I'm looking for information on anaerobic life forms ...how they survive, what alternative do they use, etc...

I've browsed the web alot but havn't found anything pertinent.

I know there's quite a few bacteries that donot need air to survive, does anyone know of any other life form?

Could anyone point me to a site that covers that subject?

If you want to know why I'm asking -> check my post here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17270)

thank you

goldfish seem to be quite tolerant of anearobe conditions:

http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/c7/c719/oekophys/people/krumschnabel/hypox-en.html

wow incredible!

ANOXIA that's the word I needed -> after re-searching apparently cockroaches can live a few days without air, some northern trouts can live from a few days in normal conditions to up to a month in 0°C water without oxygen, some turtles up to 4-5 months when hibernating (I can go up to 2 minutes! :) :rolleyes: )

thank you very much Spuriusmonkey great help.
I'm still looking for info on pure anaerobic life forms (am I being stupid when I think about some animals that only live round submarine volcanic areas that live of other gases than oxygen?)

thanks

there is quite a lot of stuff on this subject on the net

here is one:

http://www.syslab.ceu.hu/corliss/Nature.html


if you use for instance 'oceanic vents anaerobe' in google you will find more

You can do a search in google for "obligate anaerobe" and find a lot as well.

One interesting microbe that doesn't live in an oceanic vent and is still anaerobic (there are lots), is Clostridium tetanii, the little bugger that causes tetanus. That's usually why you put hydrogen peroxide on cuts that are dirty. It saturates the wound with oxygen, which, surprisingly enough is a strong oxidizing agent. Unless you have the enzymes superoxidase dismutase and catalase, the oxygen is corrosive to you. Since there are quite a few organisms that lack these enzymes (mostly bacteria and archaea), they develop another means of metabolism (usually in the form of fermentation).

there are also bacteria that use Nitrogen, Sulfur and even Cr(IV) as electron acceptors.

ants can live up to a few weeks in H2o as well.

thank you very much for all the info
I doubt I could have had it anywher else
You guys rocks.

We're working atm on designs of (should I mention totally unrealistic) space travelling creatures. I will post them when they look good enough.

We've allready got an utterly rude to physical laws 200 metres long creature I wouldn't want to meet when going out of the space station to walk the dog.

Thanks for the links we are going to have a lot of fun.

ciao

We've allready got an utterly rude to physical laws 200 metres long creature I wouldn't want to meet when going out of the space station to walk the dog.



what the...?????:confused: :bugeye: :eek:

Anaerobic break down of glucose though the Creb cycle produces about: ~4 ATPs. If you add in an electron ladder (Aerobic) you can get out about ~36 ATPs.

So basically anaerobic life does not produce much energy and is why most things slow down, hibernate…

I've done some daydreaming while in class, and since I've been in so many classes I too have thought about space based organisms.

First off, is the creature your designing using photosynthesis for energy? If so, then it could be both anabolic and anerobic, anerobics are good when you need alot of energy very quickly. If its threatened it may be able to switch from anabolic stasis to anerobic metabolism using a storage of oxygen.

Also nitrogen, that stuff is what boils in your blood when your spaceship blows up and your in space. You either need a creature that doesn't use nitrogen, or have a way to keep the nitrogen from going gasous.

I'd say the most realistic large creature for space would be something thats photosynthetic, has tiny hardened points where stored oxygen and hydrogen are expelled and lit by a firing complex of neurons(think the electric eel) for propulsion. It could also use basic solar sailing for low speed migration. Asteroids would be partially consumed, prefferably ones rich in carbon and water for resources.

WellCooked: a little clarification - glycolysis yields about 4 ATP, and Kreb's Cycle (aka Citric Acid Cycle, aka Tricarboxylic Acid Cycle) yields about 28-32 ATP (including the ones gained from the electron transport chain). :p

youngbiologist: is there enough oxygen in space to support a photosynthetic organism? I thought that was the point of having an anaeobic organism for this discussion.

why thank you I was just naming that off my head... that and I can't spell

Photosynthesis does not require oxygen, it requires H20. Any gaseous oxygen/hydrogen could then be used for propulsion, or the oxygen could be used for anaerobic respiration during emergencies.

did you include bodywarmth in the equation? Effective enzymatic reactions usually need a specific temperature. That would mean that your creature needs to maintain a specific body temperature, or should be able to increase its temperature whenever it wishes.

youngbiologist:

the oxygen could be used for anaerobic respiration during emergencies.
The definition of aerobic respiration is use of oxygen. If oxygen is involved, then it is aerobic.

Quoted from www.m-w.com
living, active, or occurring only in the presence of oxygen (aerobic respiration)

Another problem with being a photosynthetic organism in space is, unless you are close to a star, the light intensity necessary to run the reaction may not be enough. Plants use the Citric Acid cycle as a back-up for when there is no light, or if they're losing too much water, which requires oxgyen.

How about a life form that lives on asteroids close to a star: Its has little clear bulbs that stick out of the surface of the asteroid will the rested of it is many meter below the surface for radiation coverage. During the day it pumps up a vital fluids into the bulbs to be cooked by heat and radiation from the sun. In the fluid a radical reaction powered by sun light and heat would store energy (just about any radical polymerization would do) at night it can pump the fluids back down and live off the energy stored in it.

I love where this thread is going - keep shooting - I love you

sorry I can't reply now this is just a quickie as I'm working my ass off right now...I'll b back in two days with more thuoghts and questions on the subject - if your intersted in the designs we've got so far say so I ll try to find a scanner.

