131–140 of 253 posts
This appeals to me both as a defensive/protective measure and as a deterrent to others who might look to weaponize such organisms.
How much achiral food would be available for these bacteria anyways in nature? They'd have to compete for it with all other life.
Seems like some kind of achiral algae would actually be the most dangerous. People forget that blue-green algae caused a global climate apocalypse, polluted the oceans and atmosphere with deadly oxygen, caused all exposed iron to rust massively changing ocean chemistry, and threw the entire globe into an ice-age that lasted 300 million years. I wonder how we would stop something like that. It'd be like the algae bloo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anyone is worried about mirror proteins by themselves, they are worried about someone assembling a self-replicating/self-propagating mirror life, no? In which case, the fear is that you can't just run around ozone-ing every little colony of chiral-mirror version of cyanobacteria under every rock in remote Siberia or wherever.
1. > Should work be started on developing mirror immune system cells, just in case? 2. by way of direct response to your question. mirror nutrients (like scavenged AAs, even for autotrophs) are liable to be very scarce so they'll have one hell of a disadvantage makimg it on this world.
Clearly there was an original self-replicating cell and it was successful, so assuming we constructed the necessary proteins, why do you think it would be difficult the second time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A completely "mirrored" organism is not that dangerous. - It would still have antigenic properties, just not the ones we are familiar with, because antigens are proteins or proteins bound to sugars. Both have "left" vs "right" variants. - It can't eat any ordinary food, except simple fats. Common proteins and sugars won't fit it's enzymes. That means it can't digest sugars, proteins or any combination that contains t…
So much confidence about how this thing we’ve never encountered will not be a problem.
> The trouble with mirror cells is that they could probably evade most of the barriers that keep ordinary organisms in check. To fight off pathogens, for example, our bodies must first detect them with molecular sensors. > Those sensors can only latch onto left-handed proteins or right-handed DNA and RNA. A mirror cell that infected lab workers might spread through their bodies without triggering any resistance from…
Antibodies can bind to wrong-handed antigens, but an antibody to a correct-handed antigen would not automatically bind the mirror. I'm not finding a lot of literaturee about this, however.
I wouldn't expect it to, but rather I'd expect the immune system to learn the new antigen just like it learned the old one.
I think it is reasonable to assume that the immune system would have to work harder against mirror pathogens. Straight toxicity might be another important consideration. On the other hands mirror amino acids already exist in nature, so I find the argument that a mirror bacteria would rampage the ecosystem unchecked sensationalist. Click-bait even. More likely than not, the mirror bacteria itself would be heavily outc…
Agreed that modelling it as a "pathogen" is missing the mark. But predatorless photosynthetic self-replicating gray goo that grows exponentially across the planet, resulting in a drastic change in CO2 and oxygen levels across the globe? Wouldn't be the first time. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't quite understand the meaning of your comment, it reads to me like "one time people worried about something but their worries were unfounded" with the subtext/implication that "therefore we don't need to worry" - about this? Or maybe need to worry in general? Or is it just to feel a bit more optimism that not every doomsday fear ends up coming to fruition?
> Or is it just to feel a bit more optimism that not every doomsday fear ends up coming to fruition? Exactly. I suspect mirror-image molecule life hasn't evolved because it wouldn't be fit enough to be self-sustaining.
But if you take on too many 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10000 risks, eventually things go badly.
Russian roulette or reckless driving looks safe-- for awhile.
Note the person who really advanced the view of "igniting the atmosphere" with fission was Teller back in 1942, who was about the most pro-nuclear scientist you can find. They didn't just shrug and push the button: Bethe and others did a lot of math to conclude that it was exceptionally unlikely.
(Was it too much of a risk, given that we didn't have much experimental data about nitrogen-nitrogen cross-sections? Probably not, but we can't conclude that it was a reasonable risk purely on the basis of "we didn't die.")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Antibodies can bind to wrong-handed antigens, but an antibody to a correct-handed antigen would not automatically bind the mirror. I'm not finding a lot of literaturee about this, however.
> an antibody to a correct-handed antigen would not automatically bind the mirror I wouldn't expect it to, but rather I'd expect the immune system to learn the new antigen just like it learned the old one.
Maybe we should manufacture and stockpile mirror antibiotics, in case of accidental or intentional release of such organisms. This appeals to me both as a defensive/protective measure and as a deterrent to others who might look to weaponize such organisms.