News: Tough Microbe Has The Right Stuff for Mars.
Ye Old One
LiveScience.com
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090718/sc_livescience/toughmicrobehastherightstuffformars
Michael Schirber
Astrobiology Magazine
Biologists have found microbes that live in the hottest, coldest,
driest and most unpleasant places on Earth. Many of these bugs don't
adapt well to new surroundings, but one microbe is remarkable for
withstanding a wide range of conditions. This quality might make this
unique organism suitable for adapting to life on Mars.
This ultimate survivor is called Methanosarcina barkeri. It is found
in freshwater and marine sediments, and other places where oxygen is
scarce. Because it breathes out methane, researchers are interested to
see if it - or some other "methanogen" - could be responsible for the
methane that was detected in the martian atmosphere in 2003.
What makes M. barkeri stand out among its methanogen cousins is that
it is not as picky about where it lives. Recent studies have found
that it can manage long dry spells and wide temperature swings.
"It has all the characteristics to survive on Mars," says Kevin Sowers
of the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute.
Sowers thinks a M. barkeri-like bug might handle everything the red
planet throws at it: strong seasonal water cycles, scarce nutrients,
and day-night temperature differences as high as 100 degrees Celsius.
To support this hypothesis, Sowers and his colleagues plan to put M.
barkeri through the wringer to see how just how adaptive it is. Under
extremes of dryness, temperature and oxidation, they will investigate
the organism's DNA and cell functions, as well as an outer "armor"
that may be the microbe's key survival mechanism.
This research is funded by NASA's Exobiology and Evolutionary Biology
Program.
Survival traits
M. barkeri belongs to the Archaea domain of life, the same as many of
the extremophiles that survive in some of the harshest conditions on
Earth. Not an extremophile, per se, M. barkeri is extreme in its
compatibility.
"A specialist will beat out M. barkeri in the specialist's
environment," Sowers says. "But when the conditions are fluctuating,
the odds are that a survivalist like M. barkeri will have the best
chance."
One of M. barkeri's advantages is that it eats a wide variety of
things. It can digest several compounds, including methanol (wood
alcohol) and acetate (related to vinegar). Or it can get its energy
solely from a mixture of hydrogen and carbon dioxide, both of which
are believed to be present on Mars.
M. barkeri can also build from scratch its own organic molecules (such
as amino acids and vitamins) using phosphate, sulfur and other
minerals that it finds in the soil, as well as nitrogen that it fixes
from the atmosphere.
To add to its self-sufficiency, M. barkeri can move through water by
creating little gas vesicles that work like the ballast in submarines,
making the microbe buoyant.
When water becomes scarce, the microbe can go dormant and wait out the
dry spell. It's not clear, however, how it performs this last trick.
Dried out but not spored up
Many bacteria, like Bacillus subtilis, can survive water deprivation
by transforming into spores that have a unique shape and reduced cell
activity.
"The spore state can exist for years," Sowers says. "The cells can
sense when conditions are right to ramp up again."
But M. barkeri seems to employ an entirely different mechanism. Rather
than changing shape like spore-formers, it builds a kind of outer
shell. This tough, extracellular structure is made from chains of
sugar-like molecules, much like connective tissue in higher organisms
such as humans, Sowers says.
The outer covering may provide protection against the elements. "If
you desiccate M. barkeri, it can survive oxygen exposure and high
temperatures," says Sowers. In previous work, he and his colleagues
found that "dormant" organisms could be revived after being exposed to
the open air and temperatures above 40 degrees Celsius - environments
that would kill the microbes in their normal state.
To better understand the resilience of M. barkeri, Sower's group will
be depriving microbial samples of water for weeks, months, even years,
while also exposing them to extremes of temperature and oxygen.
"We are pushing the envelope to see what the organism's limits are,"
Sowers says. They will use DNA microarrays and 3D tomography to see
how the cells respond and what benefit the outer shell confers.
Timothy Kral from the University of Arkansas believes this research is
"very significant." His group has also studied M. barkeri and other
methanogens as models for life on Mars.
The ability of these organisms to survive dry conditions for a long
time "is very relevant to Mars where water-availability may be
seasonal, as it is in some locations on Earth," Kral says.
