Lyme disease, science, and society: Camp Other
Showing posts with label microbe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label microbe. Show all posts

Sunday, October 28, 2012

0 Symbiotic Spirochetes In Animal Models

Recently, I noticed this intriguing item in the news that is of interest to many medical professionals around the world who are struggling to care for patients' difficult to eradicate C. difficile infections: A recent murine study[1] provided evidence that a simple mixture of six phylogenetically diverse intestinal bacteria - including novel species - can re-establish a health-associated microbiota and clear C. difficile infection from mice.

With this outcome, it's possible that medical professionals will no longer apply the treatment of last resort - fecal transplants - to save human patients' lives. Instead, all patients with raging C. difficile infections will have to do is swallow a pill or consume food that contains the strains of bacteria needed to reverse dysbiosis and rebalance the microbiota in their stomachs so that C. difficile is no longer a threat.

Over time, researchers are uncovering the complicated dynamic between different microorganisms which live inside the human gut. Also, they are refining their understanding of the dynamic between different microorganisms inside animals with increasing speed as more invasive studies can be completed in animals than can be easily completed in humans. Among these studies are those on the relationship between spirochetes and other microorganisms found in ruminants such as cattle and sheep, termites, and molluscs.

Symbiotic Spirochetes In Termites
 

Microscopic image of Mixotricha paradoxa
covered with thousands of Treponema spirochetes
One interesting and complex symbiotic relationship involving spirochetes is found within termites' guts. Spirochetes are one of the most abundant bacteria present in the gut fluid of termites, and the symbiotic relationship between various microbes in termites of all kinds actually predates the evolution of termites from their wood-feeding roach ancestors over 120 million years ago [2].

Most termites have spirochetes which are free-living in the gut fluid, but they have also been found as ectosymbionts attached to protists inside termite guts. Mixotricha paradoxa is protozoa found inside the gut of the Australian termite species, Mastotermes darwiniensis. It was originally thought the long tiny hair-like structures covering the length of its body were short cilia - outgrowths from the protozoa itself. However, upon closer examination years later, scientists Cleveland and Grimstone[3] discovered these were not cilia but a dense carpet of Treponema spirochetes - spirochetes which help propel Mixotricha paradoxa forward while it uses its own anterior flagella to steer in the right direction. How it coordinates this movement is unknown - it is surmised that they automatically synchronize due to their proximity.

These spirochetes not only help Mixotricha paradoxa move forward, though. One thing Mixotricha paradoxa does to help its host, the termite, do is help break down cellulose into sugars and then hydrogen, acetate, and carbon dioxide from the wood it eats. From there, what the Treponema spirochetes are predicted to do is oxidize the acetate which was produced and use it to support 100% of the termite's respiration requirements.[4]

What makes this symbiosis even more complex is that it doesn't stop there. No, not only does Mixotricha paradoxa have a Treponema spirochete helping it survive - but it also has three more bacterial species onboard: A lot of rod-shaped bacteria related to Bacteroides live on its surface, and is suspected to help breakdown cellulose as it sits alongside the Treponema spirochetes; a spherical form of bacteria lives inside Mixotricha which is hypothesized to act as mitochondria for the protozoa (as Mixotricha does not have its own mitochondria); a large spirochete attributed to the genus Canaleparolina.[5]

Not much is known about these three bacterial species' lives in Mixotricha paradoxa, and more research is needed. The most recent research on Mixotricha paradoxa adds to this complex symbiotic dynamic, as it has been discovered that not all glycolytic activities in Mixotricha paradoxa are produced by its microorganisms - cellulases have been detected in the salivary glands of Mastotermes darwiniensis - the termite itself.[6]

Symbiotic Spirochetes In Ruminants

The bovine or cow stomach has a wide variety of organisms inside it - such as fungi, bacteria, archaea, protista, and viruses. All these organisms help break down food, especially plant matter and in particular, cellulose. And like the Mixotricha paradoxa inside the Australian termite, Mastotermes darwiniensis, the organisms are all dependent on each other to some degree and use the byproducts of one another for their own benefit.

