Klebsiella Planticola

The bacterium Klebsiella planticola killed nearly every plant it came in contact with. I'm not aware of any retractions of these findings.

See site "Environmental impacts " Elaine Ingham the scientist who made the charge later retracted .Therefore the damage to this research was done .I am unclear as to what really is true , bad science or fact . Has a potetial breakthrough technology been undermined or was it truely dangerous .Or have other alternative "catalists" been found to do the same job. I saw some work with E coli that looked promising BC International but I would hate to see a promising idea scuttled by bad science .Apparently there may be truth to the story but I'm curious what the facts are.

I just did a quick Google search for a site called Environmental Impacts, and came up with no results. The most recent testimony that i did find from Dr. Ingham is from Februrary of 2001 before the Royal Commision on Genetic Modification (New Zealand). She flatly stated that the release of Klebsiella planticola would "would result in the death of all terrestrial plants." (see paragraph 4)

If you are aware of more recent statements where she retracts this, please post the link as I'd like to see them. If it is indeed a "safe" product, then it could be a useful tool. I just haven't seen anything to say so.

OK, I found a little time to do some research. The New Zealand Green Party did acknowledge that they in Feb of 2001. I also found a couple of follow-up press releases from Dr. Ingham stating that her testimony was correct and that those who discredited her were off base.

So where does that leave the discussion, the resolution of the safety of Klebsiella planticola and its potential use? Beats the heck out of me. I gotta get back to work.

I fouled that up. The second sentence should link here to the New Zealand Green Party's retraction of their support for Dr. Ingham's research.

It's rather confusing isn't it .If I came up with a car that got 250 mpg and some "scientist " or quack said it might cause celluar damage maybe my chances of developement would be ruined .( when effectually they where refering to the cellular loss in the way of cash from there wallets ) thats the best crazy science I can come up with off hand .But my point is in todays world you can discredit someone in a second .The retraction gets a lot less press

I saved the retraction and I tried to bring it up again it was related to Eliane Inghams work on google .It is hard to find hummm!!! I have a copy if your were unable to access it send an email traditional@comcast.net I'm still curious about the subject if anyone has more info on breaking down wood to create methanol or anything else we can burn to avoid being hostage to foriegn oil .

A search at Science Daily ;
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000825082100 .htm
brought up, in part, the following:

"..the Cd-1 strain of Klebsiella planticola, which was recently isolated by former BNL
researcher Pramod Sharma from coastal salt marshes on Shelter Island in New York.
Through its normal metabolic process, the bacterium converts dissolved
cadmium thiosulfate to cadmium sulfide, an insoluble form, which precipitates out of the solution.",

Which whispers to me that we are talking about engineering a strain of an existing organism
into a cellulose eater here.
(Something that was not hitherto at all clear, though perhaps the "any plant that contacted this
strain did not survive"' should have clued me in.)
A new preditor of this kind is something to be treated with great caution.
P.K. does appear to be a potentially useful little beast though.

I had to check back and see if anyone had any follow up comments . It is an interesting potential isn't it . And the testimony is very unclear and open to wide interpertation .I would like to know more on the subject . traditonal@comcast.net

I discovered this thread while checking on the apocalyptic story about "Klebsiella planticola". I was relieved to find the link to the retraction. My question is somewhat related in that it has to do with the feasibility of producing methanol and other alcohols from woody plants. Clearly there are a number of organisms which are able to break down and metabolize lignin (fungi and termites come to mind) -- otherwise tree trunks would never decay. However, although there clearly is a balance between the overall breakdown rate and the quantity of plants which die and are ready for decay, the processes are quite <slow>. Slow, that is, by the timescale in which we would like to produce biofuels by plants not suitable for food. The question: Why is is that no organism(s) have evolved which can cause decay more quickly and thus gain a competitive food supply advantage over other species? Many, seemingly much more unlikely, sources of energy in extreme ecological niches have been exploited by organisms which have developed (or rather, been selected for) new capabilities. Since no species with such rapid-decay characteristics seem to be around -- it would seem that there must be some basic barrier at work. It would be well to find out if there is such a limitation (i.e. find an "existence theorem") before a great deal of research energy is devoted to finding some practical way to produce alcohols from woody plants. Any ideas? or answers?

Could you please give reference for the retraction of the claims of its dangers? Thank you, Jeremy