--
Bob.
spintronic
> Tough Microbe Has The Right Stuff for Mars
<snippidity>
Tell us something we don't know.
Sapient Fridge
<04e05f8e-7dd2-4f34...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
It would greatly improve this newsgroup if you two stopped stalking each
other. We get the point, when you post Y.O.O. tells you that you are
shunned, when he posts you accuse him of cutting and pasting or being
boring.
We've got the sodding idea. Can we all just take it as read from now
on?
If both of you really can't stop then can you at least come up with a
decent flamewar rather than just posting one line snipes at each other?
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
HighQ
wrote:
> In message
> <04e05f8e-7dd2-4f34-9896-2ef7edb33...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >On Jul 19, 6:53 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> >> Tough Microbe Has The Right Stuff for Mars
>
> ><snippidity>
>
> >Tell us something we don't know.
>
> It would greatly improve this newsgroup if you two stopped stalking each
> other. We get the point, when you post Y.O.O. tells you that you are
> shunned, when he posts you accuse him of cutting and pasting or being
> boring.
>
> We've got the sodding idea. Can we all just take it as read from now
> on?
>
> If both of you really can't stop then can you at least come up with a
> decent flamewar rather than just posting one line snipes at each other?
> --
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
Look: It's not me. To prove it;
Here is what I am willing to do.
I'll wait till tomorrow morning. And let him get everything off his
chest tonight.
I won't reply to another P.O.O-head post, from this point > . <
*If* he replies to *ANY* of mine, starting tomorrow,
**ALL* bets are off**
He will have proven he is a shit stirrer,
And i'll just go back to retaliating in kind as I have been doing.
Desertphile
wrote:
> "We are pushing the envelope to see what the organism's limits are,"
> Sowers says. They will use DNA microarrays and 3D tomography to see
> how the cells respond and what benefit the outer shell confers.
This is barbaric! Someone should notify the Animal Liberation
Front.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 6:53 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> Tough Microbe Has The Right Stuff for Mars
> Tell us something we don't know.
Ah, it would take forever just to list the topics regarding what
you do not know.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<984972aa-db3b-4f49...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
And no-one will care.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <lje7659ccqd40m89m...@4ax.com>):
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:29:23 -0700 (PDT), spintronic
> <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 19, 6:53 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>>> Tough Microbe Has The Right Stuff for Mars
>
>> Tell us something we don't know.
>
> Ah, it would take forever just to list the topics regarding what
> you do not know.
A good starting point would be 'astronomy' and 'telescopes'.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <ohe765p27bpfuoq0i...@4ax.com>):
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:53:36 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "We are pushing the envelope to see what the organism's limits are,"
>> Sowers says. They will use DNA microarrays and 3D tomography to see
>> how the cells respond and what benefit the outer shell confers.
>
> This is barbaric! Someone should notify the Animal Liberation
> Front.
>
Can I get to be the one how injects the ALF and any handy PETA members with
some of those organisms? Please?
spintronic
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:30:05 -0400, Desertphile wrote
> A good starting point would be 'astronomy' and 'telescopes'.
Yes you can start by telling us how a 8" botch from a 9 near old prick
has more resolving power than hubble.
That'll be a B.S story worthy of your BFF himself.
You can then move on to how the statement; "tracked by amateurs on the
*LAST DAY OF RETURN*".
Equates to "tracked *FROM* the moon by amateurs".
Here's a clue;
4 Day return.
(Weird how they only tracked the last day. Weird, Just weird.)
gusCubed
> On Jul 20, 1:49 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:30:05 -0400, Desertphile wrote
> > A good starting point would be 'astronomy' and 'telescopes'.
>
> Yes you can start by telling us how a 8" botch from a 9 near old prick
> has more resolving power than hubble.
8" botch from a 9 near old prick?
>
> That'll be a B.S story worthy of your BFF himself.
>
> You can then move on to how the statement; "tracked by amateurs on the
> *LAST DAY OF RETURN*".
>
> Equates to "tracked *FROM* the moon by amateurs".
>
> Here's a clue;
>
> 4 Day return.
>
> (Weird how they only tracked the last day. Weird, Just weird.)
I'm losing track of your delusions - do you doubt that man landed on
the moon or not? What evidence would convince you that man had indeed
land on the moon?
spintronic
> On Jul 20, 2:01 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 1:49 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:30:05 -0400, Desertphile wrote
> > > A good starting point would be 'astronomy' and 'telescopes'.
