[ExI] thinking about the unthinkable

Mon Aug 31 11:32:44 UTC 2026

On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 4:13 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

*> I'm certain there are much better ways to wipe out the human race than
> cutting off the electricity. Ways that wouldn't inconvenience AIs (any more
> than the total lack of humans would, anyway), and that would be 100%
> effective (i.e. The Humans Are Dead. All of them). Some of them would
> probably be unforeseeable by humans, as well, so pretty much impossible to
> defend against.*

*Sounds like you're talking about AI creating a "Mirror Life" bacteria. The
human immune system, and that of every other organism on the planet, would
be unable to destroy or even recognize a mirror organism. Synthetic mirror
bacteria would have no natural predators or competitors and thus with
exponential speed spread through the entire biosphere. *

*Here is an introduction to the subject: *

* Mirror Life - Biggest Threat You’ve Never Heard Of
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU3HUqUZeYw>*

*And the journal Science had an article about Mirror Life on December 12,
2024, it's behind a paywall so I will include it below: *
*===*
        Confronting risks of mirror life

 All known life is homochiral. DNA and RNA are made from “right-handed”
nucleotides, and proteins are made from “left-handed” amino acids. Driven
by curiosity and plausible applications, some researchers had begun work
toward creating lifeforms composed entirely of mirror-image biological
molecules. Such mirror organisms would constitute a radical departure from
known life, and their creation warrants careful consideration. The
capability to create mirror life is likely at least a decade away and would
require large investments and major technical advances; we thus have an
opportunity to consider and preempt risks before they are realized. Here,
we draw on an indepth analysis of current technical barriers, how they
might be eroded by technological progress, and what we deem to be
unprecedented and largely overlooked risks (*1*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>).
We call for broader discussion among the global research community,
policy-makers, research funders, industry, civil society, and the public to
chart an appropriate path forward.

