Halophile Microbes In Mediterranean Salt Pockets

Gebraucht von Neuwagen writes "This finding adds extremely salty water to the extreme environments where extremophiles can live. The Discovery Basin contains a brine that has the highest concentration of magnesium chloride found thus far in a marine environment; such concentrations are considered anathema to life. The researcher was quoted saying: "This in turn adds to arguments that life could exist outside the Earth""

::Your Subject Here:: Call 511-6034

[maroonhat]

Extremophile: n. organism that thrives in an enviroment such that no normal organism (mesophile) could survive. See "Perl Programmers", "Salt Mines"

Re:::Your Subject Here:: Call 511-6034

[iggymanz]

well, I for one think we need to immediately pass legislation to protect the Holos and the Extremos from the sick deviant predilections of these halophiles and extremophiles, and mandatory prison terms for those that pander to them with web and literature.

Old

[Handbrewer]

The news that extremophiles can survive outher space is veery old. The little bugger called Tardigrada [wikipedia.org] is pretty hard to kill :).

Re:Old

[NonSequor]

That is old news, but I believe the point here is that this is another example of bacteria surviving in an environment that we would expect to interfere with any system as complex as a living being. In the search for life outside of Earth, many people are focusing on finding places with earthlike conditions. However, it may be that we can't dismiss the possibility of any planet having some form of life based on its chemical composition alone.

At the moment, the only safe assumption is that any environment w

Re:Old

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Wouldn't other elements in the same column on the periodic table, also theoretically work? Silicon, Germanium, tin, lead, even (under a very high gravity, supposedly, to get this element to be naturally occuring) Ununquadium? True, any biology using these would be far denser than we are- but these elements can form the same types of structures that carbon does.

Re:Old

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And you can't think of ANY possible environment that doesn't have oxygen or water? We're not talking about EARTH remember- life existing elsewhere in the universe was the question.

Re:Old

[NonSequor]

Well, I decided not to comment on silicon et al., because I didn't want to get in over my head and I was fairly sure I could safely dismiss the possibility. Anyway, I did a little reading after seeing your reply and the reply to your reply so now I'm ready to get in over my head.

For carbon to form a double bond and two single bonds it has to be hybridized to have 3 sp^2 orbitals and one p orbital. The sp^2 orbitals are 120 degrees apart and lie in the same plane. The leftover p orbital has two lobes with t

Re:Old

[erichill]

While tardigrades aren't killed by exposure to a space environment, they aren't exactly alive in it. They reanimate when put back in their prefered environment.

What makes the extremophile archea interesting is that they really do "live" in the extreme salty, pH, temperature, radiation, etc. environments. For instance, the oceans that seem to exist in places like Europa are probably very salty.

still

[myukew]

This is no proof that there probably is life on other planets. We can see here that life can evolve to adapt to such extreme environments but this doesn't mean life can begin in such places.
The first biological, self replicating molecules were probably quite fragile and would certainly "die" in extreme environments

Re:still

[devillion]

Earth's environment were quite extreme then so any long-lasting molecules couldn't have been fragile.

Re:still

[krymsin01]

You are correct in saying that this isn't proof that there is life on other planets. The only proof of life on other planets would be just that, finding life on other planets (or asteroids, moons, coments, nebulae, who know's what will sustain "life" really?)

You are wrong, however, in your conclusion that the first bilogics were "quite fragile and would certainly 'die' in extreme environments."

Just look at the conditions on Earth when life first began. From what we unerstand, compared to the conditions now, life started out in an "Extreme" environment.

Re:still

[myukew]

Sure, the situation differed from what we call now "normal" but fortunatly the conditions were just right for, say, aminoacids to build up with all that methane and stuff swimming around in the oceans. But it's quite unlikely that the first RNA molecule (I believe that's what scientist think formed first) would have lasted long in a lake of acid (like some bacteria like it nowadays). Or near a "black smoker" in 400C hot water. Nor do I think the chemical reactions would have happened at 30K (at which these creatures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrada [wikipedia.org] survive).

The range of conditions in which life can exist may be quite wide, but it seems life needs very special conditions to begin - otherwise we would have probably found life on other planets.

Re:still

[krymsin01]

The reason it seems that life "needs" special conditions to begin is that we've only seen one way it can/has happened. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the question of life elsewhere is still pretty much in the realm of the philosophic.

Re:still

[myukew]

yeah, guess nobody can give an ultimate answer on this topic.

Re:still

[I don't want to spen]

...life probably began in fucking volcanoes.

I thought that volcanoes reproduced asexually.

Re:still

[KingOfBLASH]

Extremophiles show us that life can exist outside our realm of what is considered normal. To say that an extremophile is direct evidence that there is life in space is incorrect. The point is, we as a race have believed for so many years that things always have to be just so and every hundred years or so an old way of thinking has to be thrown out.

As for your previous comment, no one can blame you for being ignorant about the sciences behind life and its evolution on earth. There is no doubt that the earth had what would be considered an extreme environment when life began, although there is much contention about the nature of that environment. One thing can be certain it is only those types of high energy dynamic environments that can create the necessary conditions for stable organic molecules to form. Not every place on earth would have been hospitable to life including your hypothetical lakes of acid (that probably didn't exist) but in areas rich in organics and were quite warm, not 30K.

You're right when you said life does require special conditions to begin, but no one had to say that those conditions are rare. Our solar system is so small and plain compared the vastness and diversity of the universe. We don't know how or where or even why life evolves but when we look at extremophiles they show us that life can exist in hostile environments and that life is more diverse and hardy than we previously thought.

Re:still

[alw53]

Actually Freeman Dyson wrote a very interesting little book called "Origin of Life" which makes the case that the chicken came first -- ie the first cells consisted of bags of amino acid chains that catalyzed their own reproduction in an approximate manner. Cell reproduction happened when a cell split up physically into two cells that both happened to contain all the necessary chains of amino acids. Exact reproduction (via DNA/RNA) is supposed to have happened after this stage.

Re: still

[Black Parrot]

> The first biological, self replicating molecules were probably quite fragile and would certainly "die" in extreme environments

Possibly so, but until we know exactly what those molecules were it's probably best not claim so with certainty. They may have actually required some environment that we would consider extreme.

Re:still

[mwilliamson]

Integrate from 0 to billions of years of a new planet and you'll cover a very wide range of enviroments. If just one of these environments at some time is conducive to the start of life, and if the adaptaption rate of this life meets or exceeds the enviromental change rate, then you just may have found sustained life on that planet.

Game-Playing Microbes !?!?!?!

[justanyone]

Hey, Wait a minute! HALO-philes?

These microbes love Halo? Cool! I knew it was a popular game, but the game's crossing the interspecies-player boundary is wicked awesome!

What about Halo II ?

-- Kevin
P.S., Yah, I know halo == halide == saltlike. Run with the joke, dude.

Hey! Are they Anaerobic?

[cyberzephyr]

I don't want to sound like a moron around a bunch of smart folks but, there are things that can live without air. My question is is there anything that can live ON OUR PLANET in a vacuum. Call me lazy, but i don't feel like research tonight. Inquring mind want's to know! Teach me!

Re:Hey! Are they Anaerobic?

[myukew]

read the above post about them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrada [wikipedia.org]

Re:Hey! Are they Anaerobic?

[Muhammar]

you sound like a person who never heard of freeze-drying. The problem is that water is volatile and tends to dry up at reduced pressure unless the temperature is extremely low. Vacuum => no liquid water => probably no life.

Re:Hey! Are they Anaerobic?

[JustAnotherBob]

What about mushroom/fungal spores? They contain no water, and can survive some extreme envrionments. I don't know about vaccums, but once they come into contact with water in the right envrionmental conditions they come to life, because they are in a state of stasis before such contact.

Re:Hey! Are they Anaerobic?

[Muhammar]

You are right about spores but the parent was about organisms that can actualy live in vaccum, not just staying viable.

Re:Hey! Are they Anaerobic?

[cyberzephyr]

We are talking about outer space correct? I am going to be the devil's advocate on this one.

blah, skimpy article.

[ForestGrump]

I want to know where their energy comes from. not from light probably. Redox on the salts?

Grump who barely passed chem/bio.

Any scientist that believes our form of life

[Marxist Hacker 42]

is the ONLY form of life- doesn't have enough imagination to be a useful scientist when it comes to NEW theories. Such a person should be regulated to testing what is already somewhat well known- and leave the theories to better men.