If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(UPI)   Scientists develop bacteria that metabolize caffeine into E. coli after studying musicians in Portland and Seattle   (upi.com) divider line 43
    More: Interesting, bacteria, E. coli, genetically engineer, Seattle, American Chemical Society, decontamination, caffeine, water pollutions  
•       •       •

5182 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2013 at 2:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-01 10:54:21 PM
I apologize, Subby, for thinking it was you who is stupid.
 
2013-04-02 01:15:28 AM
I don't know whether to punch subby or the author first.
 
2013-04-02 01:25:00 AM

Mentat: I don't know whether to punch subby or the author first.


The author made a small typo / grammatical mistake (using just "it" instead of "its"). Subby just completely bungled the meaning of the sentence.

From TFA: so Barrick's team set out to transfer it (sic) genetic ability to metabolize caffeine into E. coli

They set out to transfer the "genetic ability" into E. coli, which is to say the genes for enzymes for caffeine metabolism. They are not saying they've developed a bacteria that can make E. coli out of caffeine. Once they've isolated the genes they want to transfer, this is not a difficult task.
 
2013-04-02 01:28:54 AM

mamoru: Mentat: I don't know whether to punch subby or the author first.

The author made a small typo / grammatical mistake (using just "it" instead of "its"). Subby just completely bungled the meaning of the sentence.

From TFA: so Barrick's team set out to transfer it (sic) genetic ability to metabolize caffeine into E. coli

They set out to transfer the "genetic ability" into E. coli, which is to say the genes for enzymes for caffeine metabolism. They are not saying they've developed a bacteria that can make E. coli out of caffeine. Once they've isolated the genes they want to transfer, this is not a difficult task.


"so Barrick's team set out to transfer its genetic ability to metabolize caffeine to E. coli bacteria."

Now it's right.
 
2013-04-02 01:38:23 AM
I dunno, turning coffee into shiat sounds like a very Portland-ish thing to do.
 
2013-04-02 02:39:50 AM

yukichigai: I dunno, turning coffee into shiat sounds like a very Portland-ish thing to do.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-02 02:41:29 AM

BarkingUnicorn: mamoru: Mentat: I don't know whether to punch subby or the author first.

The author made a small typo / grammatical mistake (using just "it" instead of "its"). Subby just completely bungled the meaning of the sentence.

From TFA: so Barrick's team set out to transfer it (sic) genetic ability to metabolize caffeine into E. coli

They set out to transfer the "genetic ability" into E. coli, which is to say the genes for enzymes for caffeine metabolism. They are not saying they've developed a bacteria that can make E. coli out of caffeine. Once they've isolated the genes they want to transfer, this is not a difficult task.

"so Barrick's team set out to transfer its genetic ability to metabolize caffeine to E. coli bacteria."

Now it's right.


Came to straighten this out, see it's handled.
 
2013-04-02 02:42:56 AM

fusillade762: yukichigai: I dunno, turning coffee into shiat sounds like a very Portland-ish thing to do.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 300x250]


It's SARStastic!
 
2013-04-02 02:44:46 AM
I metabolize caffeine into software, so I'm not sure this is impossible.
 
2013-04-02 02:53:31 AM
Hey! There's a serious gramm- ooooooh. It's taken care of already.

...


So.

How is everyone?
 
2013-04-02 02:54:33 AM
Hmmm when this DNA ends up in your gut don't be surprised if you need 8 cups just to wake up in the morning.
 
2013-04-02 02:55:58 AM

yukichigai: I dunno, turning coffee into shiat sounds like a very Portland-ish thing to do.


www.dvd.net.au

It's a bit nutty.
 
2013-04-02 02:56:15 AM
This is a disaster of biblical proportions waiting to happen.
 
2013-04-02 02:57:37 AM

awalkingecho: BarkingUnicorn: mamoru: Mentat: I don't know whether to punch subby or the author first.

