Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, May 24, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document Huge hidden biomass lives deep beneath the oceans

by New Scientist

Thanks to DoctorE for the link.

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13960-huge-hidden-biomass-lives-deep-beneath-the-oceans.html

Huge hidden biomass lives deep beneath the oceans
By Catherine Brahic

It's the basement apartment like no other. Life has been found 1.6 kilometres beneath the sea floor, at temperatures reaching 100 °C.

The discovery marks the deepest living cells ever to be found beneath the sea floor. Bacteria have been found deeper underneath the continents, but there they are rare. In comparison, the rocks beneath the sea appear to be teeming with life.

John Parkes, a geobiologist at the University of Cardiff, UK, hopes his team's discovery might one day help find life on other planets. He says it might even redefine what we understand as life, and, bizarrely, what we understand by "age".

Parkes has been hunting for deep life for over 20 years. Recently, he and his colleagues examined samples of a mud core extracted from between 860 metres and 1626 metres beneath the sea floor off the coast of Newfoundland.

They found simple organisms known as prokaryotes in every sample. Prokaryotes are organisms that often have just one cell. Their peculiarity is that, unlike any other form of life, their DNA is not neatly packed into a nucleus.

Gradual descent

About 60% of the cells Parkes and his team found were alive. They are related to organisms found in deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Depending on the depth, between one in 20 and one in 10 of the cells were dividing, which is the normal way prokaryotes reproduce.

Where cells living so far beneath the sea floor could have come from remains a mystery. They may have been gradually buried in sediment as millions of years passed by, and adapted to the increasing temperatures and pressure, he says.

Another possibility is that they were sucked deep into the mud from the sea water above. Hydrothermal vents pulse hot water out of the seabed and into the ocean. This creates a vacuum in the sediment, which draws fresh sea water into the marine aquifer.

It is important to understand the way the cells got down there, because that has implications for their age. The cells are not very active and according to Parkes they have very few predators. "We find very few viruses, for example, down there," he says. "At the surface, if you don't divide you get eaten. But if there are no predators, the pressure to reproduce decreases and you can spend more energy on repairing your damaged molecules."

Ancient life

This means it is conceivable — but unproven — that some of the cells are as old as the sediment. At 1.6 km beneath the sea, that's 111 million years old. But in an underworld where cells divide excruciatingly slowly, if at all, age tends to lose its relevance, says Parkes.

Parkes' interest in prokaryotes goes far beyond those that are buried deep in the Earth. He thinks the cells found there could lead to life on other planets.

Previously, he has shown that the rocks beneath the oceans could be home to the largest population of prokaryotes on Earth, and account for one tenth of all living carbon. He estimates the combined undersea biomass could be equivalent to that of all the plants on Earth.

"We are all dominated by our surface existence where everything relates to photosynthesis and oxygen," he told New Scientist.

The possibility that there could be more forms of life beneath the surface than above it suggests that they have different and effective ways of surviving — ways that could be independent of light and oxygen. And if these "new" forms of life exist on Earth, they could exist on other planets too.

Dense at depth

"That's what really excites me. This is not just about the deepest, hottest, oldest — but also that we may have misunderstood life."

Life beneath the continents is very different. The temperature increases more slowly with depth in the continental crust, which allows life to go deeper.

"We have recovered living cells from depths of 3.2 km to about 5 km in South Africa," says Tullis Onstott of Princeton University. "But what I find most interesting in Parkes' samples is the high density of microbial cells. They are about 100 to 1000-fold greater than in our terrestrial environments at comparable depths or temperatures."

In 2002, Parkes had found prokaryotes at 842 metres beneath the seabed, the previous record, and it seems likely he will be finding life deeper yet in years to come. "The more you look the more you find," comments Karsten Pedersen of the Deep Biosphere Laboratory at Göteborg University, Sweden.

Journal reference: Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1154545)

Comments 1 - 31 of 31 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #184311 by SilentMike on May 24, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Ohh! that's interesting.

