Using E. coli to make hydrocarbon fuels is not a strategy for moving away from hydrocarbon fuels. It is a strategy for making hydrocarbon fuels renewable. The carbon being used by the E. coli ultimately comes from the air (via the sugars or fatty acids). So, using fossil fuels made in this way is not putting any new carbon into the atmosphere, it is cycling carbon out of and back into the atmosphere.
I mean, with the big assumption that all of the carbon comes from the atmosphere, carbon neutral is still better than carbon negative. Obviously it's not enough, but there will be some things that simply can't be converted to electric (or can't be converted fast enough) and in that case biofuels that don't dig up already sequestered carbon could be the best option.
I could be wrong but doesn't most of our carbon go to the deep sea floor and get trapped there... So the e.coli will only be making new fuel from what's left in the atmosphere
3:20 your hydrocarbon structure was labeled backwards. the carbon should be the larger atoms linked together (red) and the hydrogen should be the small ones bonded to the outside (grey)
@Bleh He's talking about the way they were labeled, not the structure itself. If you watch to the end of that clip you'll see what he's talking about. I don't think that level of condescension is necessary, even if he had been wrong (which he isn't) he was being helpful, which your comment wasn't. There is no need to talk down to people like that, it's just plain rude.
I got the bad E. coli last year… it was absolutely brutal. I lost fourteen pounds in just over a week (and I was small to begin with), and had to be hospitalized for a bit because I was so dehydrated that I was losing consciousness. Definitely do not recommend. I do think it’s super awesome that the friendly versions can be so useful! Very cool.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn yeah, lots of people have mentioned that to me, I would not recommend it. I had gut issues for almost 6 months afterwards and it was the most horrifically sick I have ever been. Edit: that said, I did never gain the weight back. But still, horrific fluids coming out of every orifice, even when you are completely drained, a high fever, and potentially kidney failure. There are less horrific ways. I mean, eating a fist full of tapeworms sounds more appealing.
I'd be worried about gene transfer between bacteria dealing with antibiotic pollution. Something like a strain of tetanus that eats penicillin rather than merely being resistant to it, for example, would be kind of terrifying.
Well if they only want to use E.Coli only in places like water treatment plants, they should put filters in place so the E.Coli stays inside the plant - no spreading to waterways etc, because that *would* be a potential threat. In principle, though, I do believe people would put protections in place to prevent this from happening. On the other hand, I also know human nature - filters don't get replaced as often as they should because it's a lot of work, some material component in the system fails or breaks, very likely due to a lack of maintenance... So I think it's probably one of those things that shouldn't be deployed in the US. Maybe Germany. You get fewer idiots and more idiots that are still conscientious in their jobs, from what I hear (What I'm talking about is the difference between "Nah, that filter's still fine, doesn't need replacing yet" and "That filter is still fine, I don't believe it needs replacing yet, but the rules are the rules, and the rules say the filter needs to be replaced now, so I replace it now and that way nobody can say I did anything wrong").
Yeah this whole notion of trying to breed anti-biotic eating bacteria is absolutely awful, stupid, and 100% will backfire against humanity if they ever achieve it. Have they forgotten that Bacteria can trade strands of DNA / RNA across different species? This is a spectacular example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, wherein, either due to lack of thought, or even despite best efforts, results in any of: good unintended results, mixed, neutral, and terrible. Backfiring Bolshevist Revolution *always* arriving at State-Capitalism Absolute Monarchy due to human nature. The war on drugs and terror creating more and worse drugs and terrorists. Social Justice Warriors trying to bully or manipulate decency into people then being genuinely confused it backfires. Trumpists being cruel to the poor in the name of Jesus then genuinely confused any working-class americans go Far Left. -chuckles ruefully in -*-British Socialism-*- of the Chartists, Robert Owen, and Sir Clement Attlee, who helped launch the NHS, welfare state, and started freeing our colonies- "Russian Communism is the illegitimate child of Karl Marx and Catherine the Great" - Attlee
@@sammyruncorn4165 Just to be clear 😛 I never meant to say you're idiots. Just that comparing you to the USA, a higher number of your idiots can be trusted to still be conscientious 😉 be it just to prevent getting chewed out by the boss for not following the rules.
My girlfriend suffers from chronic ecoli infections due to a disability, very very scary disease when it gets inside your body in places it shouldn't be like your kidneys, it can easily kill you. But I'm glad there's positive things that might come of this cursed thing existing.
Revisionist History, bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell’s podcast about the misunderstood and overlooked, is back. Binge the entire season on Malcolm Gladwell’s TH-cam channel (bit.ly/RevisionistHistory_SciShow ) or search for Revisionist History whenever you get podcasts. The atom labels are reversed in the graphics at 3:24. Thank you to those who for pointing it out!
This is honesty fascinating, and it’s an interesting thought about where it will go next. For alternative fuel sources, however, we already have plenty of viable options which isn’t the problem. The problem is lobbying and organizations like OPEC.
My concern with deploying a biological response to antibiotics in the environment is what if somehow it started acting like an invasive species. We wouldn't want to destroy bacterial ecosystems in nature through unintended consequences of introducing a new genetically engineered species into the environment.
I have worked with E.coli for 7 years, and it is indeed a marvel. However, at least for now, biofuels are not the answer for most of our energy needs, especially not for land transportation, for which we already have good solutions (electric transportation).
I don't see any reason to think that synthetic diesel would be competitive (price-wise) against vegetable oil (perhaps from algae), ethanol, biogas (methane captured from compost), or aluminum air batteries (cheaper and higher capacity than lithium, but not rechargable).