Cows - unlike people - have four stomach compartments to digest their food: the rumen, the reticulum, the omasum, and the abomasum. The rumen is the largest compartment, and it contains a huge number of different microbes. The reticulum is responsible for creating cud and trapping indigestible substances like rocks or nails - and unfortunately, can be subject to more injury than the other compartments. The omasum sends large substances to the rumen and reticulum while allowing smaller substances to pass on to the abomasum. And the abomasum is very similar to a human stomach, as it produces stomach acids and enzymes to break down proteins before sending the result to the small intestine.

While the most common bacteria in the bovine stomach are gram-positive cocci and rods, a smaller percentage of their population are spirochetes which play a role in ruminant digestion. Organisms such as Treponema bryantii, a saccharolytic spirochete, enhances the breakdown of cellulose while cellulolytic bacteria of different species break down plant cell walls into soluble sugars.

Two interesting passages from the publication, Interspecies bacterial interactions in biofilms, by James, Beaudette, and Costerton[7], highlight the relationship between Treponema bryantii and other microbes studied in vitro from bovine rumen:
"Observations of biofilms on cellulose particles from the rumen revealed cellulolytic as well as noncellulolytic bacteria enmeshed in the exopolysaccharide matrix of the biofilm. Addition of a noncellulolytic species, Treponema bryantii, to cultures of a cellulolytic species, Fibrobacter succinogenes or Ruminococcus albus, resulted in an enhanced rate of cellulose degradation. Presumably, T. bryantii utilized the hydrolytic products (eg, glucose or cellobiose) from the cellulolytic bacteria which may repress and/or inhibit the cellulolytic enzymes."

"...Microscopy of biofilms formed during protocooperative cellulose digestion by R. flavefaciens and T. bryantii revealed that cellulolytic R. flavefaciens cells were attached directly to cellulose particles, while the spirochete, T. bryantii, was located in the upper biofilm layers. This spatial arrangement and the mobility of spirochetes in viscous environments suggest that this organism may move through the biofilm, scavenging the products of the cellulolytic bacteria."
The first study of Treponema bryantii in 1980, Treponema bryantii sp. nov., a rumen spirochete that interacts with cellulolytic bacteria[8], offers more specifics in its abstract as to its biological requirements:
"...When cocultured in these media the spirochete used, as fermentable substrates, soluble sugars released from cellulose by the cellulolytic bacterium. In cellulose-containing agar medium the spirochete enhanced cellulose breakdown by the Bacteroides succinogenes strain. Electron microscopy showed that the helical spirochete cells possessed an outer sheath, a protoplasmic cylinder, and two periplasmic fibrils. Under a CO2 atmosphere, in a reduced medium containing inorganic salts, rumen fluid, glucose, and NaHCO3, the spirochete grew to a final density of 1.9 X 10(9) cells/ml. Succinate, acetate, and formate were products of the fermentation of glucose by growing cells. CO2 (HCO3-), branched short-chain fatty acids, folic acid, biotin, niacinamide, thiamine, pyridoxal, and a carbohydrate were required for growth of the spirochete."
Spirochete Symbiosis In Molluscs

While so far there is no evidence molluscs harbor spirochetes which have symbiotic relationships with its host or other microorganisms, spirochetes which coexist peacefully within their host are worth noting.

Spirochetes from the genus Cristispira have been found inside more than 50 species of 22 families of marine bivalves and 3 freshwater bivalves. It has been shown to be a commensal organism living within molluscs and has not been shown to provide any benefit or disadvantage to molluscs such as Prince Edward Island oysters.

This past May, an interesting paper was published, Spirochetes in gastropods from Lake Baikal and North American freshwaters: new multi-family, multi-habitat host records[9].

The abstract states:
"We describe the first records of spirochetes in the gut of fourteen species of continental gastropods from a range of habitats and representing six families (Amnicolidae, Baicaliidae, Bithyniidae, Pyrgulidae, Lithoglyphidae and Benedictiidae). The bacteria were mainly found in the crystalline style sac, as has been reported in marine bivalves. The surveyed habitats include water bodies in North America and Eurasia, including deep water hydrothermal vent and gas hydrate zones in Lake Baikal. Spirochetes were present both in mature and young snails, but were not detected in embryos before hatching, indicating lateral transfer. The surveyed gastropods range in trophic strategy, including phyto-, detrito- and bacteriophagous grazers and filter feeders. Our results indicate that spirochetes are commensal in the surveyed gastropods with potential limited benefit and no detriment to the host animal. We suggest that the specialized internal habitat of the crystalline style sac in molluscs is likely to reveal unrecognized spirochete diversity that will shed new light on gastropod trophic ecology and spirochete diversity."
More research is needed to determine which limited benefits different spirochetes may provide for their hosts.

Looking at the symbiotic and commensal relationships between animals and spirochetes - or between spirochetes and other microbes - one has to wonder what kind of relationships different spirochetes have with us and microbes within us. Humans already play host to spirochetes which are considered commensal Treponema and unfortunate hosts to spirochetes which are pathogenic such as those which cause syphilis and Lyme disease (Borreliosis). But is there more to this story than is often told? Do these bacteria have deeper relationships?

References:

1) Trevor D. Lawley, Simon Clare, Alan W. Walker, Mark D. Stares, Thomas R. Connor, Claire Raisen, David Goulding, Roland Rad, Fernanda Schreiber, Cordelia Brandt, Laura J. Deakin, Derek J. Pickard, Sylvia H. Duncan, Harry J. Flint, Taane G. Clark, Julian Parkhill, Gordon Dougan. Targeted Restoration of the Intestinal Microbiota with a Simple, Defined Bacteriotherapy Resolves Relapsing Clostridium difficile Disease in Mice. PLoS Pathogens, 2012; 8 (10): e1002995 DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002995
2) Grimaldi, D. and Engel, MS. Evolution of the insects. 2005. Cambridge University Press, NewYork, NY.
3) Cleveland, L.R., and A.V. Grimstone. The fine structure of the flagellate Mixotricha paraodoxa and its associated micro-organisms. 1964. Society 159:668-686.
4) Leadbetter, J.R. Acotgenesis from H2 Plus CO2 by Spirochetes from Termite Guts. 1999. Science 283:686-689.
5) Brugerolle G. Devescovinid features, a remarkable surface cytoskeleton, and epibiotic bacteria revisited in Mixotricha paradoxa, a parabasalid flagellate. Protoplasma. 2004 Oct;224(1-2):49-59.
6) Konig, H., Li Li, Wenzel, M, Frohlich, J.  Bacterial Ectosymbionts which Confer Motility. p. 86 Molecular Basis of Symbiosis. 2006. Springer-Verlag.
7) G A James, L Beaudette and J W Costerton. Interspecies bacterial interactions in biofilms. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology. Volume 15, Number 4 (1995), 257-262, DOI: 10.1007/BF01569978
8) Stanton TB, and Canale-Parola E. Treponema bryantii sp. nov., a rumen spirochete that interacts with cellulolytic bacteria. Arch Microbiol. 1980 Sep;127(2):145-56.
9) Tatiana Sitnikova,Ellinor Michel, Yulia Tulupova, Igor Khanaev, Valentina Parfenova, Larisa Prozorova. Spirochetes in gastropods from Lake Baikal and North American freshwaters: new multi-family, multi-habitat host records. Symbiosis. May 2012, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 103-110.

Additional Reading:
Xinning Zhang and Jared R. Leadbetter. Evidence for Cascades of Perturbation and Adaptation in the Metabolic Genes of Higher Termite Gut Symbionts. mBio vol 3. no.4 e00223-12. http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/4/e00223-12.full
Nordhoff M, Wieler LH.Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2005 Jan-Feb;118(1-2):24-36 .[Incidence and significance of treponemes in animals].[Article in German]


Read More

Friday, April 15, 2011

0 The Friday Four

In this edition of the Friday Four, we'll look at the impact of antibiotics on bacteria in dogs' intestines, how fire-bellied toads can help us fight germs, antibiotic cocktails in wasp cocoons, and the effect of stress on your gut flora.

