Living Cells Bind Silicon and Carbon for the First Time

A modified bacterial enzyme is taught to make bonds that evolution avoids  

An enzyme that can bind silicon and carbon has been found in a bacterium that lives in Icelandic hot springs, including the famous Blue Lagoon.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Silicon is all around us: after oxygen, it is the most abundant element in Earth’s crust. So why living beings never incorporate it into their biochemistry has long been a puzzle.

Now chemical engineers have discovered that living organisms can be nudged to bind carbon and silicon together. They showed that a natural enzyme from a bacterium that lives in hot springs can form C–Si bonds inside living Escherichia coli cells—when the cells are fed the right silicon-containing compounds. And by engineering the enzyme, the researchers created a biological catalyst that performs the reaction more efficiently than any artificial one.

The finding could help chemists to develop new pharmaceuticals and industrial catalysts—and perhaps explain why evolution has almost completely shunned silicon.


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.


No room for silicon?

Nature exploits a number of common metals in biochemistry: notable cases include iron in red blood cells and magnesium in chlorophyll. But silicon (an element that has properties both of metals and non-metals) seems to occur only in bioinorganic compounds, such as those in the silica shells of the single-celled algae diatoms. It never makes its way into the carbon-based chains of organic life.

“Poor silicon, abundant in the Earth, but rejected by the biosphere for its wondrous evolutionary tinkering,” says Roald Hoffmann, a Nobel-prizewinning chemist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.

Researchers have learned to bind carbon and silicon together using artificial catalysts. But Frances Arnold, a chemical engineer at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, wanted to test whether some of life’s enzymes could do that too, given the opportunity.

By scouring protein databases, she and her colleagues found a few dozen promising enzymes. After some screening, they settled on one from an extremophile bacterium that lives in Icelandic underwater hot springs, called Rhodothermus marinus. They synthesized the gene for this protein and inserted it into E. coli bacteria.

Their guess turned out to be correct: the enzyme could catalyse silicon–carbon bonding—if fed the right silicon-containing precursors. (The enzyme would not normally do this, because bacteria don’t naturally produce silicon-containing compounds). “It’s remarkable that nature is poised to do all sorts of wild things in the presence of this new manmade food,” Arnold says.

Efficiency boost

Still, the engineered E. coli were not very efficient at producing silicon-organic compounds. So the team introduced mutations into the active region of the enzyme and selected the bacteria that showed an improvement. A few generations were sufficient to enhance the yields—beating those of artificial catalysts. The results appear in Science on November 24.

“The Arnold group paper combines good chemistry and directed evolution to create enzymes that form carbon–silicon bonds in very specific ways,” Hoffmann says. “Beautiful work, creating new chemistry."

Arnold developed the directed-evolution technique in the 1990s and it is now used in countless applications, from improving laundry detergents to synthesizing medicinal drugs. She won this year’s €1-million (US$1.1-million) Millennium Technology Prize for that work.

“This opens up entirely new opportunities in pharmaceutical research and may lead to the discovery of new drugs,” says Yitzhak Apeloig, who specializes in organic chemistry at the Technion Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa.

The findings could also help to address basic questions about the early evolution of life, Arnold says, and in particular whether its disdain of silicon was happenstance or not. “We can start to explore what are the costs and benefits of incorporating silicon into life.”

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on November 24, 2016.

Davide Castelvecchi is a staff reporter at Nature who has been obsessed with quantum spin for essentially his entire life. Follow him on X @dcastelvecchi

More by Davide Castelvecchi

First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal. Nature publishes the finest peer-reviewed research that drives ground-breaking discovery, and is read by thought-leaders and decision-makers around the world.

More by Nature magazine

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe