Scientists uncover extreme life inside the Arctic ice(news.stanford.edu)
news.stanford.edu
Scientists uncover extreme life inside the Arctic ice
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/09/extreme-life-arctic-ice-diatoms-ecological-discovery
32 comments
Interestingly, not only are those worms _able_ to survive low temperatures, they also _require_ low temperatures:
> They freeze at around −6.8 °C (19.8 °F), and their bodies decompose after continuous exposure to temperatures above 5 °C (41 °F).
Goes to show (perhaps) that adapting to unusual environments is not so much like a superpower but a tradeoff.
> They freeze at around −6.8 °C (19.8 °F), and their bodies decompose after continuous exposure to temperatures above 5 °C (41 °F).
Goes to show (perhaps) that adapting to unusual environments is not so much like a superpower but a tradeoff.
Reminds me of a short story by Alastair Reynolds, "Glacial". In it, scientists are studying these worm-like alien creatures that seem to interact with one another via chemical markers left on the tunnel walls. It is theorized that they're acting as a sort of distributed intelligence, although it's really slow due to the extremely low metabolism.
They look like earthworm that like to live near ice and eat algae. What is the nightmare fuel?
Some people don't like the idea of worms and actively avoid them. I'm not one of them but I know several people that are. The idea of chilling on a pristine glacier somewhere and suddenly finding yourself surrounded by thousands of worms is pretty unsettling to the worm avoidant.
Naturally I introduce these people to the existence of the Giant Palouse Earthworm [0], also in the Pacific Northwest, though these are so rare that it would be of scientific interest if you came across one.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Palouse_earthworm
Naturally I introduce these people to the existence of the Giant Palouse Earthworm [0], also in the Pacific Northwest, though these are so rare that it would be of scientific interest if you came across one.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Palouse_earthworm
I don't mind if someone is afraid of worms, but I really expected a flesh eating monster tha lay eggs inside you and then eclosionarte like in the alien movie and go to the nearest glaciar or ice rink and sleep for centuries until someone comes nearby ...
Anyway, if someone hates worms (and doesn't care if they are annelids or nematodes) I suggest to donate to the Guinea Worm eradication campaign. They are pretty close https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_dracunculiasis
Anyway, if someone hates worms (and doesn't care if they are annelids or nematodes) I suggest to donate to the Guinea Worm eradication campaign. They are pretty close https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_dracunculiasis
clear scoleciphobia if I've ever seen it
Well, yeah, they're worms. People are irrationally afraid of all sorts of stuff, that doesn't make everything "nightmare fuel". They're just worms that look like worms.
> worms that look like worms
Those are the worst kind of worms.
Those are the worst kind of worms.
Immediately conjures this X Files episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_(The_X-Files)
I've seen this movie before. I hope the researchers are safe and checked their flamethrowers for fuel.
Agent Mulder figured out what to do about these in less than 42 minutes. Well, maybe Scully helped a little...
Indeed. The Borg are in there. Not to be messed around with
No No, that was AVP ...err... antarctic video performances...
Assistant Vice... Predator
I've seen Fortitude (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3498622/), I know how this ends (not well).
What about Alien Hunter? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327409/
Fortitude is amazing. Cinematography, soundtrack, creepiness all top notch.
Funded primarily by US taxpayers via multiple NSF grants and additional grants from the Human Frontier Science Program, Moore Foundation, Schmidt Foundation, and Dalio Foundation.
I brought a sample of "pink snow" back to the lab- common at high altitudes in California. Under the scope, the algae were pink spheres.
Extremophiles are so interesting
Extremophiles are so interesting
Do they have a wikipedia page ?
EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_snow
EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_snow
Oh how cool. They are motile. Flagella to move upwards. It does not get any cooler than that. Thanks
Maybe you can volunteer to send a sample to the Living Snow Project next year! It looks like they have samples from California, I've missed my opportunity in the last few years due to family stuff.
https://wp.wwu.edu/livingsnowproject/
https://wp.wwu.edu/livingsnowproject/
Which type of microscope and what level of magnification? Any images? I'm designing one at the moment.
Sorry, can't tell you that, I let the microbiologists do it for me. They were very possessive about their instruments, like I was with mine. So... how are you doing it? I bought a $29 microscope from China last week to look at the backside of leaves we thought were infected with bindweed mites. Saw circular yellow and red spots on leaves that looked to the naked eye, to have white powdery residue. Under a scope, it's a whole different world.
For normal brightfield microscopy industrial cameras are very good (the internal sensor chipset is the important component, and there are only a few manufacturers globally) and usually offer both USB UVC and HDMI output. Monocular optics are very cheap and offer free-zoom (so-called 'zoomtube', great for video) and configurable magnification.
In terms of reflected light microscopy, you are going to get very good results with off the shelf ~$100 systems (camera+monocular zoomtube) and LED ring lighting (preferably anti-glare with configurable polarized filters).
You get a solid upgrade switching to transmitted light microscopy. This requires some sort of transparent stage with underside lighting. This can be as simple as placing an unprepared sample on a slide and shining any light (like a phone LED) through it. But it works better if the light is even, the light is collimated, the light is focused, the light is controllable (ie. light source + collimator lens + condenser, at precise relative distances).
At high magnifications the focal plane is very thin. You will need focus stacking for many unprocessed specimens, which can be achieved in software but requires a rigid platform and a steady hand.