The author made a small typo / grammatical mistake (using just "it" instead of "its"). Subby just completely bungled the meaning of the sentence.

From TFA: so Barrick's team set out to transfer it (sic) genetic ability to metabolize caffeine into E. coli

They set out to transfer the "genetic ability" into E. coli, which is to say the genes for enzymes for caffeine metabolism. They are not saying they've developed a bacteria that can make E. coli out of caffeine. Once they've isolated the genes they want to transfer, this is not a difficult task.

"so Barrick's team set out to transfer its genetic ability to metabolize caffeine to E. coli bacteria."

Now it's right.

Came to straighten this out, see it's handled.


Meh. I'm gonna take another shot:

"so Barric's team set out to transfer its caffeine-metabolizing genetic ability to E. coli bacteria."
 
2013-04-02 03:35:25 AM

yukichigai: I dunno, turning coffee into shiat sounds like a very Portland-ish thing to do.


I call it Hipsteritis.
 
2013-04-02 03:49:35 AM
Hyper-zombies in.....3.....2......
 
2013-04-02 03:55:56 AM
Well the bacteria metabolise caffeine, which provides nutrition, and being fed they will reproduce thus creating more E. coli. Maybe.

Or perhaps that's too much of a stretch. Sorry,  submitter, you're on your own with this one.
 
2013-04-02 06:24:44 AM
It's way too damn early for me to figure out why this story isn't telling me that they're trying to make caffeine poison me.
 
2013-04-02 07:23:41 AM
meh. Call me when they figure out how to make E. coli into caffeine.I have several expired cans of food that need to be soda.
 
2013-04-02 07:41:50 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: This is a disaster of biblical proportions waiting to happen.


I sense a foreboding, a disturbance in the force that I have not ever sensed before. This will not end well.
 
2013-04-02 07:42:56 AM
This Kurt Cobain hate is getting out of hand
 
2013-04-02 07:50:28 AM
So this bacteria synthesizes caffeine by metabolism and puts it into an E. coli so that the E. coli can be a hipster? That's heavy.
 
2013-04-02 08:11:21 AM
Whatever, people.  The headline made me laugh and that's all that matters.
 
2013-04-02 08:12:16 AM

fusillade762: yukichigai: I dunno, turning coffee into shiat sounds like a very Portland-ish thing to do.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 300x250]


www.biography.com

doesn't want any
 
2013-04-02 08:14:08 AM
while a good idea for the caffeine contamination in the environment (caffeine is poisonous for just about everything besides humans in large quantities), this is a bad idea for humans. These genes spread awfully fast and when it gets to your intestinal E coli, you're going to need 10 shots of espresso just to feel a bit of a buzz from it.

And seeing as how coffee will prob go extinct (or majorly endangered) in the next 30-40 years cause of climate change, it's a REAL big problem.
 
2013-04-02 08:14:26 AM

Marcintosh: fusillade762: yukichigai: I dunno, turning coffee into shiat sounds like a very Portland-ish thing to do.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 300x250]

[www.biography.com image 402x402]

doesn't want any


What would you like for breakfast Kofi Annan?
Yea, please
 
2013-04-02 08:33:48 AM
Call me when they can turn goat piss into gasoline.
 
2013-04-02 09:10:39 AM

Barfmaker: Call me when they can turn goat piss into gasoline.


Don't they already turn it into Budweiser?
 
2013-04-02 09:18:41 AM
You know, I understand that e. coli is so well studied we know more about it and its genome than just about anything else, but do we really need to do all of our genetic experimentation on a species of bacteria that is highly capable of colonizing our bodies?
 
2013-04-02 10:02:08 AM

Priapetic: You know, I understand that e. coli is so well studied we know more about it and its genome than just about anything else, but do we really need to do all of our genetic experimentation on a species of bacteria that is highly capable of colonizing our bodies?


