The formation of a biofilm continued even in the presence of this poison, suggesting that nanobacteria may not be alive after all. However, it could be that nanobacteria are immune or highly insusceptible to sodium azide, which would explain why the formation of biofilm continued even after the inhibitor was added. It’s salient to note that traditional microbiological methods fail to reveal nanobacteria, and that specific methods had to be invented for their detection and culture. In short, Kajander and Ciftcioglu were faced with the extremely difficult task of developing a new DNA staining and immunoassay methods. Using their patented methods, they discovered a new living organism, or at least “the smallest cultivable autonomously replicating agent on earth”. Their methods were newly crafted at the time and were very theoretical in nature; therefore, a learning curve should be factored in as a part of the evaluation of evidence. Cisar said in research he had conducted, nanoparticles had tested positive with a stain for nucleic acids, but when he and his team tried to extract these nucleic acids, none had been found. His positive staining for nucleic acids shows that there is possibly some DNA in nanobacteria and his inability to extract the nucleic acids can be attributed to the meagerness of the current level of technology. The instruments and procedures used in nanoparticle research have yet to be perfected and scientists are still in the learning process of how to handle nanobacteria. Although they did not find any consistent DNA information, this can be explained in part because of the inability to apply these techniques in conditions suitable to nanoparticles. It could take several more decades for more adequate technology to be realized and for nanobacteria to be fully
The formation of a biofilm continued even in the presence of this poison, suggesting that nanobacteria may not be alive after all. However, it could be that nanobacteria are immune or highly insusceptible to sodium azide, which would explain why the formation of biofilm continued even after the inhibitor was added. It’s salient to note that traditional microbiological methods fail to reveal nanobacteria, and that specific methods had to be invented for their detection and culture. In short, Kajander and Ciftcioglu were faced with the extremely difficult task of developing a new DNA staining and immunoassay methods. Using their patented methods, they discovered a new living organism, or at least “the smallest cultivable autonomously replicating agent on earth”. Their methods were newly crafted at the time and were very theoretical in nature; therefore, a learning curve should be factored in as a part of the evaluation of evidence. Cisar said in research he had conducted, nanoparticles had tested positive with a stain for nucleic acids, but when he and his team tried to extract these nucleic acids, none had been found. His positive staining for nucleic acids shows that there is possibly some DNA in nanobacteria and his inability to extract the nucleic acids can be attributed to the meagerness of the current level of technology. The instruments and procedures used in nanoparticle research have yet to be perfected and scientists are still in the learning process of how to handle nanobacteria. Although they did not find any consistent DNA information, this can be explained in part because of the inability to apply these techniques in conditions suitable to nanoparticles. It could take several more decades for more adequate technology to be realized and for nanobacteria to be fully