Talk:Nanobacterium

Merge with nanobe?[edit]

Well, it's been a while since since this last post. As far as I can tell, they bear a great likeness to each other. Nobody has published/equated the two of them directly (especially since it's controversial). Instead of merging the two, Nanobe should exist seperately and have links to each other. It may have similar information in both pages, but until Philippa Uwins publishes a paper saying nanobes are nanobacteria... we shouldn't merge them Sp00n17 23:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they are nanobes or not... here's some reference, perhaps somebody should contact Philippa Uwins [1] and ask her to update wikipedia

Nanobe Link:[2]

Are these the same as nanobes?

I'm under this impression as well.--ZayZayEM 03:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess as this is the larger of the two pages, Nanobes should be merged into here rather than the otherw ay round?--ZayZayEM 13:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, understood. This is the larger of two pages; however, are you 100% certain that Nanobes are actually Nanobacteria? It's easy to relate the two because of overlapping information. This does not mean that they are the same, as particularly nothing has been published on the discoverer's website (Philippa Uwins [3]) that suggests that Nanobes are the same. I don't believe it should be merged unless actual evidence is found that they are. I invite you to prove me wrong about this, perhaps there's some literature out there describing nanobe taxonomy or otherwise equate nanobes and nanobacteria.Sp00n17 13:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think we all agree it's not certain that nanobes are nanobacteria, so until Ms. Uwins is sure about this, it should say precisely that, that it isn't certain that nanobes are nanobacteria (this has already happened over at nanobe, so it's about time we put it here, right?) Kreachure 17:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not certain that they aren't the same, either. I think they are related enough to put on the same page, since both are speculative, anyway. — Omegatron 12:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the terms are used interchangeably as a quick search on google with nanobacteria & nanobe shows, here's eg. a NASA link found by that search http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=137 - "Some scientists believe that life can be very small indeed. Called nanobes, nanobacteria, or nano-organisms, these miniscule structures borrow their name from their unit of measurement, the nanometer" . - G3, 12:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Little enough seems to be known about both that we don't know if they are the same thing. The major argument against calling small things "bacteria" is that it is not known if these motes are related to bacteria or not. If it is found that they're tiny plants or black holes, they would have been misnamed if called "*bacteria". One group has chosen to call their stuff "nanobes" until they can be better identified. (SEWilco 05:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'm guessing the etymology of nanobe is like that of microbe, just switching micro for nano. Then nanobacteria, if exists, would be a more specific type of nanobe, possibly the only nanobes, if there are nothing like nanoarchaea, nanofungi, nanozoarians, or nanosomethingelseentirelies.--45.234.133.88 (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14 mar 05 Wired article[edit]

Are Nanobacteria making us sick?

Image[edit]

Can we get a real image? Something like this? — Omegatron 21:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a shortage of public domain images. Got a scanning electron microscope and mineral prep gear? (SEWilco 07:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

That's why we allow fair use images. — Omegatron 14:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if a contributor does have a SEM or existing photos to donate. (SEWilco 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

So far none. I'm not expecting a SEM for Christmas. There's no box under the tree which is the right size. (SEWilco 06:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Clues and questions[edit]

The following is a list of observations and oddities which led to the discovery of whatever these things are. This might end up in the article so feel free to edit. Start by adding material, as it isn't necessary to prune true info until it goes in the article. I'm starting with some info from "Dark Life" and detailed sourcing will be needed for material which goes in the article. (SEWilco 06:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Travertine was explained as calcium carbonate precipitating out of solution in hot water after "supersaturation". (since more than a century before ~1988 )
- But crystallization needs a seed to begin.
- Many travertines were thick with fossilized microbes which were visible under a microscope.
- Some travertines seemed to be composed of layers of bacterial colonies.
- The water for these travertines often lacked the high levels of calcium required for travertine formation through chemical processes.
- Henry S. Chafetz and Robert L. Folk. Travertines; depositional morphology and the bacterially constructed constituents. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology (March 1984), 54(1):289-316
  - "Bacterially precipitated calcite forms a large percentage of the carbonate in many travertine accumulations, exceeding 90% of the framework grains comprising some of the lake-fill deposits."
  - "The bacteria are primarily rods, generally 0.2 mu m in diameter and less than 1.0 mu m in length."
- Some sections of travertines seemed to have no fossilized cells, although some barren areas were among layers where bacteria seemed responsible for travertine formation.
Many cave formations seemed due to biological activity.
- Few microbes were found until more careful sampling processes were used.
1996 five-mile-diameter megaplume of hot water near Gorda Ridge contained millions of tons of microbes, confirming large amount of deep life (albeit not nano)
Columbia River basalt had many fossilized rods and filaments. Some 30-40 nm by 150 nm.

Cisar/citations[edit]

This article needs to desperately cite its references. Peer-reviewed research if possible. Direct quotes would be good. For example:

A paper published in 2000 by a team led by a dentist John Cisar USNIH hypothesized that the "self-replication" was, in fact, an unusual form of crystalline growth, and that his contamination may have been the source of the DNA. However, the Cisar group did not as part of their study examine nanobacteria samples from the Kajander group, therefore critics observed that without such a control sample the assertion that these were self-replicating crystals or contamination had not been substantiated.

There is no need for such a control sample to substantiate the claim of contamination with foreign DNA. A matching sequencing result will do; the matching foreign sequence is the control as the working hypothesis is "these things have nucleic acids, but they are too small to have a conventional (or even unconventional) genome." (To refute the crystallization claim you would indeed need a control as outlined above. But that's not what the paragraph states). Dysmorodrepanis 10:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to move this to the main page if it's okay.

I see no relationship between spontaneous self-replicationg crystals and DNA contamination. If spontaneous crystalization occurs, it is independednt from nucleic acid contamination.BatteryIncluded 17:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nanobacteria and pathological placental calcification (PPC)][edit]

Some pregnancies are threatened by extensive calcification of the placenta. Currently, the etiology of this disease is unknown. One paper suggest that nanobacteria are responsible. The authors say, "The nature and mechanism of PPC development has not been defined as yet. In the present investigation, we have tested the hypothesis that the molecular basis of PPC development consists of nanobacteria-induced calcification in infected female placenta. Electron microscopy findings support this hypothesis. The initial stage of micro-calcification may originate from the external surface of individual nanobacteria-like particles found mainly in placental extracellular matrix....The micro-cavities contain free nanobacterial-like particles, which may relate to atypical Gram-negative bacteria.... We hypothesize that the increased placental calcification might be caused, at least in part, by nanobacterial infection."(PMID 17954977). ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to put something like this on the main page.

Yes, I'd support placing this in the article, with the reference if peer reviewed. I believe Kajander suggests that all abnormal calcifications in the body may be caused by nanobacteria, however, I have the impression that calcification by nanobacteria is a process spaning few/several years, not months -as in pregnancy.BatteryIncluded 17:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nanobacteria-associated calcific aortic valve stenosis[edit]

Aortic valve stenosis is a often a disease of growing old. Gradually, calcification of the aortic valve occurs and results in stenosis. This can occur in normal aortic valves and is considered a part of "old age." This "old age" aortic stenosis often becomes symptomatic in the 70s or 80s and is associated with calcification. Researchers at West Virginia University have suggested that this pathology may actually be due to nanobacteria. If true, this raises the possibly that much aortic valve stenosis surgery can be prevented. (PMID 17315391).ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 17:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to the full text of this article. Does someone else? (PMID 16901042) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonablelogicalman (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nanobacteria and arthritis[edit]

There are many kinds of arthritis. Osteoarthritis is considered a disease of old age. The elderly are often on numerous medications to fight their arthritis, and the etiology of that arthritis remains unknown, or is chalked up to "old age." Rhuematoid arthritis is considered an autoimmune disease and afflicts many people, causing joint pain and inflammation. Some research, however, suggests that osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis are caused by nanobacteria. One study says, "We investigated the existence of nanosize particles in synovial fluids of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis patients.... The nanobacteria-like particles exist in synovial fluids of arthritis patients. The possibility of their existence and pathogenesis in various diseases should be verified cautiously." (PMID: 16674119) ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add sourced information to the article. There are several medical calcification items there already. This is not surprising, as nanobacteria have been found in several warm mineral waters and the human body is a warm water environment. (SEWilco 17:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

2004, Isolation from atherosclerotic aortic walls[edit]

The Mayo clinic team seems the first to report isolating nanoparticles (nanobacteria) from atherosclerotic aortic walls (paper published in 2004), therefore the 2005 paper by László Puskás was not the first report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BatteryIncluded (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this whole article a Nanobac stock pump and dump scheme?[edit]

Sheesh --68.101.188.124 (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not the whole article. The things seem to exist. -- SEWilco (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surface chemistry[edit]

The lower bound on the size of a viable cell, seems to depend on the known thickness of cell membranes and some requirment on the volume of the interior of the cell. Some theories hold, though, that early life would have involved chemical reactions on the exterior surfaces of cells, instead of the way our own cells operate internally from ingested molecules. So, if the "guts" of the cell were on the outside instead of the inside, what would the lower limit be? Carl Ponder (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a primordial chemical soup.BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Shouldn't it be titled in plural - Nanobacteria (like Bacteria)? GregorB (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R & D[edit]

An anonimous guest wrote in the article: "Please note that Nanobac Pharmaceuticals was publicly traded as a penny stock. Events surrounding Nanobac Pharmaceuticals, its management and its investor relations may throw the integrity of its research into question as well. It may be best to verify any research coming from Nanobac Pharmaceuticals."

It is expected that most scientists progress their research work into development (R & D). Name ONE pharmaceutical company not interested in it. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrials without DNA[edit]

There are people who believe that not all life requires DNA, and that life outside Earth could exist wthout DNA. For instance, in 2001 there were reports about red rains of Kerela being composed of foreign microbes. The question of life without DNA is currently being discussed for the proposed class of nanobacteria. [4] [5] Also, there was a strange report in 2009 in Mexico about a baby alien who didn't have DNA. [6] ADM (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The red rain in Kerala turned out to be sand particles and terrestrial spores. Regarding the weird dead alien, you are talking about Michael Jackson, right? I read that it was Elvis who found his body. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues[edit]

I've flagged this article as {{NPOV language}}. It doesn't properly abide by WP:NPOV. For example:

"Albeit, later findings identified the DNA as contamination." No; someone (who?) later said that the DNA was contamination; "identified" takes the POV that this was correct.
"stated that the so called 'self-replication' was, in fact, a form of crystalline growth" – is the phrase "so-called" a direct quote? If so, make this clear by extending the quotes. As written it implies that Wikipedia thinks it was only "so-called".
"He showed that the only DNA detected in his specimens was contamination from environmental bacteria." No; he said that this was the case (see WP:Words to avoid).
"These findings were confirmed in 2005 by László Puskás". No; László Puskás said that he had confirmed these findings.

Peter coxhead (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was greatly improved by User:TimVickers's edits, so I agree that the NPOV flagging should be removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 articles[edit]

I've re-written one sentence to be more neutral. I've also removed a part which was referenced by http://www.physorg.com/news128167633.html. If you look at this it quotes Martel & Young, who quote the 1999 Workshop (note 19 in Martel & Young). So it doesn't belong in a section on 2008 articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So many sections not needed[edit]

It seems odd to have so many dated sections, with different titles (e.g. "1981-1992 discoveries" vs. "1998–2000 articles"). I also note that a 2009 paper has been added under the 2008 heading. I'm going to be bold and merge the sections into two. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bioreactor[edit]

The cryptic "bioreactor that simulates conditions of space travel" is nothing more than a cylindrical tissue culture plastic flask filled with DMEM media and placed on a roller, so that the CNP do not settle down. Sorry, no complex artificial gravity neutralizer.... --BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced section[edit]

I've removed this from the article until a source is provided.

Similar experiments were done independently showing that the nanobacteria were hydroxapatite crystals that had incorporated proteins into their lattice structure, disrupting normal crystallization and creating an amorphous, bacteria-like shape. The crystals were shown to bond with nucleic acids and other organic compounds available and kept growing until the organic compounds ran out; the nanobacteria then reverted into apatite crystals that took the form of jagged sheets. Young and Martel theorize that nanobacteria are the end result of metabolic abnormalities which affect mineral inhibition and clearance.

Scientific American Article[edit]

There's an excellent Sci Am article, Jan. 2010, entitled "The Rise and Fall of Nanobacteria," by John D. Young and Jan Martel. I couldn't figure out how to edit "reflist" though, so I'll leave it to a guru. <<((:-:))>>0X0<<((:-:))>> (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the list of additional reading. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think the "bacteria" reference is by now (post-2008) fringe science at best, and crackpottery at worst. A more neutral term should be used throughout. If anything seems certain, these things are not bacteria, just as viroids are not viri. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion[edit]

It is is suggested that a Wiki author of note remove the following text. "One skeptic dubbed them "the cold fusion of microbiology", in reference to a notorious episode of erroneous science.[6]

This comment is erronous because cold fusion is currently under serious investigation after an unnecessary witch hunt in the 1990's. See source http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/17/60minutes/main4952167.shtml.

Note that while this source - 60 minutes is in not an elite source for scientific, it is noteworthy for those who use mainstream media to form their opinions.

A search of cold fusion using google scholar reveals hundreds of articles from Ph.D.'s from accredited universities such as...

H Kozima, T Mizuno - Proc. JCF9, 2009 - geocities.jp Reports ofCFRL (ColdFusion Research Laboratory), 92, pp. 1-11 (October, 2009) Investigation of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon in the Surface Region of Hydrogen Non-occlusive Metal Catalysts; W, Pt, and Auf Hideo Kozima* and Tadahiko Mizuno** *Cold Fusion Research ..

If the guy actually made this claim, it's his opinion and can be cited as such (with his name and a source). Should there be something to CF (Schwinger's ideas, IMHO, look promising), he's the fool. The case for CF seems to me definitely better than the case for nano"bacteria", and even CF ist a decidedly minority opinion. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is wrong to equate 'cold fusion' with spurious, fringe, or pathological science. I have changed the text to read "...in reference to a notorious episode of supposed erroneous science".Theodore Rigley 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigley (talk • contribs)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nanobacterium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it not living?[edit]

"Research tends to agree that these structures exist, and appear to replicate in some way. However, the idea that they are living entities has now largely been discarded" — I'm finding myself confused here—what criteria of "life" do they not meet? This is probably really obvious to experts, but I'm not, so it would be nice to have that included on this page. Yitz (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Life#Biology for characteristics of life. The only characteristic they seem to exhibit is reproduction, they may have other characteristics but they are unconfirmed. This reproduction is unexplained, but may be a result of physical processes rather than biological ones, rather like the replication of crystals. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]