1) Impact of antibiotic treatments on bacteria in the intestines of animals

Source Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100413081238.htm

ScienceDaily (2010-04-13) -- Recent research from Norway has found that resistance to antibiotics is on the increase in intestinal bacteria in animals as a direct result of antibiotic treatments. The antibiotics also alter the composition of bacteria in the intestines. These discoveries provide more knowledge about the undesirable effect of antibiotic treatments and are of comparative interest as regards other animals and humans.

Comments:

This article is about how within a few days of antibiotic treatment, healthy dogs had a lot of antibiotic resistant E. coli bacteria in their intestines. I shudder to think of the state of my own intestines, after many months of antibiotic use.

I don't know if I really have much to say here, other than to say this: The article quoted nearly 50% of all worldwide antibiotic use is veterinary - I wonder what percentage of that 50% is for factory farms and not for people's pets? Antibiotics should be conserved for pets and people on the rare occasion they need them, and this should have been done all along. 

Now we're facing a crisis situation with antibiotic resistance, one which is most readily observed in our hospitals. And not just our hospitals, but our kitchens...

This was the eye-opener today:

Nationwide study finds US meat and poultry is widely contaminated

Multi-drug-resistant Staph found in nearly 1 in 4 samples, review shows


FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — April 15, 2011 — Drug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus, a bacteria linked to a wide range of human diseases, are present in meat and poultry from U.S. grocery stores at unexpectedly high rates, according to a nationwide study by the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen).

Nearly half of the meat and poultry samples — 47 percent — were contaminated with S. aureus, and more than half of those bacteria — 52 percent — were resistant to at least three classes of antibiotics, according to the study published today in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.


Please COOK YOUR FOOD THOROUGHLY.

Other methods of fighting bacterial infections which do not promote resistance must be found.

Which leads us to the next two entries of this Friday Four...


2) Giant fire-bellied toad's brain brims with powerful germ-fighters

Source link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110413121010.htm

ScienceDaily (2011-04-13) -- Frog and toad skins already are renowned as cornucopias of hundreds of germ-fighting substances. Now a new report reveals that the toad brains also may contain an abundance of antibacterial and antiviral substances that could inspire a new generation of medicines.

Comments:

So the "germ-fighting substances" they're talking about are peptides. Many of these peptides were shown to be homologous to hormones and neurotransmitters of mammals. And in recent years it has been shown that these secretions also contain a multitude of antimicrobial peptides.

So in the original research report above, 79 antimicrobial peptides were found to be encoded by 158 cDNA clones from B. maxima (the giant fire bellied toad - see photo to left) and B. microdeladigitora brain cDNA libraries, and of those 79, 20 were the same as ones which had been found before - but 59 were previously unknown and new antimicrobial peptides. These peptides worked against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and fungi.

Earlier research on these other amphibian-derived peptides have shown that some have activity against mycoplasma infections, HIV, and Staphlococcus aureus.

Antibiotics have been derived from peptides for many years now - some synthetically, like polymyxins and bacitracins - and some are natural, nonsynthetic antibiotics, like melittin (which peptides had to be derived from - melittin itself was not used due to its hemolytic properties) and manuka honey itself.

The latter group rely on observing natural host defenses (as nature’s antibiotics) and the clinical potential of peptides derived from these natural sources - amphibians, insects, mammals, and plants - is something that continues to be studied. These natural antibiotics may replace more of our currently existing selection of antibiotics due to increasing resistance.

Source Reference:
Rui Liu, Huan Liu, Yufang Ma, Jing Wu, Hailong Yang, Huahu Ye, Ren Lai. There are Abundant Antimicrobial Peptides in Brains of Two Kinds ofBombinaToads.Journal of Proteome Research, 2011; 10 (4): 1806 DOI:10.1021/pr101285n

3) Bacteria in wasp antennae produce antibiotic cocktails

Source link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110411194823.htm

ScienceDaily (2011-04-12) -- Bacteria that grow in the antennae of wasps help ward off fungal threats by secreting a 'cocktail' of antibiotics, according to researchers.