>
> > has more resolving power than hubble.
>
Yes, that's what I "nearly said".
> > That'll be a B.S story worthy of your BFF himself.
>
> > You can then move on to how the statement; "tracked by amateurs on the
> > *LAST DAY OF RETURN*".
>
> > Equates to "tracked *FROM* the moon by amateurs".
>
> > Here's a clue;
>
> > 4 Day return.
>
> > (Weird how they only tracked the last day. Weird, Just weird.)
>
> I'm losing track of your delusions - do you doubt that man landed on
> the moon or not?
No.
> What evidence would convince you that man had indeed
> land on the moon?
Man did land on the moon.
He just wasn't tracked by a hand botched 8" "super telescope" the
likes we haven't seen, in the hands of a 9 "Y"ear old prick who
miraculously can resolve a speck of light 7m high against the *GLARE*
of the moon.
All this at a distance that hubble can only resolve a 100m object,
with a digitally enhanced 94.5" *HIGHLY POLISHED* mirror in the vacuum
of space.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<726fe8a9-aa5f-4349...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
> Yes you can start by telling us how a 8" botch from a 9 near old prick
> has more resolving power than hubble.
All I needed was a small dot of light. Magnitude 15... and an 8" 'scope is
capable of detecting that.
You're simply incapable of admitting error, aren't you?
HighQ
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:01:21 -0400, spintronic wrote
> > Yes you can start by telling us how a 8" botch from a 9 near old prick
> > has more resolving power than hubble.
>
> All I needed was
(Violins playin) Do not cry aboooouuuuttttt iitttt!!
Do not cry abouooouuuuuttttt it!!!!!!!
> a small dot of light.
A small "undetectable" smigen of light.
In fact, it was about a couple of photons pissed in a pub.
> Magnitude 15... and an 8" 'scope is capable of detecting that.
Awww, I'm crying now.
> You're simply incapable of admitting error, aren't you?
It's hard, when you're perfect.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<8f227bab-1fb6-47cb...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jul 20, 10:33 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:01:21 -0400, spintronic wrote
>
>
>
>>> Yes you can start by telling us how a 8" botch from a 9 near old prick
>>> has more resolving power than hubble.
>>
>> All I needed was
>
>
> (Violins playin) Do not cry aboooouuuuttttt iitttt!!
>
> Do not cry abouooouuuuuttttt it!!!!!!!
>
>> a small dot of light.
>
> A small "undetectable" smigen of light.
Except that it wasn't. Nor was I the only one who managed. Sky & Telescope
had the write-up 40 years ago.
>
>
> In fact, it was about a couple of photons pissed in a pub.
>
>
>> Magnitude 15... and an 8" 'scope is capable of detecting that.
>
>
> Awww, I'm crying now.
You should be.
>
>
>
>> You're simply incapable of admitting error, aren't you?
>
>
> It's hard, when you're perfect.
>
Do keep it up, dear boy. You're making my case for me.
spintronic
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 05:48:35 -0400, HighQ wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 10:33 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:01:21 -0400, spintronic wrote
>
> >>> Yes you can start by telling us how a 8" botch from a 9 near old prick
> >>> has more resolving power than hubble.
>
> >> All I needed was
>
> > (Violins playin) Do not cry aboooouuuuttttt iitttt!!
>
> > Do not cry abouooouuuuuttttt it!!!!!!!
>
> >> a small dot of light.
>
> > A small "undetectable" smigen of light.
>
> Except that it wasn't. Nor was I the only one who managed. Sky & Telescope
> had the write-up 40 years ago.
>
>
>
> > In fact, it was about a couple of photons pissed in a pub.
>
> >> Magnitude 15... and an 8" 'scope is capable of detecting that.
>
> > Awww, I'm crying now.
>
> You should be.
>
>
>
> >> You're simply incapable of admitting error, aren't you?
>
> > It's hard, when you're perfect.
>
> Do keep it up, dear boy. You're making my case for me.
Can I pack your bag & send you off to shangri la, as well?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<680636f8-de6e-4780...@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
No thanks, I'm happy right here, poking you and watching you respond.