Bacteria have taste, smell, touch and sight .

[William Gaatjes]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100816095719.htm

A team of marine microbiologists at Newcastle University have discovered for the first time that bacteria have a molecular "nose" that is able to detect airborne, smell-producing chemicals such as ammonia.

Published in Biotechnology Journal, their study shows how bacteria are capable of 'olfaction' -- sensing volatile chemicals in the air such as ammonia produced by rival bacteria present in the environment.

Led by Dr Reindert Nijland, the research also shows that bacteria respond to this smell by producing a biofilm -- or 'slime' -- the individual bacteria joining together to colonise an area in a bid to push out any potential competitor.

Biofilm is a major cause of infection on medical implants such as heart valves, artificial hips and even breast implants. Also known as 'biofouling' it costs the marine industry millions every year, slowing ships down and wasting precious fuel. But it also has its advantages. Certain biofilms thrive on petroleum oil and can be used to clean up an oil spill.

Dr Nijland, who carried out the work at Newcastle University's Dove Marine Laboratory, said the findings would help to further our understanding of how biofilms are formed and how we might be able to manipulate them to our advantage.

"This is the first evidence of a bacterial 'nose' capable of detecting potential competitors," he said.

"Slime is important in medical and industrial settings and the fact that the cells formed slime on exposure to ammonia has important implications for understanding how biofilms are formed and how we might be able to use this to our advantage.

"The next step will be to identify the nose or sensor that actually does the smelling."

This latest discovery shows that bacteria are capable of at least four of the five senses; a responsiveness to light -- sight -- contact-dependent gene expression -- touch -- and a response to chemicals and toxins in their environment either through direct contact -- taste -- or through the air -- smell.

Ammonia is one of the simplest sources of nitrogen -- a key nutrient for bacterial growth. Using rival bacteria Bacillus subtilis and B.licheniformus, both commonly found in the soil, the team found that each produced a biofilm in response to airborne ammonia and that the response decreased as the distance between the two bacterial colonies increased.

Project supervisor Professor Grant Burgess, director of the Dove Marine Laboratory, said that understanding the triggers that prompt this sort of response had huge potential.

"The sense of smell has been observed in many creatures, even yeasts and slime moulds, but our work shows for the first time that a sense of smell even exists in lowly bacteria.

"From an evolutionary perspective, we believe this may be the first example of how living creatures first learned to smell other living creatures.

"It is an early observation and much work is still to be done but, nevertheless, this is an important breakthrough which also shows how complex bacteria are and how they use a growing number of ways to communicate with each other.

"Bacterial infections kill millions of people every year and discovering how your bacterial enemies communicate with each other is an important step in winning this war. This research provides clues to so far unknown ways of bacterial communication."

 

[wirelessenabled]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100816095719.htm

For me posting links and snippets of "scientific" articles with no discussion or interpretation or question does not constitute highly technical.

Give it a rest Will:thumbsdown:

 

[MJinZ]

In other news, living organisms interact with their environment.

Breaking at 11

 

[muscles|]

^ I ever knew a living organism could detect something...

Why does it smell like bacon right now...

-muscles|

 

[William Gaatjes]

For me posting links and snippets of "scientific" articles with no discussion or interpretation or question does not constitute highly technical.

Give it a rest Will:thumbsdown:

Well, i am accumulating. ^_^.

But feel free to post your thoughts on the subject.
I will start a discussion if necessary.

 

[sjwaste]

Is it really olfaction? Seems like a generic reaction to a stimulus. Ammonia triggers a cellular process. Olfaction would require some higher order differentiation between the stimuli, not just a response to some, no response to others, etc.

Olfaction also implies neurological function, doesn't it? This seems a little sensational, the kind of sensationalism bandied about to drum up grant money. At least, that's what I'm smelling here.

 

[ModestGamer]

Is it really olfaction? Seems like a generic reaction to a stimulus. Ammonia triggers a cellular process. Olfaction would require some higher order differentiation between the stimuli, not just a response to some, no response to others, etc.

Olfaction also implies neurological function, doesn't it? This seems a little sensational, the kind of sensationalism bandied about to drum up grant money. At least, that's what I'm smelling here.

is olfaction not the same thing ?? receptors in the nose respond sending a particular chemical,electrical signal to the brain indacating ammonia. We interept thats as a smell.But its reall just a respons.

Perception and method of perception being the only key difference.

 

[DominionSeraph]

is olfaction not the same thing ?? receptors in the nose respond sending a particular chemical,electrical signal to the brain indacating ammonia. We interept thats as a smell.But its reall just a respons.

Perception and method of perception being the only key difference.

I would say a layer of abstraction is required for it to be olfaction.
Otherwise:

I shoot you in the head.
You respond by dying.

Does that mean you smelled the bullet?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

This is, for lack of a better word, bullshit. Smell is organ-mediated. Just because a cell can identify a substance that binds to a receptor, does not mean it can smell. This is a kind of activity that human leukocytes do every single day. That does not mean what they do is called smell. This is important science about the things that cause biofilms in pathology, and is quite interesting, but cheapening it by calling it smell to appeal to a broader audience is kind of sad and depressing.

 

[ModestGamer]

This is, for lack of a better word, bullshit. Smell is organ-mediated. Just because a cell can identify a substance that binds to a receptor, does not mean it can smell. This is a kind of activity that human leukocytes do every single day. That does not mean what they do is called smell. This is important science about the things that cause biofilms in pathology, and is quite interesting, but cheapening it by calling it smell to appeal to a broader audience is kind of sad and depressing.

Smell is a perception.

 

[Daedalus685]

This is, for lack of a better word, bullshit. Smell is organ-mediated. Just because a cell can identify a substance that binds to a receptor, does not mean it can smell. This is a kind of activity that human leukocytes do every single day. That does not mean what they do is called smell. This is important science about the things that cause biofilms in pathology, and is quite interesting, but cheapening it by calling it smell to appeal to a broader audience is kind of sad and depressing.

Welcome to the world of scientific reporting... depressing 24/7 with some spurts of blind rage.

I can understand the laymen use of smell though.. In the area of science news this is certainly not near the top in face palm inducing lowest denominator spewing.

 

[CycloWizard]

WG just uses this forum to "accumulate" a bunch of seemingly unrelated online articles for a purpose he won't disclose (though it's bound to lead to a Nobel here before too long) and without offering any discussion of their content. It's unfortunate that such a brilliant mind as his has not yet figured out that URLs may be simply "accumulated" in a text file on his desktop.

 

[William Gaatjes]

WG just uses this forum to "accumulate" a bunch of seemingly unrelated online articles for a purpose he won't disclose (though it's bound to lead to a Nobel here before too long) and without offering any discussion of their content. It's unfortunate that such a brilliant mind as his has not yet figured out that URLs may be simply "accumulated" in a text file on his desktop.

My first sentence was to be negative, but then i realized you used the word "seemingly". ^_^.
The accumulation, it is not for me alone as you might have noticed...
The accumulation is to create patterns based on probability. Someone in the proper field, will read it and think : :hmm: .
That is all what it is about. No influencing...
I have everything afcourse as bookmarks highly organized and to cross reference. I do despise the rockstar scientists who are no more different then a preacher claiming to preach the absolute word of a god. Any scientists, willing to acknowledge that their models do not always work has high credits in my eyes, because they are honest and about doing the science. Knowledge is not the same as wisdom. You need the latter to make proper use of the first.