Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sylvurphlame t1_jahxpme wrote

Reply to comment by MyPhillyAccent in German scientists show a commercially feasible method for cyanobacteria to extract 17 rare earth elements from low-concentration sources. Currently, most of the world's supply of these elements is mined in China. by lughnasadh

I mean, Cyanobacteria are probably not going to mutate and become pathogenic organisms… but we should probably stay away from the ones that already produce neurotoxins.

But I’m somehow sure those are the exact ones that would be most effective at extracting minerals.

19

madpiano t1_jaiipuz wrote

Are they not toxic because of the stuff they extract from the water?

6

Sylvurphlame t1_jaije1j wrote

I don’t know the exact mechanism. I just know that certain Cyanobacteria species produce neurotoxins. Either defensively or as a metabolic byproduct. Been a while since my last biology course.

3

madpiano t1_jaijk70 wrote

All I know about the stuff is that it is awful in fish tanks and was the bane of my life when I had one.

2

Jayr0d t1_jajlm27 wrote

Yep but not just cyanobacteria, dinoflagellets produce toxins that build up in shellfish and some marine daitoms can do the same.

1

Sylvurphlame t1_jajm1oh wrote

Dinoflagellates are the cause of the Gulf of Mexico Red Tide, if I recall correctly?

1

ProfessorOAC t1_jajmbd3 wrote

Microbiologist here! With some genetic attenuation of the bacteria, we can remove their ability to form these neurotoxins in a similar way we engineer E. coli to produce insulin. Remove the gene and viola! No more neurotoxins.

For example, I spliced genes from foreign bacteria into Y. pestis (literally the Black Plague) in college. There was virtually zero risk/threat working with this bacterium because it was an attenuated Y. pestis (it was genetically engineered to no longer cause the Black Plague).

5

Sylvurphlame t1_jajnr5v wrote

So it’s possible and practical to take normally dangerous bacteria and “pull their fangs?” What are the chances of them mixing with naturally occurring specimens and regaining their toxicity?

1

ProfessorOAC t1_jak2vg3 wrote

For the first question: yes.

The issue is this isn't the same concept as mosquito efforts where genetically modified mosquitos are released and meant to replace the natural populations. So we won't be ridding the world of disease-causing bacteria ever.

This isn't practical for bacteria. There are several limitations that these mosquito effort don't have(one obvious one is bacteria aren't buzzing around us for us to easily detect haha)

For the second question: Bacterial conjugation (genetic transfer between bacteria via direct contact) is definitely a possibility for certain bacteria with these capabilities. Also, it is typically plasmid DNA (so DNA from a tiny "chromosome" versus the main bacterial DNA) so these genes would have to be on this plasmid to be transferred typically, and it is likely not a part of this DNA, but who knows (I haven't looked into this bacterium). However, it isn't like a domino effect or a wave where these genes transfer exponentially. So if this did occur, it would likely remain a significant minority of the bacteria (like 0.0001%) because these would likely be engineered at a massive scale to perform the function. I also doubt where/when this occurs there will be a significant natural population of these bacteria. If there is, they could/would likely be killed before repopulation begins.

I haven't looked into this exact use so I don't know how they are planning to go about everything so my comment might be missing some key information.

Basically, these things are easily accounted for with bacteria (with some exceptions depending on the bacterium).

3