Nexus - 1205 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

Now Ciftcioglu and long-time collaborator Kajander, who discovered the nanoscopic artifact, stand at the eye of a growing storm. They and their colleagues are garnering praise and scorn because they claim to have evidence for why most of us are literally petrified by the time we die. More profoundly, their work may influence how new life is found on Earth and other planets. Now Ciftcioglu and long-time collaborator Kajander, who information-processing systems and simplicity of Nanoarchaeum's discovered the nanoscopic artifact, stand at the eye of a growing metabolism suggests "an unanticipated world of organisms to be storm. They and their colleagues are garnering praise and scorn discovered". In other words, it might be the tip of a nano-lifeberg. because they claim to have evidence for why most of us are literally Stetter's finding gave ammunition to scientists such as Neva petrified by the time we die. More profoundly, their work may Ciftcioglu who say they have found other extremophiles, including influence how new life is found on Earth and other planets. human nanobacteria, that cannot have their nucleic acids detected with standard PCR amplification. SELF-REPLICATING NANOPARTICLES One of the differences between Stetter's N. equitans and the An intense dispute has raged for years that connects how we look —_nanobacteria found by Ciftcioglu and Kajander's team is that for infection in the body with how we look for bio-kingdoms on Nanoarchaeae need another organism to replicate, whereas at least Earth and throughout the universe. Researchers have long sought some nanobacteria seem to replicate by themselves. Another differ- terrestrial extremophiles that tell them what might survive on Mars, ence is that Nanoarchaeae are slightly wider: 400 nanometres com- while others doubt the wisdom of looking for life on Mars at all. pared to 100-250 for nanobacteria. The greater size allows for The mystery remains: what is the most effective way to find novel what conventional wisdom says is the smallest allowable space for organisms? life-replicating ribosomes. Until recently, every life-form was found to have a particular Which leads to the question: how do nanobacteria copy RNA sequence that can be amplified using a technique known as themselves? Evidence for self-replicating nanoparticles has been Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). Nucleic acid sub-sequences around for years in everything from oil wells to heart disease, but named 16S rRNA have been universally found in life-forms. By failure to sequence them using regular PCR led some to dismiss making primers against these sub-sequences, scientists amplify the | them as contamination or mistakes. However, researchers have DNA that codes for the 16S rRNAs. Resulting PCR products, found characteristics that make the particles hard to explain away. when sequenced, can characterise a They replicate on their own, so are not life-form. viruses. They resist high-level radiation, One high-powered group persuaded which suggests they are not bacteria. NASA with a "Don't fix it if it ain't They respond well to light, where non- broke" line and lobbied successfully to living crystals don't. So if they aren't use the same method employed for In 2004, researchers reported viruses, regular bacteria or crystals, years: get a piece of RNA and amplify as - what are they? it. The group—led by scientists such finding nanobacteria In Some supporters of standardised 16S as Dr Gary Ruvkun at the Department everything from heart disease rRNA tests are quick to discount of Genetics in Massachusetts General nanobacteria. That's not surprising. If a Hospital, Boston, and advised by to cancer and kidney stones. novel nucleic sequence holds true with luminaries such as Dr Norman Pace at other extremophiles as with N. equitans, the University of Colorado—got then a machine that searches for life money from NASA to build a "PCR using standard PCR tests might miss machine” that would automatically them and be obsolete. Conscious of seek such clues in harsh environments this, the PCR machine team has said such as those found on Mars. that as part of their work, they plan to "search for the boundaries" of Other scientists known as astrobiologists say the PCR machine the 16S sequences, but what exactly that means and how they plan approach is a waste of money because such amplification shows to overcome the problem hasn't been set out yet. only part of the picture—not what nature might have done on other Reputations, money and perhaps the foundations of life ride on planets or, for that matter, in extreme Earthly environments. the 16S rRNA dispute. Resolving it may determine who gets However, their argument always suffered from lack of evi- money to find the next great biological kingdom. dence—that is, until 2003 when scientists associated with the San Diego-based Diversa Corporation and advised by Professor Karl | NANOBACTERIAL INFECTION Stetter, of the University of Regensburg, Germany, published the How relevant is the outcome for human welfare? In 2004, genome of an extremophile known as Nanoarchaeum equitans, researchers reported finding nanobacteria in everything from heart which Stetter's team had discovered in Icelandic volcanic vents. disease to cancer and kidney stones. Medical researchers reported N. equitans was special because it had the smallest known to the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2004 that a genome found so far, but it also had another intriguing trait. With test for nanobacteria is an accurate predictor of heart disease risk. Nanoarchaeae, the particular 16S rRNA sequence found in other But the work that these researchers say may already have saved life-forms wasn't in the place that it was expected to be and did not _ lives has been ridiculed by critics who claim that such nanobes respond to conventional PCR tests. The 16S rRNA sequence was don't exist, which in turn has made funding for basic research hard different in areas addressed by the PCR primers and did not to get. amplify. Stetter noted that the so-called universal probes that work Who is right? One well-respected astrobiologist observer quali- with humans, animals, plants, eukaryotes, bacteria and archaeae did _fied the struggle this way: "Unless we declare [the nano-organism not work in this organism. scientists] incompetent, then the info they have gathered is rather How, then, was the discovery made if the organism couldn't be compelling that something interesting is going on.” sequenced in that way? Stetter had found that the organism's That's why a few intrepid investors have plopped US$7 million sequence where the traditional "universal" primers are located was and counting into a Tampa biotech start-up devoted exclusively to abnormal. This finding let him use other means to sequence the Ciftcioglu and Kajander's discoveries about the calcifying particle. gene. In reporting their discovery in the Proceedings of the For the big pharmaceuticals companies that's pocket change, but for National Academy of Sciences,‘ the Stetter team observed that the these entrepreneurs it's a pocketful of faith that's been keeping them In 2004, researchers reported finding nanobacteria in everything 1 from heart disease ae see i ee NANOBACTERIAL INFECTION How relevant is the outcome for human welfare? In 2004, researchers reported finding nanobacteria in everything from heart disease to cancer and kidney stones. Medical researchers reported to the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2004 that a test for nanobacteria is an accurate predictor of heart disease risk. But the work that these researchers say may already have saved lives has been ridiculed by critics who claim that such nanobes don't exist, which in turn has made funding for basic research hard + at to get. Who is right? One well-respected astrobiologist observer quali- fied the struggle this way: "Unless we declare [the nano-organism scientists] incompetent, then the info they have gathered is rather compelling that something interesting is going on.” That's why a few intrepid investors have plopped US$7 million and counting into a Tampa biotech start-up devoted exclusively to Ciftcioglu and Kajander's discoveries about the calcifying particle. For the big pharmaceuticals companies that's pocket change, but for these entrepreneurs it's a pocketful of faith that's been keeping them 30 + NEXUS to cancer and kidney stones. www.nexusmagazine.com AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 2005