

First detailed microscopy evidence of bacteria at the lower size limit of life - alexcasalboni
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150227181339.htm

======
jdnier
Life is endlessly surprising: "The diverse bacteria were found in groundwater
and are thought to be quite common. They're also quite odd, which isn't a
surprise given the cells are close to and in some cases smaller than several
estimates for the lower size limit of life. This is the smallest a cell can be
and still accommodate enough material to sustain life. The bacterial cells
have densely packed spirals that are probably DNA, a very small number of
ribosomes, hair-like appendages, and a stripped-down metabolism that likely
requires them to rely on other bacteria for many of life's necessities."

~~~
hga
Indeed.

The rule I fashioned for myself when I first studied viruses at the low,
molecular genetics level, was that if they can exist, they probably will. They
especially are "hacks", and I'm sure it'll be interesting to see what's
learned from these bacteria.

~~~
ninguem2
How do the size of these bacteria compare with that of viruses?

~~~
jloughry
The smallest virus is 17 nm in diameter, according to Wikipedia. Most are 20
to 300 nm. The bacterium here is about 500 nm across, almost exactly the
wavelength of visible light.

------
Luc
Source, with better picture(s): [http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/27/ultra-
small-bacteria/](http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/27/ultra-small-bacteria/)

------
pingou
"To concentrate these cells in a sample, they filtered groundwater collected
at Rifle, Colorado through successively smaller filters, down to 0.2 microns,
which is the size used to sterilize water. The resulting samples were anything
but sterile".

Could "sterile" water be potentially dangerous then?

~~~
jared314
> Could "sterile" water be potentially dangerous then?

"Sterile" is like Absolute Zero (0 Kelvin). A better question is: What is the
effective minimum concentration, and how do you get below that?

