Bacteria Propel Themselves with Slime Jets 50
galactic_grub writes "Scientists have discovered that some bacteria propel themselves along using tiny jets of slime. According to this story on NewScientistTech, the researchers previously thought the slime was a lubricant. They believe the same technique could be used to move nano-devices around."
Eating nanobots? (Score:4, Interesting)
In any case, how would the nanobots produce the propellant fluid, they'd have to be able to consume something? Perhaps they're counting taking in and storing some available fluid while passing through, like in the human blood stream, or somesuch.
Re:Eating nanobots? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Eating nanobots? (Score:2)
Re:Eating nanobots? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, this is a realm of counter-intuitive phenomena that you can't just "gut feel" your way around.
Odds are good that if bacteria do it, then it's an extraordinarily efficient way to do things, and we should seriously consider it. Remember that
a) they evolve much faster than we do
b) are much older (predating eukaryotes by 2 billion years or so)
c) they live at the micro/nano scale boundary.
Call me when you've got that kind of experience under your belt
Re:Eating nanobots? (Score:3, Informative)
Would that be bacterium flagellum? (Score:1)
Re:Would that be bacterium flagellum? (Score:1)
Been years since I took a biology class...I think I learned that tidbit in in high school.
Well, it's like this... (Score:2)
Once they reduce everything to grey goo [wikipedia.org], they'll have plenty of fuel for their slime jets.
Err, tha'td be goo jets, I guess.
--
This sig intentionally left blank
With Apologies To Bill Watterson (Score:5, Funny)
Re:With Apologies To Bill Watterson (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:With Apologies To Bill Watterson (Score:2)
Don't know what should accompany Culture Made Stupid, though... The Revenge of the Baby-Sat?
Eric
So which is it: no debt is good [nodebtisgood.com] or debt is great [debtisgreat.com]?
Ghostbusters (Score:1)
I wondered how Peter Venkman and Igon used to move so fast.
Nanobots (Score:4, Funny)
Would that really be the most efficient way of moving a nano-device? I doubt it. I think we'll see little sperm bots first.
Re:Nanobots (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Nanobots (Score:1)
Shhhh! (Score:2)
-matthew
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bacteria, too? (Score:2)
Re:Bacteria, too? (Score:1)
and lawyers, and Car Dealers, and Adware Makers, and...
and Ron Jeremy
Re:Bacteria, too? (Score:2)
Nick (Score:4, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our Nickelodeon overlords.
Re:Nick (Score:2)
I wonder what they meant by that?
I don't know (*gasp* flesh eating bacteria attack!!!!)
Funny you should mention that... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Funny you should mention that... (Score:2)
The DETAILS may be new, the idea isn't! (Score:5, Interesting)
No - that has been known for a long time. This research mearly elucidates the mechanism. Which is nice. But, in addition to the slime nozzles at the back end, .
Did you know that at the front end Myxo bacteria have "grappling hooks" which that can extend and then retract? Search for pilus retraction...
Or that they are pack hunters? Or that they will commits suicide to save their buddies [newscientist.com]?
Myxobacteria - they're great!
Re:The DETAILS may be new, the idea isn't! (Score:2)
"Myxobacteria are micrometre-scale filament-shaped organisms that glide along surfaces, leaving a trail of slime in their wake. Biologists were convinced the bugs produced the slime as lubricant, but couldn't explain how they generated the force to move."
That second phrase, "couldn't explain how they generated the force to move" seems to contradict your statement that scientists already knew how they moved.
Re:The DETAILS may be new, the idea isn't! (Score:1)
By the same group as this report, but last year:
J Jeon and AV Dobrynin. Polymer confinement and bacterial gliding motility. Eur Phys J E Soft Matter. 2005 Jul;17(3):361-72. Epub 2005 Jul 5. http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=n842206512 0101v4 [slashdot.org]">link
I can't find you a citation ri
Re:The DETAILS may be new, the idea isn't! (Score:2, Informative)
I should really learn which button is "submit" and which is "preview"
Re:The DETAILS may be new, the idea isn't! (Score:4, Interesting)
The amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum will also sacrifice itself to help propagate the species when food supplies are dwindling. Rather than just die and release protective substances, however, the individual cells actually form a multicellular slug capable of locomotion. Once the slug has migrated, it sends up a stalk with a spore-laden "fruiting body". The cells in the stalk die, while the spores are able to travel through the air to an environment where food is hopefully more plentiful.
Of course, being an amoeba, Dicty can locomote without the need for slime jets.
Re:The DETAILS may be new, the idea isn't! (Score:1)
The Myxo and Dicty spore formation process (with most cells dying and releasing their nutrients for the good of the minority which form spores) is very similar.
As a family the myxo bacteria have a whole range of lovely fruiting bodies.
Did you know they where first mis-classified as fungi when they were spotted down a microscope?
Re:The DETAILS may be new, the idea isn't! (Score:1)
In the spirit of comments that must be made... (Score:1)
Actually, in Soviet Russia, I think the bacteria probably killed a lot of people. They don't have the best medical facilities over there.
I feel so dirty.
Re:In the spirit of comments that must be made... (Score:1)
Re:In the spirit of comments that must be made... (Score:1)
I like the sound of that much better. Although then the dirty communists don't get it in the end...
Slime Jets? (Score:1)
Amazing that bacteria can book a reservation on SouthWest with such tiny appendages.
And how do you distribute frequent flier miles through a colony of millions?
Re:Slime Jets? (Score:1)
Hmmmm... (Score:1)
The slime is probably composed almost entirely of proteins, carbohydrates and water, and it is probably about the same that covers many bacteria. (No idea about this specific one though, but since it has developed a propulsion system based on it, I would guess it is) And the slime ususally works as a glue, so it can stick to surfaces - Which also means it holds it back. So for this propulsion system to work, it needs to deliver quite a 'splat' so to say..
But hey, just gue
Re:A better method would be using flagellum (Score:1)
Re:A better method would be using flagellum (Score:1)
As I stated, the mechanisms are still inside every human cell, you can even see them with a microscope in the brain.
But, if we're talking nanobots, we need to consider mobility and utility. How much should we devote to mobility, if a flagellum design is easier to maintain and adapt?
Perhaps if we were designing nanobots that worked in a specific environment, we might find slime propulsion is more effective in:
a. cost of
This may seem inefficient... (Score:5, Informative)
This may seem a very inefficient way to move about, but things work very differently on the lengthscale of bacteria.
For example, most moving bacteria use propellor-like objects (flagellae [wikipedia.org]) to propel themselves, but the way they work is very different from propellors.
Propellors use Bernouilli's principle [wikipedia.org] to create a pressure difference between the front and the rear of the propellor, thereby 'sucking' themselves forward.
Bacteria, because they're so small, live in a surrounding where water has an effective viscosity higher than molasses on our lengthscale (it has to do with a dimensionless number for friction in hydrodynamics called the Reynold's number [wikipedia.org], that scales with inverse length).
Bacteria have to push themselves forward in something that really doesn't want to move and creates a lot of friction; all kinds of movements that we would think of intuitively possible are impossible under these circumstances. For example, some hydrodynamics people talk about the 'scallop theorem', which states that at these conditions it's impossible something to move forward like a scallop: rapidly closing its shell and opening it again.
Most flagellae are either spiral structures or stiff rods that get swayed back and forth; none use Bernoulli's effect, but tend to make use of the high viscosity by pushing against the fluid.
These bacteria make a starch gel to propel themselves: the sugar concentration doesn't need to be very high to get a decent gel, and the speeds they obtain sound incredible (usually we're talking 10 microns per minute, not per second).
Re:This may seem inefficient... (Score:1)
Baloney. This is not true of airplane wings, and it is not true of propellers. If you believe it, then ask yourself how airplanes fly inverted, toy planes with flat wings fly, toy helicopters with flat propeller blades rise, and fans with flat blades blow air.
Re:This may seem inefficient... (Score:2)
I've just looked it up (here [wikipedia.org]) and you're mostly right. The main lift comes from the pressure obtained by deflecting the airflow; something that stops working as viscosity increases.
In practice, an airfoil does make of Bernoulli's effect to help deflect air downwards, thus increasing the lift (I'd guess that that's the reason why airplane wings 'bulge' upwards).
wakka, wakka, wakka (Score:2)