that.

      https://youtu.be/eR6J4XLXPAI

      Jeez, look at all those horny bastards behind her!

    2. Re:Jelly by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      That's swingin', Daddio....

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    3. Re: Jelly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bass to mouth.

  8. Evolution? by dbreeze · · Score: 0

    Anyone got a hypothesis for the natural selection process to create such organs?

    Yea, I went there. Repent or burn in hell. Heathen. Jesus still loves ya...

    --
    When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    1. Re:Evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start with electrosensory cells directly on the surface of the skin. Improvements to the system leads to greater hunting success, Wait a few million generations and see what happens.

    2. Re:Evolution? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Given that muscles and nerves operate by small electric signals it isn't much of a leap to see how an animal could evolve a mechanism to detect an induced current when it's in a magnetic field. Pretty much the same as any of our other senses (vision, sound, touch, taste - all just stimulation of nerves).

      It's well known that sharks can navigate and find prey by detecting magnetic fields. No doubt it took a few hundred million generations of natural selection to fine tune the mechanism, but sharks have been around for a long, long, time.

    3. Re:Evolution? by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      Anyone got a hypothesis for the natural selection process to create such organs?

      Yea, I went there. Repent or burn in hell. Heathen. Jesus still loves ya...

      May as well ask what natural selection process led to eyes, or a liver. Either you believe that random mutations can lead to beneficial changes that are passed to more successful generations or you believe in a mystical sky being. I see what camp you are in.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    4. Re:Evolution? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It is possible to believe in both, even the pope has said that evolution doesn't conflict with the bible.

      http://www.newsweek.com/pope-f...

      Heck, that article even talks about how non controversial it was to Catholics, as it has been the position of the church for a long time.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  9. Holding the baton will be problematic by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Highly-Conductive Shark Jelly

    I'm sure the orchestra will be both inspired and grossed-out.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  10. Resonance by Ann+Coulter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Embed chemoluminescent elements into the jelly and attach full and semitransparent mirrors at both ends to make a resonance chamber. Then you will have a shark laser.

  11. Proton conductivity? by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Protons are part of the nucleus. Did they mean electron conductivity?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Proton conductivity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about Hydrogen Ions here. Protons aren't "part of" the nucleus. The nucleus and a proton are one and the same. That nucleus is what's moving.

      Learn your chemistry, you slashdotters!

    2. Re:Proton conductivity? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      No, proton conductivity. H2 is just two protons and two electrons, in many biological processes it gets split into two H+ "ions" which happens to be: two protons. E.g. photosynthesis.
      IIRC H2 dissolves in water building H+ and H3O- ions. So that jelly has an easy proton source available.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Proton conductivity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a somewhat misleading term. Wikipedia says: A proton conductor is an electrolyte, typically a solid electrolyte, in which H+[1] are the primary charge carriers.

    4. Re:Proton conductivity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, proton conductivity. H2 is just two protons and two electrons, in many biological processes it gets split into two H+ "ions" which happens to be: two protons. E.g. photosynthesis. IIRC H2 dissolves in water building H+ and H3O- ions. So that jelly has an easy proton source available.

      Water itself disassociates all by itself. And pH is a the measure of those hydrogen ions. Hydrogen gas has nothing to do with it.

  12. THIS IS A GARY LARSON CARTOON. by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 2

    The mom sitting at the kitchen table having just spread peanut butter on a piece of bread. She is holding another piece of bread and the knife is full of glop just dipped from a jar that says

    HIGHLY CONDUCTIVE SHARK JELLY

    The kid is sitting across from her. He is staring, aghast. He looks just like all the other kids in Gary Larson kids, wide-eyed and terrified and kind of stupid. It is but another moment in time in the Far Side universe when something normal with a cruel horrifying twist is visited upon its helpless characters.

    No one says anything in the cartoon. The moment is beyond words.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    1. Re:THIS IS A GARY LARSON CARTOON. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shark jelly and Raspberry Pi(e). Mmm.

  13. No shark jelly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many species of sharks (which are some of the oldest species around) are threatened, we really shouldn't be turning them into jelly.

    1. Re:No shark jelly by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Many species of sharks (which are some of the oldest species around) are threatened, we really shouldn't be turning them into jelly.

      Yeah, and we really shouldn't be allowing trolls to post idiotic comments like yours. Nobody claimed that was a plan, so sit your PITA ass down.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    2. Re:No shark jelly by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Just an FYI, all existing species are the oldest species around. All species can trace their history all the way back to single celled organisms.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    3. Re:No shark jelly by ZorglubZ · · Score: 1

      Pain in the ass ass? Well, I can see where you're coming from; the PETA is mainly a PITA...

  14. Great ... another reason to kill sharks ... by fygment · · Score: 1

    Well better than tossing them back in the ocean after you cut off their fins for soup.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  15. Not sure by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Are we really ready for this?

  16. Sharks also immune to most disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sharks are pretty amazing. Did you also know they do not get cancer, and generally don't get sick at all?

    Sharks (and camels weirdly enough) have an extremely efficient immune system. Instead of producing antibodies, which are around 150 kDa in size to fight disease like most other multi-cellular creatures, they produce a much more efficient molecule, a single-domain antibody, essentially the same thing but around 12 to 15 kDa in size. The smaller size provides less variance in the produced molecule to fight the disease which makes it far more specific to eliminating it. If someone were crazy enough to raise and bleed sharks, they'd make highly efficient biologic drug molecules or diagnostic biomarkers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-domain_antibody

  17. Bye bye sharks by Macdude · · Score: 1

    Oh Great! We weren't killing sharks for their fins fast enough that now we have to kill them for their jelly too?

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    1. Re:Bye bye sharks by maharvey · · Score: 1

      Yes just like we harvest them for their skin to make plastic wrap.