Soo... people and engineering a variant of E.Coli to be a voracious eater AND have the munchies for antibiotics, (making them resistant to antibiotics in the process)? What could possibly go wrong with that...?
Would love a video on the Thrombolites on the coast of Western Australia. I’ve lived here my whole life and knew nothing about them until recently. Photosynthetic microbes from 2000 years ago still going today!
@@AndrewTBP no, the ones I’m talking about are thrombolites. They have stromatolites too but these ones on our south west coast are thrombolites. Do a quick google of lake Clifton, they look so cool!
What I'm not understanding is how is it any different using Diesel made from crude oil or bacterial Diesel, just to be burnt in combustion engines and exhausted into the atmosphere? Would this not also emit pollution in the same way?
Fossil fuel use means that we are releasing more energy into the atmosphere that used to be trapped under ground. Plants are partially made from CO2 in the atmosphere, which makes biofuels more sustainable and environmentally friendly.
1) As far as human pollutants, petroleum diesel has sulfur in it which creates sulfates and sulfuric acid, whence acid rain. When they call it "low-sulfur diesel," it still has some, just less than the really nasty diesel. Making it from bacteria, presumably they can avoid the sulfur entirely. I know "clean diesel" is a weird phrase, but one hopes this stuff would indeed burn cleaner than the other stuff. 2) More importantly, what we mainly care about is global warming. Burning petroleum emits carbon into the atmosphere that had been stored underground for millions of years. Burning diesel from biological sources emits carbon that had been recently absorbed from the atmosphere and biosphere, in order to make the sugars, in order to make the diesel compounds.
I think the point is to produce less of it and reach an equilibrium necessary to maintain life, rather than destroying it. We still need some CO2 in the atmosphere because plants are largely dependent on it for food. No CO2, no plants = disaster.
Wait, what's stopping the stronger bioengineered bacteria from become toxic again if the DNA can flow so freely? Doesn't broadening the range for the uses of e-coli open up the risk of creating something thats even harder to deal with?
E. coli is also the main way that the most common insulins are bioengineered. Bacteria are trained to produce insulin in huge vats and we just scoop the insulin off the top. That's how we make many types of insulin now.
E. Coli has been engineered to help produce Butanol Fuel from just about any kind of cellulose. Butanol is an excellent biofuel which can be substituted for gasoline directly, with no changes to the engine at all. It has combustion characteristics almost identical to gasoline. The problem with it is it isn't as economical to produce as fossil hydrocarbons. Perhaps with economies of scale it could be, but at present it is not.
Another alternative for cleaning up antibiotics besides harmless cultivars of bacteria is Advance-Oxidation. Which basically just means oxidation using hydroxyl-radicals. Though, obviously if your cleaning sludge the former is going to be alot more feasable. Advance-oxidation is more appropriate for plant effluent and the chemical would be cost prohibitive for treating waste solids.
How are they fighting fossil fuels by making more of them? The extraction I guess if it is less expensive to produce it in a lab at the quantities necessary. But that still just leads to burning more fossil fuels. What am I missing?
You’re not missing anything, I think SciShow was just trying to put a climate change spin on the research but it in fact contributes to more emissions, not less.
I think they are attempting to say that synthetic fossil fuels will have fewer pollutants than naturally occurring fossil fuels. They are not saying that it will reduce carbon emissions.
My guess is it's more of a "we'll eventually run out of crude oil, so we'll work on making it ourselves" than it is, "this is better for the environment" situation. It would've been nice if they had been more clear about the details on that specific section.
Another comment helped me think this through. When we use fossil fuels, we extract carbon that was harmlessly sequestered deep underground and release that extra carbon into the atmosphere. Synthesizing fuel from plants (which means it's NOT a fossil fuel) recycles the existing carbon that plants use. All biofuels result in less "new" carbon, so, yes, it is a renewable resource. The real issue would be what method is most efficient and cost-effective.
OK, I like the last one, but wouldn't using E coli to make bio diesel, still release carbon into the environment? Also wouldn't engineering bacteria to be antibiotic resistant, risk us being 1 mutation away from a dangerous antibiotic resistant bacteria?
They can't create diesel _ex nihilo,_ out of nothing. They convert other organic compounds like sugars into it. Those sugars also didn't come from nothing, they were created by plants (or other photosynthesizing organisms) from water, CO₂, and sunlight. Lots of carbon is going in and out of the atmosphere all the time, by almost all biological processes. The concern for global warming is _new_ carbon coming out of storage from millions of years ago (coal, oil, peat, gas) into the system. The carbon that was absorbed by a plant in order to make sugars, which were then extracted and converted to diesel, then burnt, thus sending the carbon back into the atmosphere, comes out in the wash. (Of course, biofuels aren't completely carbon-neutral. Some additional energy inputs are always needed in order to turn crops into fuels. Still, the idea is that _most_ of the carbon involved has been cycled from the atmosphere rather than pulled out of the earth.)
There is a much easier and way more efficient to make diesel fuel than with bacteria. It's called BioDiesel. It's basically used and filtered cooking oil. I've made it at home before and ran it through a modified diesel engine with no issue. Just like diesel
Its good to see in the comments that people are using intelligent thinking and being wise by questioning things that are said even by the "expert mad scientitsts" and using common sense and that gut feeling we get that something doesnt seem right ...usually this is because its not ..
