If bacteria didn't have any food, would it die?

  • Thread starter icakeov
  • Start date
367
24
Hi!

Is there any research or experiments that show what happens to bacteria that in normal conditions end up without any food to consume?

Do they continue to exist? And if yes, in which form?

Many thanks for any thoughts
 
Last edited:
367
24
Many thanks for your response jedishrfu.

I was particularly interested in what would happen if the conditions were "normal". That is, with higher temperatures that don't slow down the motion of the bacteria's molecules. Basically, if a bacteria floated in a petri dish of distilled water for example, or on a piece of rock, with nothing to consume.
 
10,599
4,140
This is hard to say, I suppose they would starve and yet it seems that they might enter a dormant state or create spores that do survive.

Cyanobacteria seem to thrive in low food conditions.

 

jim mcnamara

Mentor
3,499
1,709
When resources become limited, bacteria may form very resistant spores. It is a response to the environment.
Example: Clostridium tetani, the tetanus causing bacteria, create spores that are resident in horse manure.
Which is why horsemen and those who care for horses are strongly encouraged to get regular tetanus antitoxin innoculations on a fixed schedule.
 
367
24
I saw this line on the Biological Immortality Wiki page:

"Many unicellular organisms age: as time passes, they divide more slowly and ultimately die. Asymmetrically dividing bacteria and yeast also age. "

I am a bit confused by this. Is it that one of the "daughter cells" is "older" and will eventually die? Or are both "daughter cells" "older"?
- If it is the former, how can one cell be "older" than the other?
- If it is latter, how is it possible that this species could survive into the future. Wouldn't all the cells just get old and die?
I can't figure out what I'm missing.

p.s. I was thinking of starting a new thread, but I figured, this was close enough to the original post.
 

256bits

Gold Member
2,753
792
I saw this line on the Biological Immortality Wiki page:

"Many unicellular organisms age: as time passes, they divide more slowly and ultimately die. Asymmetrically dividing bacteria and yeast also age. "
The whole quote fro wiki,
Quote:
Many unicellular organisms age: as time passes, they divide more slowly and ultimately die. Asymmetrically dividing bacteria and yeast also age. However, symmetrically dividing bacteria and yeast can be biologically immortal under ideal growing conditions.[14] In these conditions, when a cell splits symmetrically to produce two daughter cells, the process of cell division can restore the cell to a youthful state. However, if the parent asymmetrically buds off a daughter only the daughter is reset to the youthful state—the parent isn't restored and will go on to age and die. In a similar manner stem cells and gametes can be regarded as "immortal".
UnQuote.

Please re-read, paying special attention to "asymmetrically dividing", "symmetrically dividing".
 

Steelwolf

Gold Member
96
139
Was a recent article about seabed sediments and critters living 14km below sea-bottom, but existing at such a slow rate of time that they only use 1 attowatt/sec as opposed to our 100 watt system that most surface and light dwellers use. Some actually survive on the uranium and other radioactives splitting for energy to live on. So there are some rather extreme extremophiles, but unless something happens to thrust that sediment from it's resting place, most of them critters are doomed to be lost mineral formations in the sedimentary concretions.
 
367
24
Thanks Steelwolf!
 
367
24
Thanks 256bits.

The only way I can wrap my head around this is if the case is that cells can divide either "asymmetrically" or "symmetrically" in their lifetimes, depending on the time and conditions, which I realize is the case. In my mind was that if some bacteria consistently divided asymmetrically, how would their species survive with constant aging and dying?

I am guessing the overall "positive rate" of "youthful states" in all of life is what keeps life from not "aging" and then eventually collectively dying?

I just found the term "increased proteostasis" in this article that I am guessing refers to this "rate"
 
Last edited:

Ygggdrasil

Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2,875
1,952
The answer depends a lot on the type of bacteria. Some bacteria are able to form spores under conditions of stress (e.g. nutrient deprivation or dehydration) whereas others are not capable of forming spores and will die upon nutrient deprivation.

For example, the common gut bacteria E. coli, which is studied by many laboratories, does die off under conditions of nutrient deprivation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_growth#Phases
 

pinball1970

Gold Member
466
384
Hi!

Is there any research or experiments that show what happens to bacteria that in normal conditions end up without any food to consume?

Do they continue to exist? And if yes, in which form?

Many thanks for any thoughts
It's just a small thing and I am not not picking, it is just that I have seen this in the press also.
Bacteria is plural, bacterium is singular.
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"If bacteria didn't have any food, would it die?" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top