News

Absolutely. Conversely, if mirrored microbes aren't able to make use of building materials in hosts that are mirrors to them, pathogenicity makes little biological sense (microbes don't make us sick out of spite). Now, if they could, that would be a problem. Even if not, they could fatally disrupt the gut microbiome.

The scope of what I suspect to be the greater danger, I've, perhaps understated. Suppose mirror bacteria "escape" and are able to thrive in the surrounding environment. As you note, known life has not evolved to be able to defend against it. This introduces the possibility of the artificial bacteria displacing the natural ones. Since the biosphere involves more complex organisms feeding on the smaller ones, it is plausible that the entire food web could be disrupted, leading to extinction of extant complex life, unless adaptation occurs quick enough.

Unlike previous discussions of mirror life, we also realized that generalist heterotroph mirror bacteria might find a range of nutrients in animal hosts and the environment and thus would not be intrinsically biocontained

That is basically my suspicion, from my knowledge at this time. Pathogenicity as a danger seems questionable based upon how incompatible known life is with the opposite enantiomers of its basic building blocks (though, if artificial "mirror" bacteria were able to develop enzymes to change the chirality of the proteins, etc, it would probably be bad).

Going on that energy-intensive chemistry being tricky to accomplish, it is far more likely that generalists could displace extant microorganisms that may be unable to use their evolved defenses effectively. This could result in cascading food web disruptions until either extant life adapts, or complex organisms go extinct through starvation.

Undergrad in biochemistry with a year research internship. Also, a long, AuADHD-fueled interest with chemistry, industrial microbiology, and reading research papers. Yourself?

You read what they wrote and became sceptical of their credentials? I mean, it's healthy to be cautiously sceptical of anything you read/hear to an extent. But to immediately and without any further discussion, call them out in a patronising and condescending way is wild.

It makes me want to know if you have a background in biology. Since you so readily dispute someone else's. Someone who, at least on the surface, seems to know what they are talking about.

In fact, why do you give so much credit to the legitimacy of the article and its writer, there might be a "38 strong group" of nobel laureates and experts warning about this, but the writer of the article adds the spin. The writer decides how to portray the warnings and their urgency. They might be overselling this. And since there is little to no citation in the article, i am more inclined to question the articles' legitimacy before i query this poster....

Unless they are able to make use of both enantiomers in their biology

I wouldn't expect that sentence from someone without a background in biology for many, many reasons.

After browsing facebook for one hour I also got to the conclusion that all those people publishing in Science are lying. /s