Others have noted some dangers from mirror life (*2*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R2>,
*3* <https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R3>),
but a thorough analysis of risks has not previously been completed. The
need for such an analysis has grown with advances in key enabling
technologies. To address this gap, a group with diverse expertise
qualitatively assessed the feasibility and risks of creating mirror
bacteria, considering factors including the nature, magnitude, and
likelihood of potential harms; the ease of accidental or deliberate misuse;
and the effectiveness of potential countermeasures. Our group includes
expertise in synthetic biology; human, animal, and plant physiology and
immunology; microbial ecology; evolutionary biology; planetary life
detection; biosecurity; global health; and policy-making and includes
researchers who have held the creation of mirror life as a long-term
aspirational goal. The findings are summarized below and detailed in a
separately released, in-depth technical report (a cross-referenced version
of this article is provided in the supplementary materials) (*1*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>).
We focus on mirror bacteria, but many of the considerations might also
apply to other forms of mirror life.
Our analysis suggests that mirror bacteria would likely evade many immune
mechanisms mediated by chiral molecules, potentially causing lethal
infection in humans, animals, and plants. They are likely to evade
predation from natural-chirality phage and many other predators,
facilitating spread in the environment. We cannot rule out a scenario in
which a mirror bacterium acts as an invasive species across many
ecosystems, causing pervasive lethal infections in a substantial fraction
of plant and animal species, including humans. Even a mirror bacterium with
a narrower host range and the ability to invade only a limited set of
ecosystems could still cause unprecedented and irreversible harm.
Although we were initially skeptical that mirror bacteria could pose major
risks, we have become deeply concerned. We were uncertain about the
feasibility of synthesizing mirror bacteria but have concluded that
technological progress will likely make this possible. We were uncertain
about the consequences of mirror bacterial infection in humans and animals,
but a close examination of existing studies led us to conclude that
infections could be severe. Unlike previous discussions of mirror life, we
also realized that generalist heterotroph mirror bacteria might find a
range of nutrients in animal hosts and the environment and thus would not
be intrinsically biocontained.
We call for additional scrutiny of our findings and further research to
improve understanding of these risks. However, in the absence of compelling
evidence for reassurance, our view is that mirror bacteria and other mirror
organisms should not be created. We believe that this can be ensured with
minimal impact on beneficial research and call for broad engagement to
determine a path forward.
Toward Mirror Life
Our analysis suggests that mirror bacteria could survive and spread in
nature, yet we do not observe them today. Although mirror life could be
just as functional as naturalchirality life, it cannot arise from existing
life: Evolution proceeds in incremental steps and would be unable to invert
the chirality of complex biomolecules such as DNA or proteins, let alone
all biomolecules simultaneously. It is also exceedingly unlikely that we
will encounter mirror life that has arisen independently. However, with
scientific advances, a mirror organism might be created in a laboratory.
Creating a mirror organism, even as simple as a bacterium, would be a far
more complex feat of biological engineering than has ever been
accomplished. Yet progress on key enabling technologies is underway.
Scientists are increasingly able to synthesize complex mirror-image
biomolecules (*4*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R4>,
*5* <https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R5>);
recent advances have enabled chemical synthesis of mirror-image
kilobase-length nucleic acids and large functional proteins (*6*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R6>).
Their reversed chirality makes these biomolecules resistant to normal forms
of biological degradation, leading to emerging applications such as
long-lasting and nonimmunogenic therapies (*1*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>,
*4* <https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R4>
, *5*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R5>).
In parallel, researchers are making rapid progress toward constructing
synthetic cells (of natural chirality) from nonliving parts (*7*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R7>,
*8* <https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R8>).
Once a method is developed that enables construction of a natural-chirality
bacterium entirely from synthetic DNA, synthetic proteins, and synthetic
lipids, and once mirror versions of these components can also be
synthesized, a living mirror bacterium could be constructed in the same way
(*1*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>,
*9* <https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R9>).
Other pathways to constructing a mirror bacterium are also plausible; for
example, with further advances in synthetic biology, a natural-chirality
bacterium might be engineered to produce mirror proteins and nucleic acids
in vivo, which could provide a starting point for stepwise conversion into
a mirror bacterium (*1*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>).
Although plausible paths to the creation of mirror bacteria exist, numerous
technical barriers remain to be overcome. The synthesis of mirror
biomolecules is highly expensive, and complex structures such as ribosomes
would be challenging to construct in their entirety. The development of a
protocol for constructing a mirror bacterium from mirror components would
require substantial breakthroughs in synthetic cell research. However,
although timelines are necessarily uncertain, it is likely that barriers
will be eroded as research progresses on related technologies, many of
which are pursued for applications unrelated to mirror life (*1*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>).
In isolation, mirror bacteria would function identically to their
natural-chirality counterparts if provided with achiral or mirror-image
nutrients—and be as feeble or robust as the strain that served as their
