Do calcifying nanoparticles really contain 16S rDNA?

Farooq A ShiekhAix-Marseille Universit&eacute;, URMITE, UMR, CNRS 7278, IRD 198, Marseille, FranceWith great interest, I read a recent article published in the International Journal of Nanomedicine by Guo et al.1 This study involved an analysis of calcifying nanoparticles to determine the pr...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Shiekh FA
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Dove Medical Press 2012
Materias:	Medicine (General) R5-920
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/315147624af640e9a9d58bbded1b28f3
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:315147624af640e9a9d58bbded1b28f3
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:315147624af640e9a9d58bbded1b28f32021-12-02T05:14:28ZDo calcifying nanoparticles really contain 16S rDNA?1176-91141178-2013https://doaj.org/article/315147624af640e9a9d58bbded1b28f32012-09-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.dovepress.com/do-calcifying-nanoparticles-really-contain-16s-rdna-a11032https://doaj.org/toc/1176-9114https://doaj.org/toc/1178-2013Farooq A ShiekhAix-Marseille Universit&eacute;, URMITE, UMR, CNRS 7278, IRD 198, Marseille, FranceWith great interest, I read a recent article published in the International Journal of Nanomedicine by Guo et al.1 This study involved an analysis of calcifying nanoparticles to determine the presence of unique 16S rDNA. Nanoparticles that have since been isolated from biological samples have properties that appear to be consistent with a novel life form, including &quot;self-replication&quot;. However, despite a large body of intriguing and suggestive evidence, the true biological nature of nanoparticles has been elusive, and in the past decade this subject has spurred one of the biggest controversies in modern microbiology.2 First, the results published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Cisar et al reached a completely opposite conclusion to the original assertion by Kajander and Cift&ccedil;ioglu, which identified nanobacteria as living organisms.3,4 In addition, a closer look at the 16S rDNA sequences previously ascribed to so-called nanobacterial species showed that they are virtually identical to those of a notorious contaminating microorganism, Phyllobacterium mysinacearum. Second, after this report, multiple evidence-based studies were conducted in order to better understand the actual biological composition and self-propagation of nanobacteria.5&ndash;7 None of these findings are conclusive; however, biological insights of this mystery are now emerging.View original paper by Guo and colleagues.Shiekh FADove Medical PressarticleMedicine (General)R5-920ENInternational Journal of Nanomedicine, Vol 2012, Iss default, Pp 5051-5052 (2012)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine (General) R5-920
spellingShingle	Medicine (General) R5-920 Shiekh FA Do calcifying nanoparticles really contain 16S rDNA?
description	Farooq A ShiekhAix-Marseille Universit&eacute;, URMITE, UMR, CNRS 7278, IRD 198, Marseille, FranceWith great interest, I read a recent article published in the International Journal of Nanomedicine by Guo et al.1 This study involved an analysis of calcifying nanoparticles to determine the presence of unique 16S rDNA. Nanoparticles that have since been isolated from biological samples have properties that appear to be consistent with a novel life form, including &quot;self-replication&quot;. However, despite a large body of intriguing and suggestive evidence, the true biological nature of nanoparticles has been elusive, and in the past decade this subject has spurred one of the biggest controversies in modern microbiology.2 First, the results published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Cisar et al reached a completely opposite conclusion to the original assertion by Kajander and Cift&ccedil;ioglu, which identified nanobacteria as living organisms.3,4 In addition, a closer look at the 16S rDNA sequences previously ascribed to so-called nanobacterial species showed that they are virtually identical to those of a notorious contaminating microorganism, Phyllobacterium mysinacearum. Second, after this report, multiple evidence-based studies were conducted in order to better understand the actual biological composition and self-propagation of nanobacteria.5&ndash;7 None of these findings are conclusive; however, biological insights of this mystery are now emerging.View original paper by Guo and colleagues.
format	article
author	Shiekh FA
author_facet	Shiekh FA
author_sort	Shiekh FA
title	Do calcifying nanoparticles really contain 16S rDNA?
title_short	Do calcifying nanoparticles really contain 16S rDNA?
title_full	Do calcifying nanoparticles really contain 16S rDNA?
title_fullStr	Do calcifying nanoparticles really contain 16S rDNA?
title_full_unstemmed	Do calcifying nanoparticles really contain 16S rDNA?
title_sort	do calcifying nanoparticles really contain 16s rdna?
publisher	Dove Medical Press
publishDate	2012
url	https://doaj.org/article/315147624af640e9a9d58bbded1b28f3
work_keys_str_mv	AT shiekhfa docalcifyingnanoparticlesreallycontain16srdna
_version_	1718400461152714752

Do calcifying nanoparticles really contain 16S rDNA?

Ejemplares similares