3.8 Article

Light-induced replication of nanobacteria: A preliminary report

期刊

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/10445470260420731

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of light on nanobacteria. Background Data: Since their first description in literature, it is not clear whether the nanoparticles called nanobacteria are alive or not. The 80-1000-nm-sized spherical particles are protected by a crystalline carbonate apatite shell and are culturable in cell culture media. Present in mammalians, including humans, nanobacteria seem to cause diseases related to biomineralization processes. Mesoscopic structures found on Martian meteorites and terrestrial rocks indicated that nanobacteria-like biological objects forming apatite, a material fairly transparent to visible light, could have been present on the primitive Earth during an era with the sun as the principal terrestrial energy source. Materials and Methods: To evaluate possible biomedical effects of therapeutically relevant irradiation sources on nanobacteria, we irradiated nanobacteria cultures with polarized light and laser-light at low, nonthermal energy density levels. Results: Our observations indicated that nanobacteria are alive. Polarized white light was found to clearly accelerate their replication in vitro, resulting in significant dose-dependent increases in the turbidity of the cultures, compared to nonirradiated controls. Laser irradiation did not affect their replication. Conclusion: The possibility that primordial and present nanobacteria could have been not only exposed to, but actively harvested, solar irradiation for their own development suggests itself. Considering that there exists no published material on the action of light on nanobacteria, the reported effects are expected to have an impact on modeling biomineralization processes, associated photoreceptor mechanisms, and astrobiological and evolutionary theories-on Earth and in space.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据