template. Genetic engineering could transform a slow-growing, specialized
mirror bacterium into a mirror version of a fast-growing, generalist
bacterial strain (*1*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>).
Many bacteria, including *Escherichia coli*, can grow robustly in growth
media without chiral nutrients (*10*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R10>);
hence, mirror versions of those bacteria would do the same. Achiral
nutrients are available in quantities sufficient for growth of common
bacteria in a wide range of natural environments, including within
potential hosts (*1*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>).
Further genetic engineering could provide mirror bacteria with pathways
needed to consume abundant chiral nutrients such as d-glucose.
Growth of mirror bacteria outside of the laboratory is therefore plausible.
However, their interactions with other lifeforms would differ profoundly
because of their reversed chirality.
Immune Evasion, Ecosystem Invasion
Our analysis suggests that mirror bacteria could broadly evade many immune
defenses of humans, animals, and plants. Chiral interactions, which are
central to immune recognition and activation in multicellular organisms,
would be impaired with mirror bacteria. This could result in weakened
immune recognition, a weakened response by innate immune systems, and (in
vertebrates) limited downstream activation of adaptive immune functions (*1*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>).
For example, experiments show that mirror proteins resist cleavage into
peptides for antigen presentation and do not reliably trigger important
adaptive immune responses such as the production of antibodies (*11*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R11>,
*12*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R12>).
We are thus concerned that the function of many vertebrate immune systems
against mirror bacteria would be severely impaired. Invertebrate and plant
immune systems are less well studied but appear to suffer analogous
limitations (*1*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>).
Given the potential for severe immune evasion, mirror bacteria might not
require host-specific factors to invade hosts and cause infection. In
animals (including humans), bacteria regularly cross barriers in the skin,
mouth, gut, lungs, and other mucosal surfaces because of routine damage and
intrinsic leakiness (*13*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R13>,
*14*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R14>);
mirror bacteria would be expected to do the same. In healthy animals,
translocated naturalchirality bacteria are typically cleared by immune
defenses. However, if the immune response against mirror bacteria is
sufficiently impaired, translocated mirror bacteria might replicate within
the host and establish an infection. Unchecked replication of mirror
bacteria within internal tissues is likely to be deleterious to the host
organism and may be lethal (*1*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>).
The precise extent of immunological dysfunction is necessarily uncertain.
Several immunological defenses, such as the alternative complement pathway
and some antimicrobial peptides, are less sensitive to chirality (*1*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>).
Although it is hard to be confident about the implications, allelic
disorders, such as myeloid differentiation primary response protein 88
(MyD88) or major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II deficiencies,
show that even partial impairment of either innate or adaptive immunity can
leave patients vulnerable to bacterial infection. Similar evidence is seen
in a wide variety of animal and plant immune systems (*1*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>).
Overall, we are concerned that mirror bacteria might act as serious
pathogens with an unusually broad host range.
Mirror bacteria could also pose ecological risks more broadly. By virtue of
their reversed chirality, mirror bacteria may evade many forms of predation
and microbial interference. They would be intrinsically resistant to
infection by natural-chirality bacteriophages, may be resistant to
consumption by many predators, and may be resistant to most antibiotics
produced by microbial competitors. This resistance could allow mirror
bacteria to be unusually persistent outside of multicellular hosts,
facilitating transmission. Reduced mortality from predation could provide a
fitness advantage that might allow colonization of some external
environments, despite potential disadvantages such as reduced ability to
acquire chiral nutrients (*1*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>).
Transport by multicellular hosts could disperse mirror bacteria across many
environments. Much like an invasive species with few natural predators, we
are concerned that mirror bacteria could rapidly proliferate, evolving and
diversifying as they spread. Persistent and potentially global presence of
mirror bacteria in the environment could repeatedly expose human, animal,
and plant populations to the risk of lethal infection.
Biosafety and Biosecurity
Biocontainment and biosafety approaches might be proposed to reduce these
risks. Scientists could intentionally hobble mirror bacteria by engineering
dependence on molecules not present in nature (synthetic auxotrophy),
safeguards intended to prevent growth outside controlled laboratory
environments. However, escape from these safeguards through evolution or
human error could occur. Multiple auxotrophies would reduce but not
eliminate the chance of escape. Physical containment approaches could be
used, but laboratory accidents happen with some regularity, even in
high-containment laboratories, because of human error and equipment failure
(*15*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R15>).
Even if a mirror bacterium unable to grow outside controlled laboratory
environments could be created, it would not be secure—that is, permanently
controlled in a way that would prevent large-scale harm through negligence
or intentional misuse. Once a biocontained mirror bacterium has been
created, it would be comparatively straightforward to engineer it to be
free of safeguards (*1*
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>).
Methods for construction of mirror bacteria could also be replicated by
others in pursuit of various (perhaps safeguard-free) mirror bacteria.
Countermeasures such as mirror antibiotics, crops engineered to be
resistant to mirror bacteria, and mirror phages appear very unlikely to be
sufficient to stop or reverse the spread of mirror bacteria throughout
global ecosystems or to prevent unacceptable loss of life and irreversible
ecological changes that could result. The primary challenge with these
countermeasures is our inability to deploy them throughout the ecosphere at
sufficient scale to prevent or counter dissemination and evolutionary
diversification of mirror bacteria in the wild. They could therefore only
protect against a fraction of the potentially immense harm.
Foreseeable benefits of the creation of mirror bacteria are limited. Mirror
biomolecules have scientific and potential therapeutic applications that
are worth pursuing; however, although mirror bacteria could plausibly help
to manufacture them, such molecules can be made through other means. More
speculatively, mirror bacteria might be pursued as a chassis for live cell
therapeutics, but again, alternative pathways are available. The potential
risks of creating mirror bacteria cannot be justified by the relatively
limited potential benefits.
A Path Forward
We encourage relevant expert communities to critically engage with the
analysis summarized here and detailed in the accompanying technical report (
*1* <https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-collateral-R1>),
and we welcome arguments and evidence about mirror life that we have not
yet considered. In light of our initial findings, we believe that it is
important to begin a conversation on how the risks can be mitigated, and we
call for collaboration among scientists, governments, funders, and other
stakeholders to consider an appropriate path forward. Below, we offer
recommendations as a starting point for further discussion.
Unless compelling evidence emerges that mirror life would not pose
extraordinary dangers, we believe that mirror bacteria and other mirror
organisms, even those with engineered biocontainment measures, should not
be created. We therefore recommend that research with the goal of creating
mirror bacteria not be permitted, and that funders make clear that they
will not support such work. Governance of a subset of enabling technologies
should also be considered to ensure that anyone attempting to create mirror
bacteria will continue to be hindered by multiple scientifically
challenging, expensive, and time-consuming steps.
We recommend that initially, steps be taken to prevent the production of
mirror genomes and proteomes, or functional equivalents sufficient to
enable the construction of a mirror cell. We recommend research to
determine which, if any, other enabling technologies warrant oversight.
Systems for monitoring the purchase of mirror oligonucleotides and
precursors, and regulations and laws to prevent the creation of mirror
life, should also be considered. As science progresses and opens additional
pathways to the creation of mirror life, measures should be regularly
reviewed. Further discussion and analysis should carefully consider the
institutions and mechanisms that would be best suited to determine the form
and implementation of such measures. The unprecedented scope and scale of
the risk from mirror bacteria may challenge the applicability of existing
national and international systems.
Many related technologies, such as the chemical synthesis of mirror-image
nucleic acids and proteins—not aimed at the creation of a mirror
bacterium—have scientific and potential therapeutic applications. Diverse
mirror proteins and RNAs could be made for research applications such as
aptamers, biocatalysis, and phage display, and d-amino acids could be
incorporated into synthetic peptide or protein drugs. We do not recommend
any new restrictions on such research. Similarly, much synthetic cell
research does not directly enable the creation of a mirror bacterium, is of
great value to basic science, and should continue.
We also recommend research to better understand and prepare for risks from
mirror bacteria, as long as neither mirror bacteria nor any key enabling
precursors are produced. Such research might include studying the
interaction of mirror biomolecules with the immune system as well as
developing detection methods and biosurveillance systems. Although
countermeasures could not prevent widespread harm, they might offer some
limited or localized protection. It is essential that any research on
countermeasures takes place in an open, international setting to engender
trust. None of these research directions would require mirror bacteria to
be built.
We believe that there is a productive path ahead in which a range of
stakeholders collaboratively consider the risks from mirror life and
develop appropriate governance without unnecessarily impeding scientific
research. Drawing inspiration from the Tianjin Biosecurity Guidelines and
other relevant frameworks, we invite the global research community,
policy-makers, research funders, industry, civil society, and the public to
join this discussion. To facilitate greater understanding of the risks
associated with mirror life and further progress on governance, we plan to
convene discussions on these topics in 2025. We are hopeful that scientists
and society at large will take a responsible approach to managing a
technology that might pose unprecedented risks.
Acknowledgments
This article emerged from the activities of a working group chaired by
J.I.G. and J.W.S. The Mirror Biology Dialogues Fund—established to support
discussions and research on this topic and enabled by contributions from
the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation,
the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Open Philanthropy, and Patrick
Collison—supported the working group through support from staff and through
funding to M.L.N. and S.B.O. Open Philanthropy also supported the working
group through support from staff and through funding to K.M.E., M.L.N.,
S.B.O., and J.A.S. for work contributing to this article and/or the
accompanying technical report; D.A.R. also acknowledges past support for
work on the same topic. Y.C. acknowledges support from UK Research and
Innovation Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/V05967X/1
(Open Plus Fellowship: Engineering and safeguarding synthetic genomes).
Other authors acknowledge general support from a wide range of sources. A
list of competing interests for all authors is provided in the
supplementary materials. The views expressed here are those of the
individuals and not those of any organizations with which they are
affiliated.

