Widespread Distribution of Bacteria Containing Petases Across Global Oceans
Postedabout 2 months agoActiveabout 2 months ago
academic.oup.comResearchstoryHigh profile
calmmixed
Debate
60/100
MicrobiologyPlastic PollutionEnvironmental Impact
Key topics
Microbiology
Plastic Pollution
Environmental Impact
Researchers found bacteria that can degrade PET plastic are widespread in global oceans, sparking discussion on the potential benefits and drawbacks of this discovery for humanity.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
2h
Peak period
42
0-6h
Avg / period
10.9
Comment distribution76 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 76 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 11, 2025 at 7:22 AM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 11, 2025 at 9:52 AM EST
2h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
42 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 14, 2025 at 4:27 AM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45886479Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 3:32:02 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
That makes me wonder if we'll soon see mammals with gut microbiomes that can digest microplastics.
Or in a different area of concern, what happens to the plastic economy when plastics are no longer useful because they'll be decomposed too quickly? Sanitary packaging for medical supplies come to mind.
Fortunately, the US will see that possibility isn't very likely. In the 1980s, there was growing concern about the use of plastic and styrofoam one-time packaging. Both still widely used today…
Actually it seems pretty crazy that they are figuring it out so quickly (guess there’s lots of energy bound up in those molecules).
https://www.clarknexsen.com/the-global-sand-crisis-examining...
https://scitechdaily.com/the-sand-crisis-no-one-is-talking-a...
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is...
Sand for glassmaking is more than abundant enough for all but the most distant futures, and even then glass is extremely recyclable.
As the article implies, microorganisms evolve relatively quickly. So the answer is, they would evolve to consume another source of energy. (As has happened for the subjects of the article in the opposite direction.)
> What happens to the plastic economy when plastics are no longer useful because they'll be decomposed too quickly?
We already use lots of biodegradable things for crucial applications, such as the wood used in framing houses. Just because wood can rot in a damp forest doesn't mean that the wood inside your walls will rot away just because. There are conditions where it can start rotting, and we're aware of those conditions and how to prevent them, at least enough for a house to last for decades.
> That makes me wonder if we'll soon see mammals with gut microbiomes that can digest microplastics.
On a less serious note, my cat is deadset on this accomplishment.
This could be bad too I suppose? Pipes and other chemical containment vessels might come under attack.
"Dammit the TV's rotting!"
> Is it harmful to humans?
> Not at all! You can definitely trust that my company has studied this in depth. I'm sure it isn't going to make it into everyone's bloodstreams before we learn it's actually terrible.
Before you learn it's actually terrible if I may.
Wish I could remember the name of it, as I roughly remember the book as being pretty good too. :)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Andromeda_Strain
[2] https://www.shroomer.com/mycoremediation-plastic-eating-mush...
In the presence of moisture, maybe. The are plenty of microorganisms that can break down wood and paper, yet they can still stay intact for centuries.
But any plastic is going to be harder to break down than cellulose because life depends on water and plastics are usually hydrophobic. So non-porous things will always break down pretty slowly. Plenty of plants grow in the water, after all, and aren't immediately consumed by bacteria. Microplastics should, in principle, be the first things to go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus
Not exactly a scalable solution.
Hot is commonly used to mean radioactive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_particle
One mode of radioactive decay is electron capture, which is absolutely impacted by temperature (just mentioning this as trivia, I meant hot-as-in-radioactive).
https://medium.com/@datavector/why-plastic-eating-bacteria-e...
Curiously near Chernobyl, decomposition microbes are suppressed, so things can hang around longer: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/forests-around...
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1517943113
> Here, we demonstrate that lignin was of secondary importance in many floras and that shifts in lignin abundance had no obvious impact on coal formation. Evidence for lignin degradation—including fungal—was ubiquitous, and absence of lignin decay would have profoundly disrupted the carbon cycle. Instead, coal accumulation patterns implicate a unique combination of climate and tectonics during Pangea formation.
I love this story and have repeated it to many people because of how wonderfully it sparks the imagination. Unfortunately, this theory simply doesn't hold up to modern evidence. It turns out we've had white rot fungi as long as we've had lignin
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1517943113
> Rather than a consequence of a temporal decoupling of evolutionary innovations between fungi and plants, Paleozoic coal abundance was likely the result of a unique combination of everwet tropical conditions and extensive depositional systems during the assembly of Pangea.
Plastics are not a single chemical. If anything it's more of a characteristic of a wide variety of polymers which are typically synthetically derived from petroleum are extremely varied. Even if fungi/bacteria eventually evolve the correct enzymes to break down some of the plastics, it's foolish to think all plastics will be solved by evolution. Especially since many of these enzymes result in other microplastic compounds instead of full decomposition.
It's also a little rash to hope for it given how much of the world's infrastructure would be threatened by such a development.
My guess is that this is on-net good for humanity. Curious what more qualified folks think.
plastcics are more or less like liquid hydrocarbons, with there lack of porosity as the thing that keeps them from bieng eaten, so that unlike most things plastics present a 2 dimensional surface where engulfing single or small groups of molecules is impossible, so other sort of feedingmechanism* must be at play to eat plastics.*
*off the cuff conjecture from a non specialist
1 more comments available on Hacker News