Thank you
cheers
Ant

I notice there are some references to the bacteria found in hydrothermal vents in this thread. However, there is one aspect to their biology that is not often mentioned (though it is sometimes hidden in the scientific vernacular concerning these critters). It could be relevant to your area of interest.

These anerobic bacteria represent a departure from the long-held principle that life on Earth is based on photosynthesis. For these bacteria the thermal energy of the Earth is their fuel for producing basic hydrocarbon material at the base of the food chain. You could call it a thermo-synthesis. The reason it can occur there (ocean bottom) is that the high pressure is necessary for the thermal energy "quanta" to have an energy sufficient to support the bonding of the hydrocarbon molecules (the way sunlight does for plants on the surface). Like plants, they need no oxygen for this process. They simply require water, CO2, heat energy, and probably hydrogen sulfide (as a catalyst, somewhat like chlorophyl).

When it comes to moving up to higher life forms, however, the catch is that they must have some medium to support them like the water or air. It is possible to discuss a few non-traditional life forms that are connected to such microbe processes. Consider the ice-covered moons of Jupiter, which would have enough water, a hot core (continuously energized by tidal forces), and all the basic elements for hydrocarbon formation. Or look at the subterranean levels of some of the other planets.

On Earth these bacteria probably work their little assets off in subterranean cavities making this slime-like hydrocarbon that eventually winds up as oil (following geothermal processing). That of course would mean oil is a continuously renewable resource, but that is another matter altogether.

and, let's not forget to add the reaction time of the specific substrates of those specific enzymes into the equation..


there. that should be specific enough. i hope.

and there should be protection from cosmic radiation I guess...i not sure how the process of photosynthesis could withstand a constant bombardment of particles from space without being disrupted in the long term. This might be valid for any biological process

Did anyone read my idea???

yes i have read your idea. It is a really nice concept. Stephen Baxter came up with something similar in one of his SciFi story collections. Can't remember which one.

Ooh I thought it was original :(

he probably had it from someone else though...at least you thought of it yourself

i think part of the problem here(in this forum) is that most of our ideas are not our own(they came from textbooks, web-site links, etc)...we are simply rehashing them. then, when we do decide to speak/converse about them...we (ok..I) get bashed down. this forum needs to consider becoming a bit more tolerant and user-friendly. know what i mean? ...:bugeye:

let me see if i can paraphrase...what i am trying to say and so miserably..is that we are all up-to-date on the most current goings-ons in science, right? right. (most of us, that is) ..but, we are simply reading and reciting what researchers and scientists have spent long hours "discovering" ...know what i mean? what it boils down to here in this forum is that if someone makes a mistake about the name of a certain gene or the length of a particular dna strand then all the "experts" want to jump at the chance to tell the person just how wrong he/she is. i think this forum should be more nuturing...especially to the budding biologists out there...this should not be a forum that becomes intimidating to enter. does anyone understand what i am trying to explain...eh....i guess it doesn't matter. but, science questions should explained with not only expertise, but, a bit of empathy thrown in as well for the novice. we were all in grade-school science classes and attended science fairs...remember? so, i just want to suggest that the "experts" here not be so quick to cut someone down to size when information is seemingly in error.

Totally agree... but I'm guessing your must likely blaming me in that speech?

nope, i'm not...i wasn't implicating any one certain person... i think all of us have been guilty to a point from time to time...

but, YOU...man, dude .....if you are going to be writing all those heavy-duty research papers that you are so capable of doing in the future(because you do have strong science genes:D) ..then, you need to learn how to spell...:D that's the only beef i have with you. sheesh...think about it....all those students are going to be sitting around someday reading your articles in science journals...and, they're going to be like....wha?? but..hey...that's just because i am a grammar nazi. :p :D

Ha I have to go through 2-4 people and my own stepmother (an editor) before my reports look descent!

that's..."decent" :rolleyes: :p :D

point made.

Forums like this I need to improve my childish writing skills. I have notice a improvement in fact over the last 800 posts!

:bugeye: hmmmm......*been pondering Fetus* .....i wonder if you're doing it "on purpose" NOTICE: i did not say porpoise.. ....i mean, since your syntax is ok and your punctuation is ok...plus, you get a mean point across ....maybe, just maybe...you're faking it! out with it, man! are you? are you really a super-duper biologist in some secret govt. research lab cooking up newer and better recipes for cures? :p :rolleyes: :D :bugeye:

Did you see my post on "Mutagen effects of Aspartame on Drosophila Melanogaster" that was my first rough draft report for BIOL 262 I made that all by my self :) and it had to go through 2 other group partner 3 times before a legible version was written... read it: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14477&highlight=Aspartame

i was looking at that paper again and wanted to ask a question, but didn't, because it might have looked like i just wanted to critizize it. I just didn't understand some things in the methods.


and letting other people read your paper is a good thing. Unfortunately some type of advice is not very usueful in my opinion. Such as the people who correct grammar and punctuation (no offense Pump. K.). For an early draft this is not important. The best advice i usually get is just a simple sentence. This could simply be something like: ' i do not understand this entire section, what are you trying to say here'. It is obvious then that your message is not clear. Just rewrite the whole thing. Or real smart people can give you a new perspective to look at your data. That sometimes makes your paper twice as good.

But the thing to remember is that you do not have to follow advice. Not even of your professor or supervisor, or whoever is the authority you fall under. You are after all responsible for what you write.

I am going to read your link...