Ok, the first question is why E. Coli? If all bacteria have the ability to use "new" DNA why use E. Coli? Second question: 3:10 "the same energy dense molecules". So if they are the same molecules wouldn't they be just as pollutant and so gives us only more ability to pollute? Or did you mean molecules of the same energy density? Question 3: Since Bacteria are known for being able to transfer DNA to other (kinds) of bacteria, isn't there a huge risk in introducing DNA that can eat antibiotics into the wild? How does that compare with just stopping the over use of antibiotics.
E. coli is very adept at taking in new DNA and utilizing it, other bacteria are significantly more "picky". E coli is also a robust grower (~20 minute doubling time, and grows easily and most media).
@@MarijnvdSterre after I actually watch the video I'll try to see about answering question 3. There's no way I could answer question 2 though, it's out of my field completely haha
Finding ways to make /more/ hydrocarbon fuels feels like the exact opposite path that energy research should be taking. It might be good for extra-planetary energy production, where the issue is having ready access to stable portable fuel is a bigger problem than, for example, global warming, but here we have the opposite problem. This sounds like a capitalists solution to diminishing returns on investment, not an ecologists solution to diminishing resources.
Isn't there also the problem of horizontal gene transfer between various species of bacteria, making the release of antibiotic eating e. coli a huge danger to humans? This feels like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Doing it this way means that we use the carbon that’s already in the carbon cycle - like from plant waste. And we take the energy needed to convert this carbon from sunlight. So it doesn’t increase the amount of CO2 in the air, it’s more like a way to concentrate energy for use in specific applications where high energy density is critical.
Hydrocarbons aren't inherently the issue, fossil fuels are. They are carbon which has been taken out of the carbon cycle already, but using sugar and fats is just using carbon which is already part of the active carbon cycle.
Stating that making diesel from ecoli helps us move a way from fossil fuels is like saying that making black widow venom form ecoli helps us move away from spider bite.
How? It’s carbon neutral in theory. The vast majority of the carbon used to make it will come from the air, you just cycle it back and forth. Fossil fuels introduce a separate source that should never be in the air to begin with. I guess it is the same in that spider venom would only be produced for antivenin production, but I doubt that was the analogy you were aiming for…
@@Tinyvalkyrie410 We are stll polluting the air, which is one of the problems with fossil fuels. This would be akin to recurring to vaping nicotine to quit nicotine.
@@DamianReloaded diesel essentially has no particulates at this point, and biodiesel has even less… and again this would have no carbon footprint. So it’s not the same at all. This analogy is even weaker than the last… try again without the pretty metaphors and I will try to listen. But seriously, there are issues we continue to have no solution to, despite “greener” options... see long haul trucks and airplanes. Are you seriously trying to take away a tool in the toolbox, because it “feels” wrong? That’s the same argument people use against nuclear, and it’s driving the carbon problem further. Edit: better analogy: it’s like using methadone to quit heroine. Similar chemistry, vastly different outcome, and in both cases the goal is harm reduction.
@@Tinyvalkyrie410 "Diesel exhaust is a Group 1 carcinogen, which causes lung cancer and has a positive association with bladder cancer. It contains several substances that are also listed individually as human carcinogens by the IARC. [...]" I'd say the metaphor was quite spot on.
@@DamianReloaded if you are huffing diesel exhaust sure. But dude, I’m serious here. This is a vast improvement over our current fossil devil. Less particulates (which are the carcinogen you have issues with, and could be engineered to have essentially zero, because contamination can be controlled) zero carbon footprint, and it solves issues we don’t have solutions to. Refusing to use a solution because it isn’t perfect is definitely part of the problem. Literally all green solutions are inherently imperfect. Pick another and I can tell you how.
The antibiotic eating bacteria sound like a very irresponsible way to dispose of our current overuse of antibiotics, as horizontal gene transfer is very common and could lead to some absolutely terrifying situations, especially since the places where they'd be used are sewage plants, which aren't exactly lab conditions
Farmers use a lot of penicillin preemptively, before animals get sick. Perhaps this is something to work on, rather than cleaning up their mess afterwards. But first people should limit their meat consumption. Those supersized American style meals are not just bad for your health.
As an agricultural scientist, I would request we stop perpetuating the false assumption that antibiotics in agricultural is causing antibiotic resistance. The incomplete antibiotic regiments in humans and the over prescription in the companion animal world have been more stringly linked to this pneumonia. I don't disagree that we should reduce antibiotic use in agriculture, but the regulations on food safety means that all redrawal and disposal guidelines must be strictly followed and continuously monitored
OK this is interesting, but where is the sugar coming from? The corn industry, which is infamously net energy negative? I'm skeptical that this is the right direction to fight climate change.
If E. coli can synthesise fossil fuel analogues, then that only brings down the price of polluting fuel and energy, which would kill a great deal of progress made towards actually green and/or renewable energy
2 minutes in and my food scientist husband is twitching in outrage at how incredibly inaccurate this is. Particularly the diagram of e.coli with the flagella they don't have. I'm not sure I can watch the rest, we can't afford the trip to hospital when his brain explodes.
I really hope we can see some such innovations surface in the mainstream market in the near future. We are in desperate need of something to replace and destroy all the toxins we are releasing into the world.
If the fueling method just creates similar hydrocarbon chains to be burned, wouldn't that continue to add to pollution? Seems like that would give those in power the ability to keep polluting, denying climate change, and not putting resources towards better energy alternatives.