Other Comments by SilentMike

2. Comment #184312 by mordacious1 on May 24, 2008 at 2:05 pm

 avatarI had a zoology professor who spent most of his life searching for deep sea life, it's a really interesting area to study, but difficult to do. This seems like quite a breakthrough.

Some of the cells could be as old as the sediment. Never heard of that before. Seems hard to believe that a single cell could be 111 mil. years old. hmmm

On the other hand, why would god put these things down so deep? Did they fall off the ark?

Other Comments by mordacious1

3. Comment #184315 by tybowen on May 24, 2008 at 2:13 pm

 avatar
Their peculiarity is that, unlike any other form of life, their DNA is not neatly packed into a nucleus.

Actually it is the small minority of life that does have a nucleus. We are dominated by bacteria and archea.

Other Comments by tybowen

4. Comment #184319 by SilentMike on May 24, 2008 at 2:37 pm

3. Comment #184315 by tybowen
Actually it is the small minority of life that does have a nucleus. We are dominated by bacteria and archea.


The stupidity goes deeper than that. The way they say "prokaryotes" makes it sound like we're talking about some kind of mysterious alien life forms. It may have been wise to mention that bacteria are prokaryotes, instead of giving the false impression that "prokaryotes" are a bizzar exotic form of life that hardly anyone knows anything about. There are prokaryotes everywhere. My body is full of prokaryotes at any given moment, as is everyone else's!

Other Comments by SilentMike

5. Comment #184326 by Count von Count on May 24, 2008 at 3:59 pm

 avatarInteresting article, but a bit unscientific.

Prokaryotes are organisms that often have just one cell.

While this is true, there are other types of organisms that have just one cell. All known life is either prokaryotic or eukaryotic. All prokaryotes and many eukaryotes have only one cell. What is special about prokaryotes is that they do not have any organelles or "cell sub-organs" (although it has recently been discovered that there are certain eukaryote-like structures in prokaryotic cells). In particular, they do not have a nucleus (as the article correctly mentions).

Other Comments by Count von Count

6. Comment #184328 by Count von Count on May 24, 2008 at 4:05 pm

 avatar

...the combined undersea biomass could be equivalent to that of all the plants on Earth. ...some of the cells are as old as the sediment.



Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
-H.P. Lovecraft


Could it be the old one? Cthulhu fhtagn.

Other Comments by Count von Count

7. Comment #184334 by Szkeptik on May 24, 2008 at 4:49 pm

"Prokaryotes are organisms that often have just one cell."

Often? Could someone give me a single example on multicellular procariotes?

Other Comments by Szkeptik

8. Comment #184343 by bachfiend on May 24, 2008 at 5:51 pm

7. Comment #184334 by Szkeptik on May 24, 2008 at 4:49 pm
"Prokaryotes are organisms that often have just one cell."

Often? Could someone give me a single example on multicellular procariotes?

Yes. A biofilm; "...a complex aggregation of microorganisms marked by the excretion of a protective and adhesive matrix. Biofilms are also often characterized by surface attachment, structural heterogeneity, genetic diversity, complex community interactions, and an extracellular matrix of polymeric substances". "Biofilms can contain many different types of microorganism, e.g. bacteria, archaea, protozoa, fungi and algae; each group performing specialized metabolic functions. However, some organisms will form monospecies films under certain conditions". (wikipedia)
Dental plaque is probably the one most people would be familiar with.
Ref: Shapiro, J. A. 1998. “Thinking about bacterial populations as multicellular organisms.†Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 52: 81-104.

Other Comments by bachfiend

9. Comment #184345 by mordacious1 on May 24, 2008 at 5:59 pm

 avatar"...effective ways of surviving - ways that could be independent of light and oxygen".

Considering where they live, I hope so...

Other Comments by mordacious1

10. Comment #184349 by chuckgoecke on May 24, 2008 at 6:14 pm

 avatarI think this supports the idea of panasperma, extraterrestrial life may have seeded Earth. Organisms like this would both be able to survive the shattering blow of a planetoid, maybe Mars sized, like they think hit the Earth and gave rise to the Moon, as well as ejection into deep space, to travel for millions(or billions) of years to other star systems, crash down on another planet, and start up living again. Interesting possibilities. Life is incredibly tenacious.

