Cleaning up toxic waste: directed evolution vs. designed machines

Some heavy metals are required in trace amounts for the survival of living organisms, however at higher concentrations these metals can be incredibly toxic.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Some heavy metals are required in trace amounts for the survival of living organisms, however at higher concentrations these metals can be incredibly toxic. In Europe, the elements of highest concern are arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, tin, and thallium, all of which can be produced as by-products of industrial processes or along roadways. Unlike organic pollutants, metals don't decay or break-down over time, if anything they have a tendency to precipitate into the soil or surrounding environment and accumulate into dangerous quantities via bioaccumulation.

It should come as no surprise by now that while these metals are dangerous for animals, many bacteria and other micro-organisms thrive on them, and are capable of removing toxic metal elements from water or soil. There is therefore a lot of interest in the use of bacteria as a cheap and non-chemical method of cleaning up toxic waste. A few years ago I was involved in a project that looked at designing a biological biosensor for arsenic within a bacteria, so I was particularly intrigued by a new project put forward to produce bacteria capable of cleaning up heavy metals.

The project aims to use special strains of bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa to clean up heavy metal pollution. By growing successive rounds of bacteria exposed to copper, the researchers have already produced strains that show a greater ability to grow in the presence of toxic levels of copper ions. By selecting the bacteria more likely to survive, and allowing them to produce new mutated strains, the researchers harness the power of natural evolutionary processes in order to produce bacteria that do what they want. This process is known as directed evolution.


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.


The picture below shows part of the process used to produce these special strains of bacteria. The streaks across the circular plate are bacteria, while the little white disk in the centre releases copper ions into the plate. Originally, there were large bacteria-free circles (called 'zones of inhibition') around the white disk where bacteria were killed by the copper. After only four generations of directed evolution, the researchers were seeing much smaller zones of inhibition, showing that the bacteria were capable of surviving at higher levels of copper. The next stage in the research involves producing bacteria that can not only survive high levels of pollutants, but also remove them from the environment.

How does directed evolution compare to the designed genetic machines that I was working on? The directed evolution approach is a lot broader, and has a lot greater scope for surprising results. When designing a genetic system, the researcher needs to know exactly what genes to use, and which order to put them in. For directed evolution, the researcher needs to produce the right conditions for growth, continual nudges in the right direction, and then see what the bacteria comes up with. The genetically designed machine, if it works as expected (which admittedly, is a big if!) can potentially be transferred from bacteria to bacteria as a discrete unit of DNA, while the evolved bacteria are a unit of themselves. They may be able to remove and neutralise copper toxins, but the mechanism by which they do might require numerous pathways within the same bacteria.

Both systems, however, have a huge amount going for them. What I love about directed evolution is that it uses the already impressive evolutionary abilities of bacteria to create potentially whole new systems. Bacteria reproduce very quickly, very numerously, and despite (or perhaps because of) their inability to share genes by sexual reproduction, they are far more forgiving of mutational changes to the DNA. Furthermore, the more stressful a situation the bacteria is in (for example when surrounded by toxins) the more mutations and changes to its DNA it makes, making it more likely that a solution to their current environmental problem will be found. And with directed evolution, the solutions to their environmental problems, are the solutions to our environmental problems.

This project is currently being crowd-funded at microryza, please visit their website to help show your support!

---

Credit source for image 1

About S.E. Gould

A biochemist with a love of microbiology, the Lab Rat enjoys exploring, reading about and writing about bacteria. Having finally managed to tear herself away from university, she now works for a small company in Cambridge where she turns data into manageable words and awesome graphs.

More by S.E. Gould

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