I got e. coli from an oranic chocolate dipped strawberry that I shared with my then girlfriend. I'm chronically ill and have severe gastrointestinal bullshiz all the time. I was fine. I went to work. (e coli can't be spread via touch unless I had literal poo on my hands) I just felt pretty gross and had liquid poo. ... my girlfriend ... she is overdramatic. she freaked out and went to the hospital (the only reason I found out that my upset stomach was e. coli and not that there had been some gluten cross contamination. anyway, if you have celiac, chron's, or IBS, there's a chance you will not really notice you have it. I really just thought I ate something with an allergen in it. my girlfriend thought she was dying from the plague.
@@drstone3418 I am no expert but as long as the gravity is not extreme it would be the same way as on earth only when you reach very high levels of gravity it matters because cells wont survive it because only stars and black holes have such gravity.
You mean, what's the difference between a strain and a species? Not much, it's pretty arbitrary. The classic idea of a species was a group who could and did freely interbreed, but obviously that's meaningless for something like bacteria, which don't. There are lots of definitions for what a species is, none of them truly satisfying. In the end it's just a construct, useful when it's useful, not useful when it's not useful. In this case, given all the research with _E. coli,_ we were always going to have to designate lots of strains of it. Further deciding when specific subsets of strains can be grouped as separate "species" is, I suspect, just something the scientists in question don't find interesting or compelling enough to do.
e. coli, a wonderful and easy to use bacteria. hasn't science come far? i'm a biotechnology major myself and E. Coli is a common specimen used for making human insulin, along side yeast that is
I got it last year (I was even hospitalized for a couple nights) and they didn’t give me antibiotics because apparently it doesn’t reduce disease length enough to be worth it. It’s always interesting to me how different doctors can have significantly different approaches.
I don't think letting internal combustion engines continue to work without affordable fossil fuels when we should be moving away from it is going to save humanity here.
I've always been of the opinion it's a terrible idea to turn food (that's where the sugars and fatty acids come from) into fuel. There are already too many hungry people, don't make food into fuel. Not to mention biofuels are polluting when burned, it's not like they're a panacea for the environment. If you want to burn stuff, use the cheap goop from the ground. Let the arable land be used to feed people. Anything else is insane.
But where do we get the sugar? The same place we get the sugars we ferment into biodiesel? We're just replacing one set of microorganisms for another, but the law of conservation of energy remains unchanged, any fuel derived from plants is already as inefficient as the plants are at storing sunlight in sugar.
Using E. coli to make hydrocarbon fuels is not a strategy for moving away from hydrocarbon fuels. It is a strategy for making hydrocarbon fuels renewable. The carbon being used by the E. coli ultimately comes from the air (via the sugars or fatty acids). So, using fossil fuels made in this way is not putting any new carbon into the atmosphere, it is cycling carbon out of and back into the atmosphere.
I mean, with the big assumption that all of the carbon comes from the atmosphere, carbon neutral is still better than carbon negative. Obviously it's not enough, but there will be some things that simply can't be converted to electric (or can't be converted fast enough) and in that case biofuels that don't dig up already sequestered carbon could be the best option.
@@TenzaBurabura - no doubt it is better than digging up new fossil fuels.
Just bury the newly created fuel ;) problem solved
I could be wrong but doesn't most of our carbon go to the deep sea floor and get trapped there... So the e.coli will only be making new fuel from what's left in the atmosphere
@eChuckNorris bury the feedstock BEFORE making the fuel...
Save money time and energy
Problem solved
3:20 your hydrocarbon structure was labeled backwards. the carbon should be the larger atoms linked together (red) and the hydrogen should be the small ones bonded to the outside (grey)
@Bleh he's right, though. Watch it again.
@Bleh great advice, maybe you should follow it.
@Bleh He's talking about the way they were labeled, not the structure itself. If you watch to the end of that clip you'll see what he's talking about. I don't think that level of condescension is necessary, even if he had been wrong (which he isn't) he was being helpful, which your comment wasn't. There is no need to talk down to people like that, it's just plain rude.
@ You are wrong.
At 3:20 the hydrocarbon structure is just labelled.
@Bleh I'm pretty sure hydrogens aren't bonded to 2 other carbons, honey.
I got the bad E. coli last year… it was absolutely brutal. I lost fourteen pounds in just over a week (and I was small to begin with), and had to be hospitalized for a bit because I was so dehydrated that I was losing consciousness. Definitely do not recommend. I do think it’s super awesome that the friendly versions can be so useful! Very cool.
Do you know where it came from?
Like what food you ate that was contaminated?
Riding a car vs gettiing hit by one.
Yep that liquid stream of diarrhea...leaves an impression next time you want some takeout.
@@Reth_Hard we are pretty sure it was from a cucumber. It’s the only thing I ate that no one else did.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn yeah, lots of people have mentioned that to me, I would not recommend it. I had gut issues for almost 6 months afterwards and it was the most horrifically sick I have ever been.
Edit: that said, I did never gain the weight back. But still, horrific fluids coming out of every orifice, even when you are completely drained, a high fever, and potentially kidney failure. There are less horrific ways. I mean, eating a fist full of tapeworms sounds more appealing.
I'd be worried about gene transfer between bacteria dealing with antibiotic pollution. Something like a strain of tetanus that eats penicillin rather than merely being resistant to it, for example, would be kind of terrifying.
Well if they only want to use E.Coli only in places like water treatment plants, they should put filters in place so the E.Coli stays inside the plant - no spreading to waterways etc, because that *would* be a potential threat. In principle, though, I do believe people would put protections in place to prevent this from happening.
On the other hand, I also know human nature - filters don't get replaced as often as they should because it's a lot of work, some material component in the system fails or breaks, very likely due to a lack of maintenance... So I think it's probably one of those things that shouldn't be deployed in the US. Maybe Germany. You get fewer idiots and more idiots that are still conscientious in their jobs, from what I hear (What I'm talking about is the difference between "Nah, that filter's still fine, doesn't need replacing yet" and "That filter is still fine, I don't believe it needs replacing yet, but the rules are the rules, and the rules say the filter needs to be replaced now, so I replace it now and that way nobody can say I did anything wrong").
@@trishapellis
😂 love it!
I'm from Germany, a lot of us really are conscientious/ rule loving (idiots :P).
Yeah this whole notion of trying to breed anti-biotic eating bacteria is absolutely awful, stupid, and 100% will backfire against humanity if they ever achieve it. Have they forgotten that Bacteria can trade strands of DNA / RNA across different species?
This is a spectacular example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, wherein, either due to lack of thought, or even despite best efforts, results in any of: good unintended results, mixed, neutral, and terrible.
Backfiring Bolshevist Revolution *always* arriving at State-Capitalism Absolute Monarchy due to human nature. The war on drugs and terror creating more and worse drugs and terrorists. Social Justice Warriors trying to bully or manipulate decency into people then being genuinely confused it backfires. Trumpists being cruel to the poor in the name of Jesus then genuinely confused any working-class americans go Far Left.
-chuckles ruefully in -*-British Socialism-*- of the Chartists, Robert Owen, and Sir Clement Attlee, who helped launch the NHS, welfare state, and started freeing our colonies-
"Russian Communism is the illegitimate child of Karl Marx and Catherine the Great" - Attlee
@@sammyruncorn4165 Just to be clear 😛 I never meant to say you're idiots. Just that comparing you to the USA, a higher number of your idiots can be trusted to still be conscientious 😉 be it just to prevent getting chewed out by the boss for not following the rules.
Yeah almost any carbon source can be broken down into acetyl coA and used for energy.. its all kinda scary
E. Coli is also used to synthesize insulin for human use.
They’re used for cloning genes for everything. In order to study any protein, you need E. Coli to create the DNA to make that protein easily.
It could also make starch mayeb
Thanks!
Rose Bear Don’t Walk, loving your presentation style!
My girlfriend suffers from chronic ecoli infections due to a disability, very very scary disease when it gets inside your body in places it shouldn't be like your kidneys, it can easily kill you. But I'm glad there's positive things that might come of this cursed thing existing.
Revisionist History, bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell’s podcast about the misunderstood and overlooked, is back. Binge the entire season on Malcolm Gladwell’s TH-cam channel (bit.ly/RevisionistHistory_SciShow ) or search for Revisionist History whenever you get podcasts.
The atom labels are reversed in the graphics at 3:24. Thank you to those who for pointing it out!
Malcolm Gladwell from the flight logs???
Surprised to death this was at 9:41 am
Blink was a great book.🎯
@@philandeswilliams1975 AMOGUS
Damn this couldn't sound more like the premise for a post apocalyptic show.
This is honesty fascinating, and it’s an interesting thought about where it will go next.
For alternative fuel sources, however, we already have plenty of viable options which isn’t the problem. The problem is lobbying and organizations like OPEC.
So crazy how bacteria just continues to surprise us with all the treasure trove of secrets they hold which can be helpful in a lot of applications
The carbon and hydrogen atoms are mislabeled at 3:20
Luckily for humanity. I’ve already been hoarding so so much e-colo inside me.
My concern with deploying a biological response to antibiotics in the environment is what if somehow it started acting like an invasive species. We wouldn't want to destroy bacterial ecosystems in nature through unintended consequences of introducing a new genetically engineered species into the environment.
Great video, please note that at 3:26 you have the hydrogen and carbon flipped. 😢
Please read the comments before you comment. It was noted by a FEW people alaready.
@@ronjones-6977 Also, at 3:20 the hydrocarbon structure is labelled backwards.
@Bleh you're wrong, they are labeled backwards
@@ronjones-6977 It is still a mistake hes just letting them know.
I'm pretty sure you mixed up your hydrogens and carbons in your diesel animation.
Imagine, instead of going to school for 22 years, you could learn something just by picking up a piece of DNA that's randomly floating around.
Its not learning though. Not concious learning anyway. Such as learning a language. More like creating specific protiens
I have worked with E.coli for 7 years, and it is indeed a marvel. However, at least for now, biofuels are not the answer for most of our energy needs, especially not for land transportation, for which we already have good solutions (electric transportation).
I don't see any reason to think that synthetic diesel would be competitive (price-wise) against vegetable oil (perhaps from algae), ethanol, biogas (methane captured from compost), or aluminum air batteries (cheaper and higher capacity than lithium, but not rechargable).
3:25 hydrogen and carbon atoms are labelled wrongly
Soo... people and engineering a variant of E.Coli to be a voracious eater AND have the munchies for antibiotics, (making them resistant to antibiotics in the process)?
What could possibly go wrong with that...?
Great work! Just an important correction @3:24, actually carbon is red and H2 is white
Well they switched them up. But shouldnt carbon be black, oxygen red, nitrogen blue and hydrogen white? At least thats how i learned it
Would love a video on the Thrombolites on the coast of Western Australia. I’ve lived here my whole life and knew nothing about them until recently. Photosynthetic microbes from 2000 years ago still going today!
@@AndrewTBP no, the ones I’m talking about are thrombolites. They have stromatolites too but these ones on our south west coast are thrombolites. Do a quick google of lake Clifton, they look so cool!
Always interesting, thanks.
What I'm not understanding is how is it any different using Diesel made from crude oil or bacterial Diesel, just to be burnt in combustion engines and exhausted into the atmosphere? Would this not also emit pollution in the same way?
Fossil fuel use means that we are releasing more energy into the atmosphere that used to be trapped under ground. Plants are partially made from CO2 in the atmosphere, which makes biofuels more sustainable and environmentally friendly.
1) As far as human pollutants, petroleum diesel has sulfur in it which creates sulfates and sulfuric acid, whence acid rain. When they call it "low-sulfur diesel," it still has some, just less than the really nasty diesel. Making it from bacteria, presumably they can avoid the sulfur entirely. I know "clean diesel" is a weird phrase, but one hopes this stuff would indeed burn cleaner than the other stuff.
2) More importantly, what we mainly care about is global warming. Burning petroleum emits carbon into the atmosphere that had been stored underground for millions of years. Burning diesel from biological sources emits carbon that had been recently absorbed from the atmosphere and biosphere, in order to make the sugars, in order to make the diesel compounds.
I think the point is to produce less of it and reach an equilibrium necessary to maintain life, rather than destroying it.
We still need some CO2 in the atmosphere because plants are largely dependent on it for food. No CO2, no plants = disaster.
Wait, what's stopping the stronger bioengineered bacteria from become toxic again if the DNA can flow so freely? Doesn't broadening the range for the uses of e-coli open up the risk of creating something thats even harder to deal with?
Legit, someone alert me when those E. coli vs Type 2 diabetes human trials start bc I am definitely interested.
We should be saying “thank you, Escherichia Coli!”
E. coli is also the main way that the most common insulins are bioengineered. Bacteria are trained to produce insulin in huge vats and we just scoop the insulin off the top. That's how we make many types of insulin now.
E. Coli has been engineered to help produce Butanol Fuel from just about any kind of cellulose. Butanol is an excellent biofuel which can be substituted for gasoline directly, with no changes to the engine at all. It has combustion characteristics almost identical to gasoline. The problem with it is it isn't as economical to produce as fossil hydrocarbons. Perhaps with economies of scale it could be, but at present it is not.
E coli is really easy to edit the only bad thing about is it is small so it cannot produce big molecules we use yeast for it if that is occur
I really like this!
Another alternative for cleaning up antibiotics besides harmless cultivars of bacteria is Advance-Oxidation. Which basically just means oxidation using hydroxyl-radicals. Though, obviously if your cleaning sludge the former is going to be alot more feasable. Advance-oxidation is more appropriate for plant effluent and the chemical would be cost prohibitive for treating waste solids.
@SciShow We need a video on Deep Scattered Layer ASAP🤯
How are they fighting fossil fuels by making more of them? The extraction I guess if it is less expensive to produce it in a lab at the quantities necessary. But that still just leads to burning more fossil fuels. What am I missing?
Biofuels would consume atmospheric CO2 and when burned, returna back. It's a net zero system.
You’re not missing anything, I think SciShow was just trying to put a climate change spin on the research but it in fact contributes to more emissions, not less.
I think they are attempting to say that synthetic fossil fuels will have fewer pollutants than naturally occurring fossil fuels. They are not saying that it will reduce carbon emissions.
My guess is it's more of a "we'll eventually run out of crude oil, so we'll work on making it ourselves" than it is, "this is better for the environment" situation. It would've been nice if they had been more clear about the details on that specific section.
Another comment helped me think this through. When we use fossil fuels, we extract carbon that was harmlessly sequestered deep underground and release that extra carbon into the atmosphere. Synthesizing fuel from plants (which means it's NOT a fossil fuel) recycles the existing carbon that plants use. All biofuels result in less "new" carbon, so, yes, it is a renewable resource. The real issue would be what method is most efficient and cost-effective.
If I may ask, why not put the bile salt hydrolase gene and the IL 10 gene in the same strain?
OK, I like the last one, but wouldn't using E coli to make bio diesel, still release carbon into the environment? Also wouldn't engineering bacteria to be antibiotic resistant, risk us being 1 mutation away from a dangerous antibiotic resistant bacteria?
They can't create diesel _ex nihilo,_ out of nothing. They convert other organic compounds like sugars into it. Those sugars also didn't come from nothing, they were created by plants (or other photosynthesizing organisms) from water, CO₂, and sunlight.
Lots of carbon is going in and out of the atmosphere all the time, by almost all biological processes. The concern for global warming is _new_ carbon coming out of storage from millions of years ago (coal, oil, peat, gas) into the system. The carbon that was absorbed by a plant in order to make sugars, which were then extracted and converted to diesel, then burnt, thus sending the carbon back into the atmosphere, comes out in the wash.
(Of course, biofuels aren't completely carbon-neutral. Some additional energy inputs are always needed in order to turn crops into fuels. Still, the idea is that _most_ of the carbon involved has been cycled from the atmosphere rather than pulled out of the earth.)
There is a much easier and way more efficient to make diesel fuel than with bacteria. It's called BioDiesel. It's basically used and filtered cooking oil. I've made it at home before and ran it through a modified diesel engine with no issue. Just like diesel
we produce insulin with them, important meds to boost the immune system of cancer patients and much more.
Cool thanks!
Are there any plans to revise the genera Escherichia and Shigella?
Pretty sure you mixed up the hydrogen and carbon legend at 3:24.
Its good to see in the comments that people are using intelligent thinking and being wise by questioning things that are said even by the "expert mad scientitsts" and using common sense and that gut feeling we get that something doesnt seem right ...usually this is because its not ..
Sounds like something that needs way more attention.
Like, from the entire globe.
3:23 editing mistake- names switched on hydrogen and carbon
BTW, Poly Alpha Olefins are the base stocks of top grade lubricant oils. E-Coli made fully synthetic lubricant oils FTW.
At 3:24 the labeling of Hydrogen and Carbon atoms is swapped.
Ok, the first question is why E. Coli? If all bacteria have the ability to use "new" DNA why use E. Coli?
Second question: 3:10 "the same energy dense molecules". So if they are the same molecules wouldn't they be just as pollutant and so gives us only more ability to pollute? Or did you mean molecules of the same energy density?
Question 3: Since Bacteria are known for being able to transfer DNA to other (kinds) of bacteria, isn't there a huge risk in introducing DNA that can eat antibiotics into the wild? How does that compare with just stopping the over use of antibiotics.
E. coli is very adept at taking in new DNA and utilizing it, other bacteria are significantly more "picky". E coli is also a robust grower (~20 minute doubling time, and grows easily and most media).
@@gs3705 thank you. One question answered.
@@MarijnvdSterre after I actually watch the video I'll try to see about answering question 3. There's no way I could answer question 2 though, it's out of my field completely haha
As always yall. Neat.
« Treating the symptoms » of diabetes is a dangerous path to let anyone have an unhealthy lifestyle. Rarely heard something that despairing
3:24 I'm pretty sure you got your naming mixed up there
Finding ways to make /more/ hydrocarbon fuels feels like the exact opposite path that energy research should be taking. It might be good for extra-planetary energy production, where the issue is having ready access to stable portable fuel is a bigger problem than, for example, global warming, but here we have the opposite problem. This sounds like a capitalists solution to diminishing returns on investment, not an ecologists solution to diminishing resources.
Isn't there also the problem of horizontal gene transfer between various species of bacteria, making the release of antibiotic eating e. coli a huge danger to humans? This feels like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
Doing it this way means that we use the carbon that’s already in the carbon cycle - like from plant waste. And we take the energy needed to convert this carbon from sunlight. So it doesn’t increase the amount of CO2 in the air, it’s more like a way to concentrate energy for use in specific applications where high energy density is critical.
Hydrocarbons aren't inherently the issue, fossil fuels are. They are carbon which has been taken out of the carbon cycle already, but using sugar and fats is just using carbon which is already part of the active carbon cycle.
@@RyanW1019 well said i was about to type sum like that
The only viable alternative is nuclear and ignorant people start bitching a lot about it as soon as they hear it
At about 3:22 Hydrogen and Carbon are switched when they should not be.
this
Stating that making diesel from ecoli helps us move a way from fossil fuels is like saying that making black widow venom form ecoli helps us move away from spider bite.
How? It’s carbon neutral in theory. The vast majority of the carbon used to make it will come from the air, you just cycle it back and forth. Fossil fuels introduce a separate source that should never be in the air to begin with. I guess it is the same in that spider venom would only be produced for antivenin production, but I doubt that was the analogy you were aiming for…
@@Tinyvalkyrie410 We are stll polluting the air, which is one of the problems with fossil fuels. This would be akin to recurring to vaping nicotine to quit nicotine.
@@DamianReloaded diesel essentially has no particulates at this point, and biodiesel has even less… and again this would have no carbon footprint. So it’s not the same at all. This analogy is even weaker than the last… try again without the pretty metaphors and I will try to listen. But seriously, there are issues we continue to have no solution to, despite “greener” options... see long haul trucks and airplanes. Are you seriously trying to take away a tool in the toolbox, because it “feels” wrong? That’s the same argument people use against nuclear, and it’s driving the carbon problem further.
Edit: better analogy: it’s like using methadone to quit heroine. Similar chemistry, vastly different outcome, and in both cases the goal is harm reduction.
@@Tinyvalkyrie410 "Diesel exhaust is a Group 1 carcinogen, which causes lung cancer and has a positive association with bladder cancer. It contains several substances that are also listed individually as human carcinogens by the IARC. [...]" I'd say the metaphor was quite spot on.
@@DamianReloaded if you are huffing diesel exhaust sure. But dude, I’m serious here. This is a vast improvement over our current fossil devil. Less particulates (which are the carcinogen you have issues with, and could be engineered to have essentially zero, because contamination can be controlled) zero carbon footprint, and it solves issues we don’t have solutions to. Refusing to use a solution because it isn’t perfect is definitely part of the problem. Literally all green solutions are inherently imperfect. Pick another and I can tell you how.
The antibiotic eating bacteria sound like a very irresponsible way to dispose of our current overuse of antibiotics, as horizontal gene transfer is very common and could lead to some absolutely terrifying situations, especially since the places where they'd be used are sewage plants, which aren't exactly lab conditions
Sponsored by a free pod cast. Awesome. I’m going to listen now.
Farmers use a lot of penicillin preemptively, before animals get sick. Perhaps this is something to work on, rather than cleaning up their mess afterwards. But first people should limit their meat consumption. Those supersized American style meals are not just bad for your health.
I always knew I’d find my niche.
This lady has a real talent for emphasizing the wrong words and syllables.
Right? I hate how much this bothers me. But it really bothers me.
As an agricultural scientist, I would request we stop perpetuating the false assumption that antibiotics in agricultural is causing antibiotic resistance. The incomplete antibiotic regiments in humans and the over prescription in the companion animal world have been more stringly linked to this pneumonia. I don't disagree that we should reduce antibiotic use in agriculture, but the regulations on food safety means that all redrawal and disposal guidelines must be strictly followed and continuously monitored
OK this is interesting, but where is the sugar coming from? The corn industry, which is infamously net energy negative? I'm skeptical that this is the right direction to fight climate change.
Why didn't the person behind the camera or anyone else have the courtesy to tell her a bit of her shirt was folded over like that?
Some people, smh...
This really sounds like one of those things that need a kill switch that cannot be mutated away.
I'm not sure how to feel about a science channel being sponsored by Gladwell
How much food will be need to do this or is it a special substance like radiation or plastic
If E. coli can synthesise fossil fuel analogues, then that only brings down the price of polluting fuel and energy, which would kill a great deal of progress made towards actually green and/or renewable energy
basically like how ethanol is made right?
2 minutes in and my food scientist husband is twitching in outrage at how incredibly inaccurate this is. Particularly the diagram of e.coli with the flagella they don't have. I'm not sure I can watch the rest, we can't afford the trip to hospital when his brain explodes.
Lmao, I hope he gets some rest, this offense surely shan't go unpunished😂
3:24 The labeling for Hydrogen & Carbon is incorrectly swapped. Otherwise very informative video.
Did anyone else catch the animation mistake when she was explaining about the hydrocarbons?
We're already doing this.
I modify E. Coli in my lab, it is pretty awesome.
I really hope we can see some such innovations surface in the mainstream market in the near future. We are in desperate need of something to replace and destroy all the toxins we are releasing into the world.
This is very scary and lead to a disaster. These are by no means superheroes
If the fueling method just creates similar hydrocarbon chains to be burned, wouldn't that continue to add to pollution? Seems like that would give those in power the ability to keep polluting, denying climate change, and not putting resources towards better energy alternatives.
I got e. coli from an oranic chocolate dipped strawberry that I shared with my then girlfriend. I'm chronically ill and have severe gastrointestinal bullshiz all the time. I was fine. I went to work. (e coli can't be spread via touch unless I had literal poo on my hands) I just felt pretty gross and had liquid poo. ... my girlfriend ... she is overdramatic. she freaked out and went to the hospital (the only reason I found out that my upset stomach was e. coli and not that there had been some gluten cross contamination.
anyway, if you have celiac, chron's, or IBS, there's a chance you will not really notice you have it. I really just thought I ate something with an allergen in it. my girlfriend thought she was dying from the plague.
I'm not so sure if biodesigning a bacteria to destroy antibiotics is a good idea
The power of bacteria seems endless they will save humanity.
Or end it, if we're unlucky lol
@@drstone3418 I am no expert but as long as the gravity is not extreme it would be the same way as on earth only when you reach very high levels of gravity it matters because cells wont survive it because only stars and black holes have such gravity.
What's the difference between strains when they're the same species?
You mean, what's the difference between a strain and a species? Not much, it's pretty arbitrary. The classic idea of a species was a group who could and did freely interbreed, but obviously that's meaningless for something like bacteria, which don't. There are lots of definitions for what a species is, none of them truly satisfying. In the end it's just a construct, useful when it's useful, not useful when it's not useful.
In this case, given all the research with _E. coli,_ we were always going to have to designate lots of strains of it. Further deciding when specific subsets of strains can be grouped as separate "species" is, I suspect, just something the scientists in question don't find interesting or compelling enough to do.
I hope its not gonna become worse e coli
e. coli, a wonderful and easy to use bacteria. hasn't science come far? i'm a biotechnology major myself and E. Coli is a common specimen used for making human insulin, along side yeast that is
Thank you.
It’s interesting 👍
I literally just swallowed the first dose of antibiotic for an E. Coli infection 😅
I got it last year (I was even hospitalized for a couple nights) and they didn’t give me antibiotics because apparently it doesn’t reduce disease length enough to be worth it. It’s always interesting to me how different doctors can have significantly different approaches.
I'm glad that you have a phone, and scishow, to pass the time!
Get well soon
5:41 bad idea, horizontal gene transfer
Very cool👍
I don't think letting internal combustion engines continue to work without affordable fossil fuels when we should be moving away from it is going to save humanity here.
I've always been of the opinion it's a terrible idea to turn food (that's where the sugars and fatty acids come from) into fuel. There are already too many hungry people, don't make food into fuel. Not to mention biofuels are polluting when burned, it's not like they're a panacea for the environment. If you want to burn stuff, use the cheap goop from the ground. Let the arable land be used to feed people. Anything else is insane.
Hydrogen and Carbon were wrongly mapped
Oh boy, I can't wait for my antibiotic-resistant infection that turns my guts into diesel fuel :D At least I won't suffer from diabetes.
Bear Don't Walk 👍
Yes they do.
Save humanity.
Destroy iceberg lettuce.
Win-win
Clean up on IL-10 !
E. coli based fermentation.
Nah. Government shall keep pushing blindly these EVs.
He is the best creator to see while eating breakfast😂
But where do we get the sugar? The same place we get the sugars we ferment into biodiesel?
We're just replacing one set of microorganisms for another, but the law of conservation of energy remains unchanged, any fuel derived from plants is already as inefficient as the plants are at storing sunlight in sugar.
E. coli can make diesel? Great. But isn't that mean that we will still use "fossil" fuel? With extra steps?
I watch scishow because its entertaining learning. This host just reminds me of my most boring teachers.
Are we suggesting an other plague here.