4 ms·
Long-distance and wide-area detection of gene expression in living bacteria
- advisedwang 1y agoCritically this only works for the bioengineered microbes that produce marker molecules that the hyperspectral cameras can identify. This doesn't work for random microbes out and about.
- igleria 1y agoThen we infect every microbe with that biomarker and make hell real for germophobics? Or a less dumb application: lab leak monitoring
- dylan604 1y agoThere are people pushing for the use of microbes in farm land instead of chemical fertilizers. These markers would be useful to see what plots are treated or not.
- m3047 1y agoHere's a company which produces biomarkers (which it can disperse as aerosols or via other means) which it can then detect in air or other samples: https://www.safetraces.com/ https://www.safetraces.com/ (I have no commercial connection with them.)
- robotresearcher 1y agoThe title here and the first image in the article are annoyingly misleading. The authors report being able to detect populations of many microbes that they genetically engineered to produce lots of detectable molecules and they sprayed in patches on top of the soil. So this could be a valuable thing. But the damn article shows an aerial image inlaid with a microscope image with individual organisms resolved, which is very very far from what is reported here. It’s science reporting. Science is cool already. There’s no need to give misleading hyperbolic impressions. Bah.
- happyPersonR 1y agoThat makes a lot more sense, otherwise the SNR from 90 meters away seems like it would be … enormous.
- moralestapia 1y agoWe can see Uranus from Earth which in on a similar size/distance order of magnitude :).
- HarHarVeryFunny 1y agoActually the angular size of Uranus seen from earth is almost a million times larger than a microbe seen from 90m (not that TFA was about seeing a single microbe, or seeing a microbe at all for that matter).
- moralestapia 1y agoCan we do the math? I know that burden's on me but I feel I might be wrong, my back of the napkin calculation puts them within 10-100x. 1 micrometer (1E-6) to 50,700 km (1E6) 90 meters (1E2) to 2.8 billion km (1E12) Edit: Oh yeah but size/distance does not decay linearly ...
- HarHarVeryFunny 1y agoI was lazy and asked Claude, although I didn't check the math. ** Uranus subtends a much greater angle than a microbe at 90 meters. Let me work this out: Microbe from 90 meters: A typical bacterium is about 1-5 micrometers (let's say 2 μm = 0.000002 meters) Angular size = (size / distance) in radians = 0.000002 / 90 ≈ 2.2 × 10⁻⁸ radians Converting to arcseconds: ≈ 0.0000046 arcseconds Uranus from Earth: Uranus is about 2.6-3.2 billion km from Earth (depending on orbital positions) Its diameter is about 51,000 km At closest approach, Uranus subtends approximately 3.7 arcseconds Even at its farthest, it's still around 3.3 arcseconds So Uranus appears about 800,000 times larger in angular size than a bacterium at 90 meters away! This is why we can see Uranus through telescopes (and technically with the naked eye under perfect conditions, though just barely), but we absolutely cannot see individual bacteria without a microscope—the angle they subtend is far, far too small for our eyes to resolve.
- nachox999 1y agoengineering microbes for drone-detectable spectral signatures truly is a visionary leap in biosensing, but its real test lies in navigating biology’s unpredictability and society’s caution
- HPsquared 1y agoI can see algal blooms from miles away.
- hinkley 1y agoI can practically hear the germaphobes breathing heavily.
- cozzyd 1y ago[flagged]
- tomhow 1y agoPlease don't do this here.