IIRC, most  E. coli used for lab work is rendered incapable of infecting humans.  Even still, laboratory conditions are kept to ensure that it doesn't escape into the wild, so to speak.  It's not like scientists are brewing this stuff up then spreading it on their sandwiches.
 
2013-04-02 10:04:15 AM

Priapetic: You know, I understand that e. coli is so well studied we know more about it and its genome than just about anything else, but do we really need to do all of our genetic experimentation on a species of bacteria that is highly capable of colonizing our bodies?


We're good as long as they keep it focused on eating PCBs in Boston Harbor and keep the sampling lobsters safe. No possible problems could come from this.
 
2013-04-02 10:15:50 AM

Barfmaker: Call me when they can turn goat piss into gasoline.


You just need a band powerful enough, fella!
 
2013-04-02 12:06:53 PM
It's amazing what they can do with that little bug.

I've already experienced e. coli that can turn a lovely evening meal with friends into four hours of horrific anus-shredding squits.
 
2013-04-02 12:16:04 PM

DarkSoulNoHope: yukichigai: I dunno, turning coffee into shiat sounds like a very Portland-ish thing to do.

I call it Hipsteritis.


i1136.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-02 12:20:03 PM

hstein3: Priapetic: You know, I understand that e. coli is so well studied we know more about it and its genome than just about anything else, but do we really need to do all of our genetic experimentation on a species of bacteria that is highly capable of colonizing our bodies?

IIRC, most  E. coli used for lab work is rendered incapable of infecting humans.  Even still, laboratory conditions are kept to ensure that it doesn't escape into the wild, so to speak.  It's not like scientists are brewing this stuff up then spreading it on their sandwiches.


Yeah, most E. coli strains commonly used in the laboratory are non-pathogenic domesticated lab strains.  They long ago lost the ability to colonize the human gut.  If by some chance they got in their, they would be quickly out competed by your natural flora.
 
2013-04-02 12:57:48 PM

LadySusan: Priapetic: You know, I understand that e. coli is so well studied we know more about it and its genome than just about anything else, but do we really need to do all of our genetic experimentation on a species of bacteria that is highly capable of colonizing our bodies?

We're good as long as they keep it focused on eating PCBs in Boston Harbor and keep the sampling lobsters safe. No possible problems could come from this.


Heh, well played.

/Sangamon's principle
 
2013-04-02 01:01:12 PM

Mentat: hstein3: Priapetic: You know, I understand that e. coli is so well studied we know more about it and its genome than just about anything else, but do we really need to do all of our genetic experimentation on a species of bacteria that is highly capable of colonizing our bodies?

IIRC, most  E. coli used for lab work is rendered incapable of infecting humans.  Even still, laboratory conditions are kept to ensure that it doesn't escape into the wild, so to speak.  It's not like scientists are brewing this stuff up then spreading it on their sandwiches.

Yeah, most E. coli strains commonly used in the laboratory are non-pathogenic domesticated lab strains.  They long ago lost the ability to colonize the human gut.  If by some chance they got in their, they would be quickly out competed by your natural flora.


Right.  Because it's not like bacteria ever evolve, or bacterial populations have ever developed mechanisms for coping with hostile environments.  How about we use a bacterial strain that's never been a successful exploiter of our intestinal flora in the past?
 
2013-04-02 01:14:52 PM

Priapetic: Right.  Because it's not like bacteria ever evolve, or bacterial populations have ever developed mechanisms for coping with hostile environments.  How about we use a bacterial strain that's never been a successful exploiter of our intestinal flora in the past?


Worrywart.
It's not as though seawater and blood had a similar saline composition.
Or that e.coli can handle hostile environments like, say, an acidic one.
And everybody knows that bacteria don't thrive in warm environments, say, around the mid 30C range.

/Biblical proportions, I tell you.
 
2013-04-02 02:38:09 PM
static.giantbomb.com

"Hey everyone! We just made cancer airborne and contagious! We're science!"
"...all about could've, not should've."
 
2013-04-02 03:17:20 PM

Priapetic: Right.  Because it's not like bacteria ever evolve, or bacterial populations have ever developed mechanisms for coping with hostile environments.  How about we use a bacterial strain that's never been a successful exploiter of our intestinal flora in the past?


Okay.  1) Have you been in a microbiology lab setting?  You would literally have to drink a vial of culture or lick a petri dish for this to be an issue.  And even then it would affect  one person, maybe a few if your lab was contaminated and had terrible safety training.  For it to affect any number larger than that would require large quantities of the bacteria to pass into food/water supplies.  Strains manipulated in academic labs to do interesting things have practically zero chance of doing so.

2) Scientists work with a wide variety of bacteria, but  E. coli is the standard workhorse.  Researchers have been studying it for decades, which means there is a deeper body of research available for it than any other strain.  Unless you are studying other bacteria for specific reasons, there really isn't any reason to use something that isn't  E. coli.
 
2013-04-02 03:47:28 PM

fusillade762: yukichigai: I dunno, turning coffee into shiat sounds like a very Portland-ish thing to do.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 300x250]


I wore that shirt in Portland yesterday in fact, so I'm really getting a kick out of your replies ..
 
2013-04-02 04:52:32 PM

hstein3: Priapetic: Right.  Because it's not like bacteria ever evolve, or bacterial populations have ever developed mechanisms for coping with hostile environments.  How about we use a bacterial strain that's never been a successful exploiter of our intestinal flora in the past?

Okay.  1) Have you been in a microbiology lab setting?  You would literally have to drink a vial of culture or lick a petri dish for this to be an issue.  And even then it would affect  one person, maybe a few if your lab was contaminated and had terrible safety training.  For it to affect any number larger than that would require large quantities of the bacteria to pass into food/water supplies.  Strains manipulated in academic labs to do interesting things have practically zero chance of doing so.

2) Scientists work with a wide variety of bacteria, but  E. coli is the standard workhorse.  Researchers have been studying it for decades, which means there is a deeper body of research available for it than any other strain.  Unless you are studying other bacteria for specific reasons, there really isn't any reason to use something that isn't  E. coli.


Heh.  Yes, I have worked in a microbiology lab setting - specifically genetics, researching mutations of collagen genes and resulting impact on development.  We used E. coli, which at the time I found quite amusing.  We're not talking Level IV biosafety, it was Level I (street clothes, wash your hands, don't lick the Petri dishes, etc.).  And while I do agree that the actual odds of contagion are low, and also understand the circumstances that make E. coli such a well-understood base for experimentation, I still find it highly amusing we've chosen as our "workhorse" a bacteria whose lineage is basically our own intestines.  As you acknowledge, the odds of there being a problem are not zero, they're "practically zero".  It just seems more prudent, particularly when experimenting with transferring novel genetic capabilities, to use something that hasn't been an intimate part of our human microbiome.
 
2013-04-02 08:14:54 PM

Priapetic: Heh.  Yes, I have worked in a microbiology lab setting - specifically genetics, researching mutations of collagen genes and resulting impact on development.  We used E. coli, which at the time I found quite amusing.  We're not talking Level IV biosafety, it was Level I (street clothes, wash your hands, don't lick the Petri dishes, etc.).  And while I do agree that the actual odds of contagion are low, and also understand the circumstances that make E. coli such a well-understood base for experimentation, I still find it highly amusing we've chosen as our "workhorse" a bacteria whose lineage is basically our own intestines.  As you acknowledge, the odds of there being a problem are not zero, they're "practically zero".  It just seems more prudent, particularly when experimenting with transferring novel genetic capabilities, to use something that hasn't been an intimate part of our human microbiome.


Okay, well . . . given your background, I just don't understand your unease with the idea.  I can't speak for every lab or PI, but it seems like the common practice would be to work with Eae- E. coli unless you were specifically studying adherence.  The odds of a replacement that would permit infection spontaneously reappearing must be practically impossible.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report