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

11. Comment #184367 by Double Bass Atheist on May 24, 2008 at 8:32 pm

 avatarI love reading articles like this. It reminds me that life, and its evolutionary adaptations, are a wonder to behold.

It's also a reminder, as RD frequently states, that science shows us that life, and indeed the universe, are so much more marvelous then the fantasies of religious doctrine ever dreamt it was!

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

12. Comment #184370 by Darwinsbulldog on May 24, 2008 at 9:12 pm

 avatarAmen to that Double bass Atheist! :-)

Other Comments by Darwinsbulldog

13. Comment #184380 by bachfiend on May 24, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Comment #184349 by chuckgoecke on May 24, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I think this supports the idea of panasperma, extraterrestrial life may have seeded Earth. Organisms like this would both be able to survive the shattering blow of a planetoid, maybe Mars sized, like they think hit the Earth and gave rise to the Moon, as well as ejection into deep space, to travel for millions(or billions) of years to other star systems, crash down on another planet, and start up living again. Interesting possibilities. Life is incredibly tenacious.

I think that panspermia is still a very doubtful hypothesis. The catch in it, is that it is extremely likely that any bacteria would be able to survive the prolonged cosmic radiation it would be exposed to. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
Although the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans
is also very interesting.

Other Comments by bachfiend

14. Comment #184397 by Mal3 on May 25, 2008 at 1:45 am

 avatar
Could it be the old one? Cthulhu fhtagn.


Glad I'm not the only seeing a correlation here.

But if there are no predators, the pressure to reproduce decreases and you can spend more energy on repairing your damaged molecules."



That is not dead which can eternal lie.
And with strange aeons even death may die

Other Comments by Mal3

15. Comment #184398 by Sigmund on May 25, 2008 at 1:51 am

 avatarThere are sound biochemical reasons to doubt whether a single cell can be 111 million years old. DNA as a molecule, while quite stable compared to many others, is subject to degradation - radioisotopic derived cleavage from isotopes of phosphorus etc.
This puts limits for the length of time a single DNA strand can remain intact - probably somewhere in the order of tens of thousands of years.
That is one of the reasons why the Jurassic Park strategy of reviving dinosaurs doesn't now make scientific sense.
On the other hand the bacteria may have strong repair processes that fix the errors that creep in over time - but I highly doubt they could do it sufficiently well to allow the same cell to survive without replicating for 111 million years resulting in an ancient cell that is now capable of dividing.

Other Comments by Sigmund

16. Comment #184402 by eofor on May 25, 2008 at 2:23 am

It's beautiful how even the smallest and simplest of lifeforms can make humans look so humble.

Other Comments by eofor

17. Comment #184412 by rod-the-farmer on May 25, 2008 at 4:00 am

 avatarOne of my most intense wishes is to live long enough for scientists to find life on another planet, just so I can hear the fundies try to explain its existence. Intelligent life on another planet would be the icing on the cake. Thus my support for SETI.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

18. Comment #184426 by kev_s on May 25, 2008 at 6:33 am

I seem to remember that most ocean crust is less than 150 mya because it gets subducted. So even if these cells are fabulously long-lived they will eventually be subducted, crushed and cooked. Their remains will be incorporated into the magma that spews from the volcanoes along the continental margin. Quite a ride. But perhaps they avoid this fate if the sediment they are in is "scraped off" on the way down.

Other Comments by kev_s

19. Comment #184432 by GregPhillips on May 25, 2008 at 6:53 am

 avatar
Comment #184328 by Count von Count
...the combined undersea biomass could be equivalent to that of all the plants on Earth. ...some of the cells are as old as the sediment.


Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
-H.P. Lovecraft


Could it be the old one? Cthulhu fhtagn.


More likely to be the deeply buried extremities of that foul Great Old One Ubbo-Sathla...

From Wikipedia entry on Clark Ashton Smith

Ubbo-Sathla
There, in the grey beginning of Earth, the formless mass that was Ubbo-Sathla reposed amid the slime and the vapors. Headless, without organs or members, it sloughed from its oozy sides, in a slow, ceaseless wave, the amoebic forms that were the archetypes of earthly life. Horrible it was, if there had been aught to apprehend the horror; and loathsome, if there had been any to feel loathing. About it, prone or tilted in the mire, there lay the mighty tablets of star-quarried stone that were writ with the inconceivable wisdom of the pre-mundane gods.
�quot;Clark Ashton Smith, "Ubbo-Sathla"

Ubbo-Sathla (The Unbegotten Source, The Demiurge) is described as a huge protoplasmic mass resting in a grotto deep beneath the frozen earth. The being is of a monstrous fecundity, spontaneously generating primordial single-celled organisms that pour unceasingly from its shapeless form. It guards a set of stone tablets believed to contain the knowledge of the Elder Gods.

Ubbo-Sathla is said to have spawned the prototypes of all forms of life on Earth; though whatever its pseudopods touch is forever devoid of life. Ubbo-Sathla is destined to someday reabsorb all living things on Earth.

Ubbo-Sathla possibly dwells in gray-litten Y'qaa. The being may also dwell in Mount Voormithadreth and may have spawned another of its residents, the being Abhoth, whose form and nature is very similar. The tablets that Ubbo-Sathla guards have been oft sought by sorcerers, though no sorcerer has yet succeeded in acquiring them.

Greg :)

PS Fascinating science story by the way!

Other Comments by GregPhillips

20. Comment #184433 by Border Collie on May 25, 2008 at 6:54 am

 avatarAw, hell, you guys know that the devil put that stuff down there just to trick us and test our faith! Or, maybe, those are the bacteria that eat the vapors from the burning flesh in hell.

Oops, sorry, I must have had a mild stroke.

No, seriously, fascinating information. Reminds me of the time I was sitting wells in west Texas and a very small, perfectly preserved fish fin fossil, from a shale formation, came up in the drill cuttings from about 5,000 feet. I was fascinated.

And, unfortunately, I do actually know people who would tell me that when "God created the Earth He put that fish fin fossil there, personally for me, just so it would come up in the drill cuttings at that very instant so that I would realize whatever" ...

I did go the the funeral of an uncle yesterday at the Baptist Church across the street. Actualy, I was curious to hear the "new" message. I'm sorry to tell you guys this, but it hasn't changed. The good new is that I did hear again that heaven is/is going to be a wonderful place. The bad news is, of course, is that admittance is restricted. Sort of like a gated community for the wealthy, I guess. I wonder how much the homeowner's dues are?

Other Comments by Border Collie

21. Comment #184436 by Lionel A on May 25, 2008 at 8:13 am

 avatarThis is the second fascinating science story to emerge this week, see PZ's article on shrimp eyes at:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/the_superior_eyes_of_shrimp.php

Other Comments by Lionel A

22. Comment #184458 by Chuk15 on May 25, 2008 at 10:30 am

Godhatesshimp.com
LOL

Thanks for that laugh Lionel and PZ.

Other Comments by Chuk15

23. Comment #184479 by padster1976 on May 25, 2008 at 1:12 pm

 avatarIt makes the possibility of life being on Europa that much more excitingly possible.

Life is showing up in the unlikeliest places on earth - thermal vents under the sea and in the light water in nuclear reactors!

Cool!

Other Comments by padster1976

24. Comment #184481 by alexmzk on May 25, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Huge hidden biomass lives deep beneath the oceans

bloop!

Other Comments by alexmzk

25. Comment #184519 by Teratornis on May 25, 2008 at 2:45 pm

 avatarComment #184398 by Sigmund:

This puts limits for the length of time a single DNA strand can remain intact - probably somewhere in the order of tens of thousands of years.
That is one of the reasons why the Jurassic Park strategy of reviving dinosaurs doesn't now make scientific sense.


There are several techniques for reconstructing an original signal from a corrupted signal. NASA, for example, tends to get noisy signals from its space probes. The ability to clean up such photos might be as impressive as what's in the photos.

Similar problems arise in reconstructing lost ancient texts from surviving copies and excerpts, which usually contain errors. A harder problem is to reconstruct an extinct ancestral language from its surviving linguistic descendents. In the case of extinct only-spoken languages, we don't have any writing fragments to constrain the possibilities, making the reconstruction harder. Plus, the field of computational linguistics isn't very far along yet, especially for spoken languages, so it's hard to compare the descendent languages efficiently.

As long as the surviving data has not degraded into complete randomness, the original data might still be recoverable. That's a general rule in signal processing. But you have to be able to represent the data in some format accessible to computers. Since DNA is essentially an information-storage medium, and we know the code, it might be possible to apply various signal processing algorithms to infer original DNA strands from corrupted samples, given enough samples.

We'd have at least three sources of data from which to reconstruct dinosaur DNA:

1. Fossilized remains of degraded DNA.

2. Fossilized remains of dinosaur morphology.

3. Living DNA of animals more or less closely related to dinosaurs.

Once scientists finish sequencing the DNA of all species relating to dinosaurs, that would constrain the possibilities for dinosaur DNA. By how much, I don't know. There are probably only finitely many possible DNA arrangements for dinosaurs which could reproduce all the existing data in the above three categories. Even if the possible DNA arrangements remained combinatorially vast, at least it would be possible to create animals that are indistinguishable from dinosaurs as we are able to know them. If their actual DNA is wrong, then we would have created convergent dinosaurs.

With enough computing power, it might be possible to simulate morphogenesis from starting DNA. Thus a computer might search for all possible chromosome arrangements which lead to virtual dinosaurs that duplicate everything we know about real dinosaurs. With enough data about real dinosaurs, it might be possible to constrain the virtual chromosomes down to one set for a given species - and that set would have a high probability of matching the extinct real set.

Other Comments by Teratornis

26. Comment #184550 by JeremyH on May 25, 2008 at 5:07 pm

 avatarAmazing... it really goes to show the incredible power of life and evolution. Since it started on this planet, life has spread to pretty much every conceivable ecological niche imaginable. I think it's an overstatement when people say this planet is on a knifes edge, with bacteria like this surviving in such harsh conditions, I don't see why life couldn't survive on other planets. The only reason we see earth as more inhabitable for life is because the only life we know, including us, evolved on this planet.

Other Comments by JeremyH

27. Comment #184712 by Sigmund on May 26, 2008 at 2:57 am

 avatarTeratornis,
You are suggesting two separate things here.
First reconstructing dinosaur gene sequences from degraded DNA.
Second using related species to give a clue what genetic alterations could be introduced to change them into animals physically indistinguishable from dinosaurs.
The second approach is feasible in time (Chicken rex!) but the first is impossible since DNA degrades totally in the time frame we are talking about - tens of millions of years. It would be like trying to reconstruct a snow sculpture that had been left in the Sahara a hundred years ago - there is simply nothing left to work with.

Other Comments by Sigmund

28. Comment #184944 by Count von Count on May 26, 2008 at 1:30 pm

 avatarGregPhillips-

Good call!

Other Comments by Count von Count

29. Comment #185055 by John Pritzlaff on May 26, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Very interesting. I love biology!

Other Comments by John Pritzlaff

30. Comment #185137 by DamnDirtyApe on May 27, 2008 at 4:02 am

Cthulhu or R'lyeh would be most apt titles for some of these organisms. Always with the latin in naming, its fine and all but why not a bit of contemporary Lovecraft?

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

31. Comment #185163 by ShavenYak on May 27, 2008 at 6:07 am

Seems hard to believe that a single cell could be 111 mil. years old.


When you're talking about an organism that only reproduces by dividing itself in two, how do you define age? For that matter, in a certain way of thinking, every living cell on Earth has been alive since the dawn of life. They are all the result of an earlier cell dividing in two (or, in the case of sexual reproduction, two living cells uniting).

Other Comments by ShavenYak
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: