New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Algae Found to Produce Potential Neurotoxin

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A variety of types of blue-green algae all produce the same molecule, a potential neurotoxin, a new report suggests. The results, published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, represent the first time that unrelated species of cyanobacteria have been found to produce the same potentially hazardous substance.

Cyanobacteria can produce a wide range of molecules that are harmful to humans, but which species generate which compounds has so far been quite unpredictable. Paul Alan Cox of the National Tropical Botanical Garden in Hawaii and his colleagues studied five different morphological sections of cyanobacteria, as well as cyanobacterial symbionts taken from lichen and other plant species. They discovered that 95 percent of all genera of cyanobacteria produce a molecule identified as BMAA, a suspected neurotoxin that has been recently detected in the brains of some Alzheimer's sufferers. The amount of BMAA manufactured by the algal samples varied widely. The scientists thus posit that BMAA production and storage is a function of either growth conditions or life cycle stages of the bacteria.

Because of the widespread nature of cyanobacteria, the researchers suggest that it might be wise to monitor levels of BMAA in drinking water sources that contain cyanobacterial blooms. They note: "The ubiquity of cyanobacteria in terrestrial, as well as freshwater, brackish and marine environments, suggests a potential for widespread human exposure."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe