These Fish and Flies Are Engineered to Break Down Mercury

Bacterial genes protect animals—and their predators—from harmful contamination

A macro shot of a zebra danio tropical fish.

Danio rerio, a freshwater zebra fish, is one species scientists have modified to filter mercury from the environment.

Ian Grainger/Alamy Stock Photo

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

For decades mercury has been settling into lakes and oceans, where it builds up relentlessly in fish and everything that eats them—humans included. This pollution, which exposes millions of people to a toxic substance that can damage neural and reproductive health, “always seemed like such an intractable thing,” says Kate Tepper, a postdoctoral researcher at Australia’s Macquarie University.

Seeking ways to make a dent in this problem, Tepper and her colleagues genetically engineered zebra fish and fruit flies so that they convert methylmercury—the kind that “bioaccumulates,” binding to muscle tissue and becoming more concentrated as it moves up the food chain—into the less harmful elemental mercury, which evaporates from the body as gas.

The researchers injected fish and fly embryos with Escherichia coli genes to produce an enzyme that catalyzes the conversion process. As reported in Nature Communications, the modified zebra fish contained 64 percent less methylmercury than their unmodified counterparts, and the fruit flies had 83 percent less. The study authors propose that small, mercury-resistant fish could serve as a self-purifying foundation for the food chain and shield larger fish, birds and humans. Modified insects, meanwhile, could remove mercury from the environment as they munch on sewage and fishery offal in enclosed facilities.


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.


Tepper’s team isn’t the first to advocate bioremediation, the use of biological processes to clean up contamination. Previous research has shown that plants with certain bacterial genes (as well as the bacteria themselves) are powerful detoxifiers. But those organisms can’t reach the pollutants already inside fish. By equipping animals with these enzymes, Tepper says, “you’re targeting mercury in the place where it’s causing the most toxicity.”

University of Connecticut marine scientist Robert Mason, who studies mercury in aquatic systems and was not involved in the study, says modified animals could help disrupt bioaccumulation on a local scale. But he sees a limitation, even for small-scale cleanups: elemental mercury can change back into methylmercury once it is released into the atmosphere. Facilities where insects process organic waste could be filtered to capture mercury, but with fish a solution would be less straightforward.

Mason and Tepper agree the fish would ideally be introduced at highly contaminated sites. Tepper hopes they can be used to stock lakes near mercury hotspots created by artisanal gold mining in Africa, Indonesia and the Amazon—regions where many people rely on subsistence fishing.

But first the researchers need safety measures to constrain the genetically modified organisms. Tepper envisions eventual field trials in small lakes, possibly with sterilized fish, so scientists can test for unintended ecological effects in a controlled setting.

Such trials are years away. But someday, Tepper suggests, many nasty substances such as microplastics, pharmaceuticals and PFAS could perhaps be neutralized with the tweak of a genome. “It’s proof of concept for engineering animals for bioremediation,” she says. “Potentially you could use this for a lot of pollutants.”

Cody Cottier is a freelance journalist based in Fort Collins, Colo, who frequently covers evolution and the environment.

More by Cody Cottier
Scientific American Magazine Vol 333 Issue 2This article was published with the title “Alchemist Fish” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 333 No. 2 (), p. 12
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican092025-7mYYvA3j3F0TkPulZJNUvz

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