A Microbiologist Mines Bacterial Metabolism to Tackle Climate Change
A Microbiologist Mines Bacterial Metabolism to Tackle Climate Change
By: Keira Eby
News Article: https://www.the-scientist.com/a-microbiologist-mines-bacterial-metabolism-to-tackle-climate-change-74380
Journal Article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK613918
Introduction
Climate change is a pressing issue that causes many problems, such as rising sea levels and temperatures. A possible solution to combat this has been found in microorganisms. Some microbes can directly attack greenhouse gases by metabolizing carbon dioxide, while others help combat climate change through bioenergy and methane mitigation.
News Article
In the Scientist news article published on April 22, 2026, Avi Flamholz joined a group of scientists located at the Weizmann Institute of Science. Using his background in computer science, the researchers compared carbon fixation pathways occurring in nature as well as synthetic ones. The researcher concluded that engineered bacteria such as E. coli could be used to metabolize carbon dioxide. However, one of the setbacks he encountered was with the enzyme rubisco. The research group wanted to introduce it into the bacteria's Calvin Cycle; however, rubisco was incredibly slow.
In comparison to the journal article, I'd rate this news article about a 7/10. It's more focused on Avi Flamholz's own scientific journey and efforts rather than on how microbes directly affect climate change.
Journal Article
The journal article, "Microbial Solutions for Climate Change" by the American Society for Microbiology, goes more in-depth into the many different ways microbes can be integrated into society to reduce climate change. Rather than focusing on one pathway for reducing carbon emissions like in the news article, the authors go into detail on how microbes can be used to prevent emissions in the first place, in addition to removing carbon from the atmosphere.
Microbes can be used for more purposes aside from carbon fixation. One pathway discussed is through biomanufacturing and bioenergy. To stop our reliance on fossil fuels, a microbial bioconversion coupled with carbon capture and storage was found to be able to deliver almost 245 exajoules by 2050 (that's about 5 million barrels of oil). The bacteria broke down organic materials through anaerobic digestion to produce biogas, which was then converted into ethanol and other biofuels.
Methane is about 80x more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, making it a desirable target for engineered microbes. In reservoir systems, organic matter near dams can produce methane. By introducing specific microbes near these sites, a biofilm community was created that consumed methane.
Alleviating only 10% of the methane rising from these bodies of water can remove 2 Mt/year from the global methane budget. In addition, this treatment can have the net positive of being able to remove excess nutrients and clarify water for ecosystems.
References
American Society for Microbiology. (2025, March). Microbial Solutions for Climate Change. National Library of Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK613918/
Bradford, S. (2026, April 22). A Microbiologist Mines Bacterial Metabolism to Tackle Climate Change. The Scientist. https://www.the-scientist.com/a-microbiologist-mines-bacterial-metabolism-to-tackle-climate-change-74380
Kyle’s Converter. (2026). Joules to barrels of oil equivalent [Online tool]. https://www.kylesconverter.com/energy,-work,-and-heat/joules-to-barrels-of-oil-equivalent
Hi Keira! I really enjoyed reading your post! Especially the idea that microbes can help combat climate change through both carbon fixation and methane consumption. It's interesting how researchers could engineer E. coli to depend on high concentrations of CO2 for growth. I also found the methane consuming microbes particularly interesting because they could potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissions while improving water quality. It makes me wonder how practical these microbial solutions would be on a larger scale, especially considering how difficult it might be to maintain the right environmental conditions for these microbes to function effectively. Do you think these technologies could realistically be implemented on a global scale, or would they be more effective in specific environments?
ReplyDeleteHello, Jasmine. Thank you for the question. Realistically, I see some things being implemented globally, such as using microbes near dams, since we're already trying to cut back on methane emissions. As for using microbes to remove carbon from the atmosphere, I don't see that happening as it is right now. In addition, solar energy is better than bioenergy currently.
DeleteHey Keira, I found your article quite interesting! It's quite fascinating how scientists are able to manipulate organisms to help alleviate the greenhouse gas burden in our atmosphere. Like Jasmine also mentioned, I would be curious as to how this would work on a larger scale. Have there been more experiments into actually using these microbes to be implemented, or have they only conducted experiments on a smaller scale? I just wonder about the practical implications in the real world, especially with rapidly changing environments with seasons, etc.
ReplyDeleteI believe in globally, no for using them in dams or wide scale carbon-fixation. Since microbes are a living organism, it's important that caution is used. However, as a bioenergy source, it's likely some places use it, but like I mentioned before, solar energy is way more advance renewable energy source.
DeleteHi Keira, this article was an amazing read! It's fascinating that scientists have now been successful in bioengineering microbial systems that can effectively combat greenhouse gases! The potential impacts, like those you mentioned regarding removing 10% of methane existence in water, could be astronomical! I'm very excited to see where this could go. I can't help but wonder though what the implementation of such systems would look like... Who would be in charge and who would fund it? There's a lot of power in the fossil fuel system corporations in the US, and one of the previous blogposts mentioned Caribbean countries' reliance on these fuels... What are your thoughts on the implementation of these systems financially and legislatively?
ReplyDeleteI think the implementation of using microbes in dams to clean up organic waste material is most likely out of all of them since we're already trying to budget our methane emissions. As for using this as a source of energy, solar energy is more likely to be developed.
DeleteHi, I found this article pretty interesting. You've mentioned potential implementations of the microbes in places like dams to reduce methane emission, but I'm curious if the article mentioned any environmental effects of introducing biofilm communities to these waters since they are engineered organisms being introduced. I'm not sure if that was within the scope of their research, but I'm curious of your opinion nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment! As for your answer, biofilms can act as a food source and they can help recycle nutrients back into the ecosystem.
DeleteHi Keira, great article! I find it really interesting how we can over express certain pathways to play a pivotal role in our environment. Engineering microbes is interesting to me and my hopeful future career in agriculture. Do you think utilizing bacteria as a methane sink would work in non-aqueous settings?
ReplyDeleteI didn't really mention it in the blog post, but animal manure from raising livestock also emits methane. So some suggest using microbial anaerobic digestion to reduce emissions and instead divert the methane into biofuel.
DeleteHi great work. I find it so cool that some microorganisms may be able to help with climate change! At this point it feels like there is nothing to fix it so this is a piece of good news! Do you think it is more valuable for the microorganisms to prevent emissions in the first place, or reduce the emissions we currently have? Are there any other organisms that may also be able to help with climate change?
ReplyDeleteHi Keira, this is a really neat article; I like how you presented it. I know that E. coli strains populate in the human body and I was curious if the article touched upon any potential repercussions of engineered strands ending up in human intestines? Thank you for your post.
ReplyDeleteYes. Since E.Coli already exist in the human body, some labs will experiment with these bacterias as a medicine. For the sake of these experiments, the entire Ecoli is being engineered in a way that they are no longer heterotrophs, meaning they'll likely just die if you were to eat them.
DeleteHowdy Keira. Your blog post was very interesting. I was wondering what the process of manufacturing these microbes on a large scale would look like. Would the CO2 consumed by the microbes greatly overshadow the many times necessary and inherent emissions from chemical/biological manufacturing? Do you think it is a climate scientist's responsibility to address these questions?
ReplyDeleteHi Keira! I really enjoyed reading your blog post! I thought it was interesting how bacteria like E. coli can be engineered to capture carbon dioxide and how other microbes can help reduce methane emissions. I especially liked how you connected these processes to real-world applications, such as reducing emissions from reservoirs. Do you think genetically engineered microbes could have any unintended effects on ecosystems if they were introduced on a larger scale?
ReplyDeleteI found it different and intriguing that bacteria could play such a big role in addressing climate change. I had previously known that microorganisms were important for different environmental processes, but I hadn't really considered how they could be used to directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I was also particularly interested in the methane-consuming bacteria because they could potentially reduce emissions from reservoirs while also improving water quality. It was cool how the news article focused more on the scientist's personal research rather than all the possible applications discussed in the journal article. While these methods seem promising, I imagine there would be some challenges with using them on a larger scale. What do you think would be the biggest obstacle to implementing these microbial solutions in real-world environments?
ReplyDeleteHi Keira, thanks for sharing. I think its interesting research, but I wonder how someone thought a change so radical could be a viable solution. If this source accounts for 10% of methane budget, so even if a fifth of all the "problematic" bacteria were replaced, only a couple percent methane emission is reduced. It seems like a small payoff for damaging potentially irreparable and unstudied aquatic ecosystem. Maybe there is vested interest in this research from a third party, because it seems unlikely that there will be a global effort to replace bacteria anytime soon, despite this being a remarkable feat of genetic engineering.
ReplyDeleteHi Keira, great analysis! I know that in your analysis you mentioned that E.Coli were being used because they are relatively cheap and simple to genetically engineer. However, I was curious if the article mentioned any other strains of bacteria would show a higher efficiency of CO2 removal? Additionally, does the use of microbes like E.Coli present any human health risks?
ReplyDelete