Around this level you get some good upgrades from taking thin sections with a razorblade. You can buy mini microtomes but they're basically razorblades. Just buy razorblades. Staining also helps, read for example http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11...
If you are serious about your images, you can buy a cheap calibration tool for measurement purposes and synchronize it to software for markup and addition of digital scale purposes.
Beyond these you certainly need a rigid platform. To this point things are quite cheap, depending upon your requirements you could be only $200 in and happy with a range of stains, thin sections, configurable lighting, aperture, precision movable stage, etc.
Once you're in this territory you probably want a better turret and oil objectives. This is expensive.
Motorized stages, focus, filters/polarization, etc. are all options, often hard to retrofit to existing scopes, but of great utility depending upon what you're looking to achieve. I am sort of designing around this area. I am interested in structured light microscopy, which has recently been achieved for 10K EUR by academics in Europe. I may offer something cheaper if I can get it working.
Beyond that the next steps are precision methods like darkfield, phase contrast, DIC, fluorescence, etc. These get expensive quickly, requiring additional matched hardware and dedicated objectives. I know little about these techniques yet.
In terms of reflected light microscopy, you are going to get very good results with off the shelf ~$100 systems (camera+monocular zoomtube) and LED ring lighting (preferably anti-glare with configurable polarized filters).
You get a solid upgrade switching to transmitted light microscopy. This requires some sort of transparent stage with underside lighting. This can be as simple as placing an unprepared sample on a slide and shining any light (like a phone LED) through it. But it works better if the light is even, the light is collimated, the light is focused, the light is controllable (ie. light source + collimator lens + condenser, at precise relative distances).
At high magnifications the focal plane is very thin. You will need focus stacking for many unprocessed specimens, which can be achieved in software but requires a rigid platform and a steady hand.
Around this level you get some good upgrades from taking thin sections with a razorblade. You can buy mini microtomes but they're basically razorblades. Just buy razorblades. Staining also helps, read for example http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11...
If you are serious about your images, you can buy a cheap calibration tool for measurement purposes and synchronize it to software for markup and addition of digital scale purposes.
Beyond these you certainly need a rigid platform. To this point things are quite cheap, depending upon your requirements you could be only $200 in and happy with a range of stains, thin sections, configurable lighting, aperture, precision movable stage, etc.
Once you're in this territory you probably want a better turret and oil objectives. This is expensive.
Motorized stages, focus, filters/polarization, etc. are all options, often hard to retrofit to existing scopes, but of great utility depending upon what you're looking to achieve. I am sort of designing around this area. I am interested in structured light microscopy, which has recently been achieved for 10K EUR by academics in Europe. I may offer something cheaper if I can get it working.
Beyond that the next steps are precision methods like darkfield, phase contrast, DIC, fluorescence, etc. These get expensive quickly, requiring additional matched hardware and dedicated objectives. I know little about these techniques yet.
Great, I'll copy/paste your notes into an email to myself.
Have you ever looked at a microscopy stains catalog? The most beautiful images you can't imagine. Just a different world.
At the moment, I'm mostly concerned about a bindweed mite experiment we're conducting locally. They are elusive but we're seeing signs of predation.
https://xeriscape.neocities.org/bindweedmites
Have you ever looked at a microscopy stains catalog? The most beautiful images you can't imagine. Just a different world.
At the moment, I'm mostly concerned about a bindweed mite experiment we're conducting locally. They are elusive but we're seeing signs of predation.
https://xeriscape.neocities.org/bindweedmites
After realising the organic insecticides were only a single active ingredient (Potassium laurate) and overpriced I launched a chemistry mission.
Based upon commercial retail product labeling, the target solution strength is 2% in water and this has been certified organic by some authority or other. Based upon my recent research, you can't buy it at full strength as far as I know, but you can buy two precursor chemicals: potassium hydroxide and lauric acid. It's an acid-base reaction. Therefore you need to work on equal molarity not equal weights.
1. Obtain potassium hydroxide and lauric acid
2. Weigh out 20.03g of Lauric acid, dissolve in 200mL water.
3. Weigh out 5.61g of Potassium hydroxide, dissolve in 200mL of water. This will get hot so you will need to wait until it cools down.
4. Mix the two solutions. It will give you 400mL solution containing 23.84g potassium laurate (60g/L).
5. Since a 2% solution is 20g/L, you dilute the solution in the ratio 1 part solution to 2 parts water (ie. add 800mL water). So in total you should have 1.2L of 2% product.
Based upon commercial retail product labeling, the target solution strength is 2% in water and this has been certified organic by some authority or other. Based upon my recent research, you can't buy it at full strength as far as I know, but you can buy two precursor chemicals: potassium hydroxide and lauric acid. It's an acid-base reaction. Therefore you need to work on equal molarity not equal weights.
1. Obtain potassium hydroxide and lauric acid
2. Weigh out 20.03g of Lauric acid, dissolve in 200mL water.
3. Weigh out 5.61g of Potassium hydroxide, dissolve in 200mL of water. This will get hot so you will need to wait until it cools down.
4. Mix the two solutions. It will give you 400mL solution containing 23.84g potassium laurate (60g/L).
5. Since a 2% solution is 20g/L, you dilute the solution in the ratio 1 part solution to 2 parts water (ie. add 800mL water). So in total you should have 1.2L of 2% product.
Extreme life - Sponsored by Red Bull.
Who would have thought that they had been found before, but only now did they undertake a more detailed study.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesenchytraeus_solifugus