New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Kitchen Sponges Help Breed Bacteria Better

There’s a structural reason your sponge hosts so many microbes

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Your kitchen sponge is teeming with microbes. But repeated contact with food waste is not the only reason; a sponge’s unique structure plays a role, too. It could even inspire a new way to grow bacteria for research, according to a study in Nature Chemical Biology.

One of the biggest challenges microbiologists face is culturing bacteria species that will not readily grow in a laboratory. Some microbes are incredibly finicky, and scientists often have no idea what conditions these organisms need. “It’s kind of like trying to make pandas reproduce in the zoo,” says bacteriologist Trina McMahon of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the new study.

Sponges could provide an answer. Bacteria are usually grown on petri dishes’ smooth, unpartitioned surfaces. But sponges are riddled with hollow pockets—which, crucially, are not uniform. “Imagine there are tiny rooms and bigger rooms,” says Lingchong You, a microbiologist at Duke University and senior author of the study. Some bacteria types depend on many other individuals for survival and need space to form large communities, but others require relative isolation so they are not killed by their neighbors. Sponges’ mix of larger and smaller chambers offers an ideal range.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Although a sponge’s potential as a bacteria farm might seem intuitive, “actually demonstrating that experimentally is a challenging process,” You says. The researchers first modeled spongelike environments on a computer and found that varying chamber sizes would allow many different bacterial strains to thrive. Then they replicated these results in cellulose sponges.

“It’s rare to see both [scenarios] combined in such a nice way,” McMahon says. But she notes that You’s team focused on Escherichia coli strains that were lab-engineered to be either dependent on one another or self-sufficient—so she wonders if the sponge technique will work with other sensitive bacteria. “There is a limit, I think, to what you can do with those engineered strains,” she says.

Future experiments will show whether You’s purpose-built sponges can support wild microbes. In the meantime, he recommends sanitizing your kitchen sponge: “It’s probably not the cleanest item.”

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe