Slashdot Mirror


For the First Time, Living Cells Have Formed Carbon-Silicon Bonds (sciencealert.com)

From a ScienceDaily alert: Scientists have managed to coax living cells into making carbon-silicon bonds, demonstrating for the first time that nature can incorporate silicon -- one of the most abundant elements on Earth -- into the building blocks of life. While chemists have achieved carbon-silicon bonds before -- they're found in everything from paints and semiconductors to computer and TV screens -- they've so far never been found in nature, and these new cells could help us understand more about the possibility of silicon-based life elsewhere in the Universe. After oxygen, silicon is the second most abundant element in Earth's crust, and yet it has nothing to do with biological life. Why silicon has never be incorporated into any kind of biochemistry on Earth has been a long-standing puzzle for scientists, because, in theory, it would have been just as easy for silicon-based lifeforms to have evolved on our planet as the carbon-based ones we know and love. Not only are carbon and silicon both extremely abundant in Earth's crust - they're also very similar in their chemical make-up.

87 comments

  1. Did we learn nothing from Star Trek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't fuck around with silicon based life. It's bad stuff.

    1. Re: Did we learn nothing from Star Trek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. These experiments will be thrown away and evolve. In a couple of billion years any intelligent life that comes from it will then argue about whether they were created or evolved on earth.

    2. Re:Did we learn nothing from Star Trek? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That carbon-based units must join the Creator?

    3. Re: Did we learn nothing from Star Trek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is an act of throwing out garbage called "creation"?

    4. Re: Did we learn nothing from Star Trek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Jurassic Park they did. Thay pile of shit of a sick dinosaur harbored the creator.

    5. Re: Did we learn nothing from Star Trek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which Star Trek incident are you talking about? The only one I can think of is where a silicon based bacteria attacks the immune system of a crew member and the body can't fight back due to it being silicon, if I remember correctly the whole crew ends up getting sick.

    6. Re: Did we learn nothing from Star Trek? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Isn't the problem that earthly biology is based on a carbon-oxygen chemistry? Because silicon dioxide is an inconvenient solid, silicon biology would more likely feature silicon-hydrogen chemistry, exhaling silane.

    7. Re: Did we learn nothing from Star Trek? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      He's talking about one from before you were born. Before I was born, for that matter.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    8. Re: Did we learn nothing from Star Trek? by flatulus · · Score: 1

      The Devil In The Dark The silicon based life form was the Horta. Its eggs were silicon spheres that the miners on the planet thought were interesting - so they broke most of them. This was before they learned they were eggs, of course.

    9. Re: Did we learn nothing from Star Trek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_in_the_Dark

  2. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... welcome our new silicon-based overlords.

    1. Re:I for one... by fisted · · Score: 3, Funny

      The joke is on you, our overlords are already silicon-based.

  3. Carbon vs Silicon by jmv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd guess that the main reason life is based on carbon rather than silicon is CO2 vs SiO2. It's a lot easier to breath in (plants) or out (animals) a gas (CO2) than a solid (SiO2). CO2 is also highly soluble in water, unlike (AFAIK) SiO2.

    1. Re:Carbon vs Silicon by MikeDataLink · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except early cells didn't breathe at all...

      http://www.windows2universe.or...

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    2. Re:Carbon vs Silicon by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

      Life on Earth evolved likely from the various earliest stages based on organic (carbon-based) chemistry. While silicon is similar to carbon in a lot of ways, it also tends to create much more stable molecules, which are less reactive overall, so it would strike me that carbon would be the more likely base for any kind of proto-organisms.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Carbon vs Silicon by suutar · · Score: 1

      That's interesting, because my first guess was that carbon would create stronger bonds than silicon, because silicon has a lower percentage of unfilled orbitals because of the extra shell. I wonder why silicon based molecules are more stable?

    4. Re:Carbon vs Silicon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they did. The transfer of dissolved gasses into and out of a cell is "breathing".

      Silicon dioxide is not all that soluble. CO2 is very soluble at temperatures on Earth.

      SiO2 can become soluble - but only at MUCH higher temperatures and pressures.

    5. Re:Carbon vs Silicon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sooooo ... the silicon-based critters are all hanging out in the Asthenosphere?

    6. Re:Carbon vs Silicon by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what we were taught - the number one reason that silicon was never part of biology was silicon dioxide.
      Period. End of story.

      It isn't even that hard to figure out.

    7. Re:Carbon vs Silicon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even easier to spell "breathe" properly.

    8. Re: Carbon vs Silicon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to know.
      Is Si also abundant on high temperature planets? Like Venus?

    9. Re:Carbon vs Silicon by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 1

      Silicon based molecules often aren't stable. The unfilled d orbitals allow for very easy hydrolysis (by water or alkali) and nucleophilic attack.

    10. Re: Carbon vs Silicon by treeves · · Score: 1

      SiO2 only becomes significantly soluble at high pH. The behavior of (amorphous) silica in water is complicated. The isoelectric point is at very low pH, but then it forms gels at near neutral pH.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    11. Re:Carbon vs Silicon by suutar · · Score: 1

      times like this I wish I still had my old chemistry texts :) Of course, the fact that times like this crop up once every couple of years is why I don't...

  4. C Si by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "in theory, it would have been just as easy for silicon-based lifeforms to have evolved on our planet as the carbon-based ones we know and love"

    Anyone that took first year science is laughing at you right now. There is no competition between which one would be used in organic cells. That one period is a huge difference.

  5. There is an easy reason for that. by Sique · · Score: 1

    While silicon has four free valences like carbon, its reaction times are several magnitudes lower. Millions of years will pass until two silicon based lifeforms decide to mate, and till they bear children, the central star of their home planetary system burns out.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
    1. Re:There is an easy reason for that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird, yet silicon is used in semiconductors that can work to THz frequencies. What "reaction times" are you referring to?

    2. Re:There is an easy reason for that. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Chemical kind.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    3. Re:There is an easy reason for that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird, yet silicon is used in semiconductors that can work to THz frequencies. What "reaction times" are you referring to?

      Failed chemistry, didn't you?

  6. Who cares about silicon based life... by jocarren · · Score: 2

    The important application for this is CYBORGS!!

  7. C & Si are very similar in their chemical make by brosci · · Score: 1

    "Not only are carbon and silicon both extremely abundant in Earth's crust - they're also very similar in their chemical make-up." -- What? They're completely different elements... their chemical composition is *100%* different.

  8. What about diatoms? by Drakker · · Score: 1

    Plenty of organisms use silicon, diatoms first come to mind, but they use it mostly for protective shells. Silicon is good to make hard stuff, carbon is good for everything else. There's really no puzzle here.

    1. Re:What about diatoms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diamond is the hardest mineral, and it is entirely made of carbon atoms.

    2. Re:What about diatoms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not diatoms. What is called Diatomaceous Earth is a fossilized result. The original cell walls were chemically replaced by SiO2. The cell didn't use it.

    3. Re:What about diatoms? by Drakker · · Score: 1

      They are not fossils, these organisms live today and they make a large part of phytoplakton: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . They make their own shells called frustules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    4. Re:What about diatoms? by Drakker · · Score: 1

      Never said carbon wasn't good at making hard stuff.

    5. Re:What about diatoms? by RockDoctor · · Score: 4, Informative
      Diatoms use silica - silicon dioxide - not silicon. That's a significant difference. The silicon atoms are never (TTBOMK, and I am a geologist, so a bit more familiar with the natural chemistry of silicon than most people) alone or simply solvated. The silicon is present and moves around as SiO4 tetrahedra with varying degrees and species of charge-balancing other anions and cations.

      Sorry, but it's a pet nark. I bet there is someone down-thread who makes some comment about silicone tits, and I'm going to get all mediaeval on him (it'll be a him).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    6. Re:What about diatoms? by VernonNemitz · · Score: 2

      Diatoms aren't the only life-forms that use silica; ordinary grass does it, too.

    7. Re:What about diatoms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are going to make a distinction between elemental silicon and silicon compounds, then living things don't make use of elemental carbon either. It's all carbon compounds in organic reactions.

    8. Re:What about diatoms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As well as horsetails, which occasionally are described as needing silicon dioxide in their soil in order to grow well.

    9. Re:What about diatoms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to post the same thing, but modded you up instead. :)

    10. Re:What about diatoms? by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 1

      Silicon carbide has always been my favorite organic compound.

    11. Re:What about diatoms? by meerling · · Score: 1

      I was going to bring that up as well. Oh well, I'll still put in the bits I copied from wikipedia.

      A unique feature of diatom cells is that they are enclosed within a cell wall made of silica (hydrated silicon dioxide) called a frustule.

      The frustule is composed almost purely of silica, made from silicic acid, and is coated with a layer of organic substance, which was referred to in the early literature on diatoms as pectin, a fiber most commonly found in cell walls of plants. This layer is actually composed of several types of polysaccharides.

    12. Re:What about diatoms? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Diamond is the hardest NATURALLY FORMED mineral...

      You'd be amazed what those material scientists are doing.

    13. Re:What about diatoms? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Diatoms grow their own frustules, and the shapes of those vary greatly between species.

      To again post something from wikipedia because they phrase things so much better than I do:

      When diatoms die and their organic material decomposes, the frustules sink to the bottom of the aquatic environment. This remnant material is diatomite or "Diatomaceous earth", and is used commercially as filters, mineral fillers, mechanical insecticide, in insulation material, anti-caking agents, as a fine abrasive, and other uses.

      By the way, if you didn't catch it earlier, Frustules are "A unique feature of diatom cells is that they are enclosed within a cell wall made of silica (hydrated silicon dioxide)".

    14. Re:What about diatoms? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Well if you want to exclude silica because it's part of a molecule comprised of something in addition to just silicon, then you have to exclude organic molecules as well because they are composed of things other than just carbon. So I guess by your definition, life on earth doesn't use silicon or carbon.

      I'd suggest you rethink your stance there as your reasoning is a bit off.

    15. Re: What about diatoms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and I'm going to get all mediaeval on him (it'll be a him).

      You will evaluate his media for him?

    16. Re:What about diatoms? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      The tendency of silica tetrahedra is strongly to polymerise with themselves and form minerals which have melting temperatures in the high hundreds of centigrade, are insulators, and which don't participate in reactions with more typical "organic" molecules (e.g. biopolymers, water, biological acids and alkalis). In short, their chemistry is very different to and incompatible with interactions with the large majority of "organic" materials. If people got that (not entirely unreasonable) inference from the original article, or that the reactions might lead to "biosilicon" computers, then that should be corrected.

      From the other end of the telescope, carbon dioxide can readily interact with other organic molecules - the whole of the organic produce of the Earth has done that already through the good offices of RUBISCO, and those interactions produce compounds with low melting points and relatively high reactivity - look at any text book in organic chemistry for details. Silicon dioxide OTOH, mostly doesn't interact with organic compounds, or other silicate compounds until you're at temperatures in the high hundreds, and then it mostly interacts with metal oxides for form what is better known as glass.

      Arguably, the closest you get to close similarity between organic chemistry and silicate chemistry is in the zeolite minerals, and while they're a fascinating, useful and complex group, they're still anonymous crystalline white powders, most of which decompose before reaching their melting point.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  9. Silicoids are bastards by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

    If I learnt anything from Master of Orion as a kid, it's that Silicoids are bastards. They have no compassion, and you might as well conquer them and then use them to colonise inhospitable planets.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re: Silicoids are bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, being repulsive did not do them any favors.

    2. Re:Silicoids are bastards by Xyrus · · Score: 2

      You will not conquer us, ugly bags of mostly water.

      -The Silicoids

      --
      ~X~
  10. no link and dubious claim by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    Scientists have managed to coax living cells into making carbon-silicon bonds, demonstrating for the first time that nature can incorporate silicon -- one of the most abundant elements on Earth -- into the building blocks of life

    Silicon has long been known known to be an essential element for animals, and it is widely deposited by plants and animals (e.g., silica). So, there must be plenty of silicon biochemistry.

    Why doesn't biology utilize it more? Probably because for most needs, other compounds work better and producing silicon compounds takes a lot of energy and time.

    1. Re:no link and dubious claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you miss the "formed by complex inorganic polymerization processes" in your link?

    2. Re: no link and dubious claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So?

  11. Let me be the first to say it.... by siamesevodka · · Score: 1

    I welcome our silicone based overlords created out of a lab experiment washed down the sink and raised in the sewer. We deserve such masters!

    1. Re:Let me be the first to say it.... by PPH · · Score: 1

      silicone based overlords

      silicone

      I already have one of those. Pretty kinky too.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Implants by chuckugly · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this technology would be useful in some form to enable us to engineer implantable technology.

    1. Re:Implants by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but before that we engineer lifeforms that can eat up computer chips. Maybe we'll have to put computer chips into the fridge in the future, because they'd rot away otherwise...

    2. Re:Implants by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Do you really want your electrical contacts to chemically interact with your environment? There is a good reason that cheap contacts use relatively inert brass plating, and more expensive contacts use very unreactive gold or platinum.

      Just in case you've never had to deal with the problems, no, you don't want this because the reactions result in changing contact resistance, electrochemical voltage either increasing or counteracting the voltages you're trying to sense. Yes, you can deal with these problems, but life is much simpler without such complications.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    3. Re:Implants by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      I was actually thinking engineered neurons that could be wired into our existing nervous system and interface with electronics for things like enhanced memory and other prosthetics.

    4. Re:Implants by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Interfacing anything electronic with anything biological is going to involve combining conductors (things that let electrons move through them easily) with biological materials which are to a first approximation salty water with organic bits in it. That is a recipe for corrosion, contact resistance, and worst of all, dissolution of the metal cations into the organic salty water. Which opens up a host of subsequent problems which need to be dealt with.

      On a little more reflection, materials like graphene or carbon--fibre would probably be a better starting place for such interfacing than metals, being conductors but not prone to dropping reactive cations into solution when they meet a bit of salty water. Many problems avoided that way.

      Don't get me wrong - this is some interesting chemistry. But if it has any ultimate utility (not a given), then I suspect it's not in the electronics industry.

      Reality check : what are the occupational safety levels for silicon like? "(NIOSH) has set a Recommended exposure limit (REL) of 10 mg/m3 total exposure and 5 mg/m3 respiratory exposure over an 8-hour workday." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon#Occupational_safety_and_health) That's not "run for the hills" levels of danger, but it's hardly stuff you want to be introducing to people's biochemistry without a lot of looking at.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  13. I welcome... by Macdude · · Score: 1

    I welcome our new Horta overlords.

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  14. Re:C & Si are very similar in their chemical m by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

    It's a ridiculous sentence, but it was a teaser to go into a discussion on valence electrons... the editors left the statement in like it was some kind of conclusion, rather than the beginning of the article.

  15. Hand me the trowel, Captain by paiute · · Score: 1

    Damn it, Jim! I'm a doctor - not a bricklayer!

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  16. Re:C & Si are very similar in their chemical m by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Well... they do both have 4 valence electrons in their outermost electron shell...

    But yeah, the similarity stops there.

  17. Then later... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (With trowel in hand and up to his elbows in mortar)

    Jim, I'm beginning to think I can treat anything!

  18. Just think... by sacrilicious · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not only are carbon and silicon both extremely abundant in Earth's crust - they're also very similar in their chemical make-up.

    But for a cosmic flip of the coin, we could all be silicon-based beings, and our women could have carbon implants.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    1. Re:Just think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      talk about rock hard titties, forget silicone implants: diamond implants?

    2. Re:Just think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charcoal titties are really hot.

  19. Don't crush the eggs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...of the Voorta.

  20. horsetail - Equisetum by hunky-d · · Score: 1

    Snakegrass, horsetail (equisetum) has used silica for over a hundred million years. But I'm sure these guys knew that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  21. Except Silicon Chemistry isn't like carbon by FeelGood314 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Si02 isn't soluble in water.
    Silicon doesn't easily form chains. When we do coax it to form long chains it isn't stable.
    If we look into space we actually find clouds of alcohol a very water soluble carbon based molecule. We generally don't see many Silicon base water soluble molecules occurring naturally.
    The polarity of the bond in SiH4 is the opposite of CH4. The bond is also much weaker, weaker than even H-H bond thus very primitive organic processes would have a more difficult time building more complicated structures with Silicon.

    1. Re:Except Silicon Chemistry isn't like carbon by YutakaFrog · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just to add a bit more in-depth analysis and information. I'm not a chemist, but I was trying to find once if the "Crystalline entity" was at all feasible in nature, and I found an absolutely fascinating article from Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican... Basically, the answer is no, silicon would have a very very hard time being the basis for life. For one thing, carbon (which is used for storing energy in carbohydrate chains) oxidizes to CO2 and water, and silicon oxidizes to a solid, which clogs up the system. For two, something about handedness that I didn't really understand. Maybe you'll make more sense of it than I could.

    2. Re:Except Silicon Chemistry isn't like carbon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Handedness is also called chirality... basically the difference between whether chemical "branches" off the main chain twist to the right or the left. The physical differences in how the "branches" twist can make otherwise (mathematically) possible reactions impossible. It's easier if you picture earphones made specifically for the right or left ears. The parts are the same, but they physical arrangement is such that the earphone only fits in the ear with the same "handedness".

  22. Just because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they are similar in chemical makeup doesn't mean squat. A claw hammer is similar to a ball peen hammer but try pulling a nail with the latter.

  23. Another racist, or is it specist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is nice to see a Trump free day on slashdot, more like the good old days.

    Master of Orion 1 did not allow ruling other species. In Master of Orion 2, terraforming tech is not very difficult to get. I liked the Sakkra and subterranean and farming bonuses better. I never did play much of Master of Orion 3, or the new game. Frankly, I liked spying and framing silicoids.

  24. Re:C & Si are very similar in their chemical m by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    Well... they do both have 4 valence electrons in their outermost electron shell...

    But yeah, the similarity stops there.

    When it comes to chemical reactions, that one similarity is by far the most important.

  25. "It is nice to see a Trump free day on slashdot" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until someone ruined it for us.

  26. Ex-wife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My ex-wife already incorporated loads of silicone!

  27. No by meglon · · Score: 1

    Why silicon has never be incorporated into any kind of biochemistry on Earth has been a long-standing puzzle for scientists, because, in theory, it would have been just as easy for silicon-based lifeforms

    ... only for scientists who have never taken an organic chemistry class, and ones who don't understand the difference between an actual theory and pseudo-science bullshit. Then again, those are the dipshits who probably shouldn't be talking about the subject anyway.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  28. Impossible vs Reality by meerling · · Score: 3

    Just to point out a simple thing.

    When I was a kid, they said there's no life without photosynthesis either to make a cells food, or to be another creatures food.
    They said nothing could live in battery acid.
    They said nothing could live in the the vacuum of space.
    They said nothing could live in the high radiation of a nuclear reactor or space.
    They said nothing could live in the sub zero conditions in ice itself.
    They said nothing could live in the boiling waters of a geyser. (They hadn't found the oceanic hydrothermal vents yet.)
    They said blood couldn't be based on copper, it had to be iron.

    You know what? Since then every one of those things have been proven wrong. On Earth we have found life that violates those rules. Everything from Chemosynthesis to Extremophiles and Tardigrades, among some many weird and wonderful examples. Not all of these are newly discovered creatures or microscopic. Take the Horseshoe Crab and it's copper based blood as an example.

    You'd be amazed at what actually exists in nature. Even if you think you've created something unique in the way of life forms, odds are mother nature beat you to it, and you just haven't realized it yet.

    1. Re:Impossible vs Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are "they"? (And yes, citation needed.)

    2. Re:Impossible vs Reality by originalmouse · · Score: 1

      underpaid, overworked public educators, and his other local distributors of folk wisdom.

  29. Little lose on the facts here... by BurningFeetMan · · Score: 1

    "After oxygen, silicon is the second most abundant element in Earth's crust, and yet it has nothing to do with biological life. "

    Silicon has a LOT to do with biological life. Plants slurp the stuff up non-stop.

    https://www.google.com.au/sear...

  30. We've had carbon- silicon hybrids for years by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    Insert boob joke here

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.