So, taking a non-expert look at the actual study, it looks like they first depolimerize PET into some acyl hydroxamate as a preparatory step.
Then it seems the big finding here is that this Lossen rearrangement, a regular non-biological chemical step, doesn't kill E. Coli. They derive PABA from that step.
And the E. Coli hasn't done anything yet, but since it's still alive, the cute trick is to turn PABA into APAP (acetaminophen). We already knew how to do that, but I suppose it demonstrates the point
Now what I don't get is what was wrong with running the Lossen step separately, and only feeding the output to the bacteria.
This article makes it sound like a miracle way to turn plastic into small molecules. They found that one of the step won't kill E. Coli. But it seems like all the steps were already possible before.
d4mi3n · 17m ago
I know nothing about this, but it seems like the kind of distinction that might make something easier/cheaper in practice. As in, do everything in a vat rather than needing to filter and pipe things around in a chemical facility.
Paracetamol also known as Tylenol, Panadol and plain old acetaminophen
lawlessone · 28m ago
Could they put it in an mRNA vaccine so my body can break down plastic?
Arubis · 20m ago
The plastic in your body might be _less_ toxic than paracetamol.
lawlessone · 16m ago
Probably true , but my body can already remove the paracetamol
Arubis · 10m ago
That’d actually be a neat balance to figure out. Would the increased short-term liver toxicity be better over the long run than having bloodborne microplastics persist?
colechristensen · 15m ago
The major part of this discovery was about something that e. coli already did on its own before genetic modification, so no not particularly. They might be able to engineer a symbiotic bacterium to live in your blood (there's a lot of doubt here), or more likely and less risky engineer a bacterium that consumed microplastics to live in your gut delivered as a probiotic or as a "vaccine" that you ate that would infect your existing microbiome.
And not an mRNA vaccine, those are kind of too simple and are mainly there to annoy the immune system. You would either use a virus to inject new genes into bacteria or insert plasmids into bacteria in a lab which would later be consumed.
6d6b73 · 9m ago
Oh so now we can just ingest the bacteria and be pain free because of all the micro plastics in our body. Wonder what has more side effects?
Then it seems the big finding here is that this Lossen rearrangement, a regular non-biological chemical step, doesn't kill E. Coli. They derive PABA from that step.
And the E. Coli hasn't done anything yet, but since it's still alive, the cute trick is to turn PABA into APAP (acetaminophen). We already knew how to do that, but I suppose it demonstrates the point
Now what I don't get is what was wrong with running the Lossen step separately, and only feeding the output to the bacteria.
This article makes it sound like a miracle way to turn plastic into small molecules. They found that one of the step won't kill E. Coli. But it seems like all the steps were already possible before.
https://youtu.be/ctQXDpXTNZc?si=r52UCpxSN3fgjZfq
And not an mRNA vaccine, those are kind of too simple and are mainly there to annoy the immune system. You would either use a virus to inject new genes into bacteria or insert plasmids into bacteria in a lab which would later be consumed.