References and Notes
1
K. P. Adamala et al., “Technical report on mirror bacteria: Feasibility and
risks” (Stanford Digital Repository, 2024);
https://doi.org/10.25740/cv716pj4036.
Google Scholar
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=%E2%80%9CTechnical+report+on+mirror+bacteria%3A+Feasibility+and+risks%E2%80%9D&author=K.+P.+Adamala&publication_year=2024&doi=10.25740%2Fcv716pj4036>
2
J. H. Brewster, M. Laskowski Jr., *Science* 258, 1289 (1992).
GO TO REFERENCE
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-R2-1>
Crossref
<https://www.science.org/servlet/linkout?suffix=e_1_3_3_3_2&dbid=4&doi=10.1126%2Fscience.ads9158&key=10.1126%2Fscience.1455216&site=aaas-site>
PubMed <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1455216/>
Web of Science
<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3AA1992JY95800002>
Google Scholar
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=J.+H.+Brewster&author=M.+Laskowski&publication_year=1992&journal=Science&pages=1289&doi=10.1126%2Fscience.1455216&pmid=1455216>
3
J. Bohannon, *WIRED*, 29 November 2010;
https://www.wired.com/2010/11/ff-mirrorlife.
GO TO REFERENCE
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-R3-1>
Google Scholar
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=WIRED&author=J.+Bohannon&publication_year=2010>
4
B. E. Young, N. Kundu, J. T. Sczepanski, *Chemistry (Basel)* 25, 7981
(2019).
Google Scholar
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=B.+E.+Young&author=N.+Kundu&author=J.+T.+Sczepanski&publication_year=2019&journal=Chemistry+%28Basel%29&pages=7981>
5
K. Harrison, A. S. Mackay, L. Kambanis, J. W. C. Maxwell, R. J. Payne, *Nat.
Rev. Chem.* 7, 383 (2023).
Crossref <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-023-00493-y>
PubMed <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37173596/>
Web of Science
<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3A000988203500001>
Google Scholar
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=K.+Harrison&author=A.+S.+Mackay&author=L.+Kambanis&author=J.+W.+C.+Maxwell&author=R.+J.+Payne&publication_year=2023&journal=Nat.+Rev.+Chem.&pages=383&doi=10.1038%2Fs41570-023-00493-y&pmid=37173596>
6
Y. Xu, T. F. Zhu, *Science* 378, 405 (2022).
GO TO REFERENCE
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-R6-1>
Crossref
<https://www.science.org/servlet/linkout?suffix=e_1_3_3_7_2&dbid=4&doi=10.1126%2Fscience.ads9158&key=10.1126%2Fscience.abm0646&site=aaas-site>
PubMed <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36302022/>
Web of Science
<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3A000898106100010>
Google Scholar
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=Y.+Xu&author=T.+F.+Zhu&publication_year=2022&journal=Science&pages=405&doi=10.1126%2Fscience.abm0646&pmid=36302022>
7
N. J. Gaut, K. P. Adamala, *Adv. Biol.* 5, e2000188 (2021).
GO TO REFERENCE
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-R7-1>
Crossref <https://doi.org/10.1002/adbi.202000188>
Web of Science
<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3A000678714900005>
Google Scholar
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=N.+J.+Gaut&author=K.+P.+Adamala&publication_year=2021&journal=Adv.+Biol.&pages=e2000188&doi=10.1002%2Fadbi.202000188>
8
D. G. Gibson et al., *Science* 329, 52 (2010).
GO TO REFERENCE
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-R8-1>
Crossref
<https://www.science.org/servlet/linkout?suffix=e_1_3_3_9_2&dbid=4&doi=10.1126%2Fscience.ads9158&key=10.1126%2Fscience.1190719&site=aaas-site>
PubMed <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20488990/>
Web of Science
<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3A000279402700028>
Google Scholar
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=D.+G.+Gibson&publication_year=2010&journal=Science&pages=52&doi=10.1126%2Fscience.1190719&pmid=20488990>
9
F. Rohden, J. D. Hoheisel, H.-J. Wieden, *Trends Biochem. Sci.* 46, 931
(2021).
GO TO REFERENCE
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-R9-1>
Crossref <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2021.06.006>
PubMed <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34294544/>
Web of Science
<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3A000708305900007>
Google Scholar
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=F.+Rohden&author=J.+D.+Hoheisel&author=H.-J.+Wieden&publication_year=2021&journal=Trends+Biochem.+Sci.&pages=931&doi=10.1016%2Fj.tibs.2021.06.006&pmid=34294544>
10
M. Tong et al., *mBio* 11, e02259 (2020).
GO TO REFERENCE
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-R10-1>
PubMed <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32994326/>
Web of Science
<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3A000579503600066>
Google Scholar
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=M.+Tong&publication_year=2020&journal=mBio&pages=e02259&pmid=32994326>
11
H. M. Dintzis, D. E. Symer, R. Z. Dintzis, L. E. Zawadzke, J. M. Berg,
*Proteins* 16, 306 (1993).
GO TO REFERENCE
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-R11-1>
Crossref <https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.340160309>
PubMed <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8346194/>
Web of Science
<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3AA1993LG16500008>
Google Scholar
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=H.+M.+Dintzis&author=D.+E.+Symer&author=R.+Z.+Dintzis&author=L.+E.+Zawadzke&author=J.+M.+Berg&publication_year=1993&journal=Proteins&pages=306&doi=10.1002%2Fprot.340160309&pmid=8346194>
12
M. Uppalapati et al., *ACS Chem. Biol.* 11, 1058 (2016).
GO TO REFERENCE
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-R12-1>
Crossref <https://doi.org/10.1021/acschembio.5b01006>
PubMed <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26745345/>
Web of Science
<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3A000374437000026>
Google Scholar
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=M.+Uppalapati&publication_year=2016&journal=ACS+Chem.+Biol.&pages=1058&doi=10.1021%2Facschembio.5b01006&pmid=26745345>
13
P. C. Sedman et al., *Gastroenterology* 107, 643 (1994).
GO TO REFERENCE
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-R13-1>
Crossref <https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-5085(94)90110-4>
PubMed <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8076751/>
Web of Science
<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3AA1994PE30200002>
Google Scholar
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=P.+C.+Sedman&publication_year=1994&journal=Gastroenterology&pages=643&doi=10.1016%2F0016-5085%2894%2990110-4&pmid=8076751>
14
S. Jin, D. Wetzel, M. Schirmer, *Curr. Opin. Microbiol.* 67, 102147 (2022).
GO TO REFERENCE
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-R14-1>
Crossref <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2022.102147>
PubMed <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35461008/>
Web of Science
<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3A000794551800002>
Google Scholar
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=S.+Jin&author=D.+Wetzel&author=M.+Schirmer&publication_year=2022&journal=Curr.+Opin.+Microbiol.&pages=102147&doi=10.1016%2Fj.mib.2022.102147&pmid=35461008>
15
S. D. Blacksell et al., *Lancet Microbe* 5, e194 (2024).
GO TO REFERENCE
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158#core-R15-1>
Crossref <https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-5247(23)00319-1>
PubMed <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38101440/>
Web of Science
<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3A001168025100001>
<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3A001168025100001>
<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3A001168025100001>
<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3A001168025100001>

<https://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=5e3815c904498985e796fc91436abd9a&SrcAuth=atyponcel&SrcApp=literatum&DestLinkType=FullRecord&KeyUT=WOS%3A001168025100001>
*===*
*John K Clark    See what's on my list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260831/6f2e8b70/attachment-0001.htm>