World-leading scientists have called for a halt on research to create “mirror life” microbes amid concerns that the synthetic organisms would present an “unprecedented risk” to life on Earth.
The international group of Nobel laureates and other experts warn that mirror bacteria, constructed from mirror images of molecules found in nature, could become established in the environment and slip past the immune defences of natural organisms, putting humans, animals and plants at risk of lethal infections.
Many molecules for life can exist in two distinct forms, each the mirror image of the other. The DNA of all living organisms is made from “right-handed” nucleotides, while proteins, the building blocks of cells, are made from “left-handed” amino acids. Why nature works this way is unclear: life could have chosen left-handed DNA and right-handed proteins instead.
The fresh concerns over the technology are revealed in a 299-page report and a commentary in the journal Science. While enthusiastic about research on mirror molecules, the report sees substantial risks in mirror microbes and calls for a global debate on the work.
This seems like something that really is a minimal risk. Pathogens are pathogens because they are able to make use of our bodies as raw materials to reproduce. Unless they are able to make use of both enantiomers in their biology, there’s little benefit to dedicating resources to colonizing us.
Probably a bigger concern would be outcompeting and displacing organisms lower on the food chain.
Undergrad in biochemistry with a year research internship. Also, a long, AuADHD-fueled interest with chemistry, industrial microbiology, and reading research papers. Yourself?
Ok, on one side we have undergrad and on other international group of Nobel laureates and other experts. Who is probably right…
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…
Why do you give so much credit to the legitimacy of the random poster on internet?
If mirrored microbes require mirrored antibodies to be killed that is something no living thing on earth has the ability to create.
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.
Good point, though I find the part of the commentary relevant:
Although we were initially skeptical that mirror bacteria could pose major risks, we have become deeply concerned. We were uncertain about the feasibility of synthesizing mirror bacteria but have concluded that technological progress will likely make this possible. We were uncertain about the consequences of mirror bacterial infection in humans and animals, but a close examination of existing studies led us to conclude that infections could be severe. 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
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.
I have a question with my very limited knowledge of biology:
Currently, pathogens “use” certain resources in a host, and then the host’s immune system creates antibodies that eventually kill the pathogens (or the pathogen kills the host).
The arguments are: mirror pathogens would require mirror antibodies, which is not possible for natural bodies to produce. However, this is not really a problem because our physical selves as resources would be incompatible with the needs of a mirror pathogen.
My question is: mirror or otherwise, could a pathogen “hijack” something other than usual as a resource?
Let’s say, I don’t know, Prime Pathogen A normally uses Prime Protein A, Mirror Pathogen A would require Mirror Pathogen A. Is it possible for a host to have a Prime Protein B that meets Mirror Pathogen A’s requirement–perhaps not perfectly, but “good enough” to sustain Mirror Pathogen A?
Just to put that in perspective for me, anti-vaxxers world wide have used the adverse effects the original covid vaccines could have to drum up support for right-wingers in many countries. In my mind, the covid cospiracies are one of the prime reasons why right wingers are so popular today.
As far as I understood, the reason why adverse effects could occure when being vaccinated (they could also occur if you get covid btw, so you are no safer not getting vaccinated), is because the spike protein was similar enough in shape to a protein the body uses. And if you are unlucky, your body develops an immunity response to the spike protein in such a way, that your body-own protein also triggers that immunity response.
So with covid, we already have an example of what could happen if similarly-looking proteins are used by viruses or bacteria. If I have gotten this correctly, the world would not survive an outbreak of the ‘mirror flu’.
Despite there being no evidence for what you’re claiming here, if you think about it for a second, you’d realize the spike protein isn’t some sort of artificial substance being put into your body by a vaccine, but is atom for atom identical to the spike proteins found on different variants of covid.
If you get sick with covid, your body contains unfathomably more spike proteins than you would get from a hundred covid immunizations. And, if you’ve gotten an immunization, your immune system can keep the amount of virus in your system much lower.
It’s ok to just not like the idea of the covid immunizations. Making stuff up to try to justify your belief, however…
Maybe I worded my post badly, I never claimed that you shouldn’t get vaccinated for covid. I just remember articles about researchers warning that ot may be a mistake to synthesize the entire covid spike protein for the vaccination, because there is a risk of the body developing immunity to the spike protein in such a way, that an endogenous protein is also detected, which then leads to an auto-immune disease.
This is one paper that I found that talks about what I heard back then.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35028901/
Moreover, the spike protein appears to share antigenic epitopes with human molecular chaperons resulting in autoimmunity and can activate toll-like receptors (TLRs), leading to release of inflammatory cytokines.
But apart from that, I only brought up covid to underline that the long-covid symptoms are the prime example anti-vaxxers point to when defending their decision not to vaccinate. And those long-covid symptoms are likely triggered by an auto-immune disease, which is likely triggered because of malformed covid-detection proteins that erroneously flag endogenous proteins as malicious as well.
So my point is, if the long-covid symptons are responsible for pushing anti-vax into the mainstream, then an auto-immune disease triggered by mirror-pathogens will break humanity.
It’s ok to just not like the idea of the covid immunizations. Making stuff up to try to justify your belief, however…
Reading their comment carefully, I don’t think that’s what they’re saying at all. They’re not advocating against immunization, arguing that it’s bad to inject synthetic substances, nor justifying their belief but rather guessing how the biology stuff works under the hood.
I get what you’re saying. Sorry people are misinterpreting and misconstruing your comment and making you out to be some sort of evil antivaxxer. You’re right in the way that pathogens exploit these quirks to their full extent and would be an invisible threat if they managed to mimic our molecules and become undetectable and indestructible to our immune system by their very nature.
Although you’re right about how autoimmunity generally works, the molecular mimicry causing autoimmunity that you mentioned is the exact opposite of the experts’ concerns. For example, left-handed pathogens’ topology (the molecular surface that the immune system “feels” for and detects) would be a mirror image, so there’s probably no risk of autoimmunity since it’s entirely different to your own proteins from your immune system’s point of view.
But the main concern is how our immune systems are simply not be equipped to handle the mirror molecules once detected. It’d be unable to break them down via precise enzymatic degradation, which in turn would limit recognition via antigen presentation from one cell to another down the line, rendering our body unable to coordinate. We’d need to evolve an entirely new set of enzymes and strategies to handle this.
Here’s a better article that makes a better job at explaining the experts’ concerns:
https://phys.org/news/2024-12-mirror-bacteria-pose-global-health.html
Sorry people are misinterpreting and misconstruing your comment and making you out to be some sort of evil antivaxxer.
Reading comprehension, even in a place like this where most people are relatively educated, has completely gone down the shitter.
I just skimmed their comment, and it was clear to me from the first couple sentences that this person isn’t anti-vax…
I am NOT a religious man but I’m a strong believer that we are so eager to play God we are forgetting to ask the important questions around if we should.
Personally speaking I think we need to pause on things like this, or AI as another example. We have proven repeatedly we lack the maturity as a species for what we are learning.
That said, you can’t put everything back in Pandora’s box so for everyone reading this sharing my concern, YOLO and cover your head and wait for the worst.
Edit - the biggest threat to humanity is our unyielding curiosity.
Or do it offworld at least, wired up to a dead man’s switch connected to like…a nuke. Nobody infected can leave, and any localized research or pathogens are crisped and blown apart.
Like, seriously, we only have this one green planet for potentially hundreds of light-years around us, which even at the speed of light would take us centuries to reach another earth-like world. We really cannot afford to damage this lifeboat in a vast sea of barren, rocky islands devoid of life, water, or food.
Even climate change is mind boggling to think about, when you realize there’s no alternatives anywhere even close. Even with incredibly optimistic technology breakthroughs, we are still centuries away from travelling outside this solar system and making it to the next closest star system (light-years away).
But is it not our curiosity that defines us? What separates us from machines, outside of needing to sleep, if we don’t have our curiosity, our passion for the unknown? It’s not like we can only have a little curiosity, curious enough to try a new meal but not to work towards breakthroughs that might unlock ways of bettering our lives.
How else would we have gotten all of our vaccines without people “playing god”? I think while the garbage AI is a bit scary, it’s not the AI part that terrifies me, it’s the coldness “the economy” has towards people’s livelihoods, otherwise AI is nothing special in pushing forward or downfall as a society, it’s just highlighting something that was always there, a class conflict
AI is one of those things that’s stupidly overblown. The true downsides to AI are it’s uses in spreading misinformation and it’s enormous environmental impact. When companies are buying nuclear plants for enough electricity, the whole thing has gone off the rails. There are other downsides but those two are the largeat to me. In short though, we’ve nothing like true AI anyways so playing god is a stretch.
Edit: tbf I do understand your point and find it valid.
What, another one? Look we’re already several kinds of risk to all life on earth - it’s way too late to get hung up on it just because another one was added to the pile. I mean it’s not like genuine but dangerous research won’t exploited by the same rich bastards already exploiting all the rest of mankind’s genuine but deadly research. Throwing another one on the bonfire won’t change it.
Would prions fall under this category?
no
the point of prions is that there’s a naturally occurring protein in metastable state, and when contacted by a protein in more stable state it can transition to that more stable state. this way it’s infective without being alive. there’s nothing like this in nature, let alone commonly occurring