Comments:

Who knew that a particular wasp - the beewolf wasp (weird name?) - could have something in common with Lyme disease patients?

These crafty little buggers have their own prophylactic antibiotics right on the outside of their cocoons, so that they are protected from disease when they are transforming from larvae into wasps.

Female beewolf digger wasps cultivate symbiotic Streptomyces bacteria in unique antennal glands and secrete them into their larval brood cells. Then the larvae take up the bacteria and weave them into the cocoon while spinning it. The result is a cocoon which produces at least 9 different antibiotic and antifungal substances.

The article makes a statement that reflects the fact that a number of LLMDs have been ahead of the curve when it comes to treating infections. It states:

"A similar combination prophylaxis (also known as combination therapy) approach is increasingly used in human medicine. Such a treatment exploits the complementary action of two or more antibiotics. It results in a higher efficacy against a broader spectrum of pathogens and is known to prevent micro-organisms from developing resistance to the antibiotic substance."

There is a logic behind combination antibiotic treatment - testing and documenting the efficacy of such combinations goes a long way to supporting long-term antibiotic use where it is needed, especially if lack of resistance can be shown.

The beewolf larva hibernates for several months in its cocoon before the 
adult insect hatches. Antibiotics on the surface of the cocoon, produced by symbionts, guarantee protection against microbial pests during such a protracted developmental stage. The amount of antibiotics was visualized by means of imaging techniques based on mass spectrometry 
(LDI imaging) and merged as pseudocolors onto the cocoon.
Credit: Johannes Kroiss and Martin Kaltenpoth, MPI for Chemical Ecology, Jena (Photomontage).

Source reference:
http://www.sgm.ac.uk/default.cfm

4) Don't Stress - It messes with your gut flora

Source Link: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/immunegut.htm

Research out of Ohio State University informs us more about the value of the mind-body connection in affecting our health.

Stress not only sends the human immune system into overdrive - it can also wreak havoc on the trillions of bacteria that work and thrive inside our digestive system. New research suggests that this may be important because those bacteria play a significant role in triggering the innate immune system to stay slightly active, and thereby prepared to quickly spring into action in the face of an infection.

So this is what the study was about:
For two hours daily for six days, an aggressive mouse was placed in a cage of a group of more docile, laid-back mice.

At the end of the string of experiments, blood samples were taken from both stressed animals and matched mice from a control group, along with samples of material from inside each animal’s intestine. The blood samples were analyzed to detect the levels of two biomarkers used to gauge stress – a cytokine called interleukin-6 (IL-6) and a protein called MCP-1 that summons macrophages, or scavenger cells, to the site of an infection.

From the intestinal samples, Bailey’s team could determine the relative proportion of at least 30 types of bacteria residing there.

“We know now that if we knock the population of bacteria down with antibiotics, we don’t have the same innate immune response,” Bailey said. “That showed that the bacteria are involved in the ability of stress to prime the innate immune system.”

Compared to the control mice, the stressed animals showed two marked differences: The proportion of one important type of bacteria in the gut – Bacteroidesfell by 20 to 25 percent while another type – Clostridiumincreased a similar amount. Also, levels of the two biomarkers, IL-6 and MCP-1, jumped 10-fold in the stressed mice, compared to controls.

The researchers then treated stressed mice with broad-spectrum antibiotics that could kill as much as 90 percent of the intestinal bacteria for a short period. When they again looked at the two immune biomarkers in the stressed mice, they saw only a doubling of IL-6 and MCP-1 – an increase only one-fifth as much.
Comments:

Stress really affects the immune system - who knew? It's well-known it does, but what isn't known is exactly how it does this - and what can be done other than to get people out of your life who act like aggressive mice.

There is evidence here that stress increases the population of unfriendly and harmful bacteria, and later on, the use of antibiotics knocks down the bacteria needed to prime the immune system.

Healthy stress management and joy are needed in one's life, even while fighting off illness. Especially while fighting off illness.
Read More

Friday, March 25, 2011

2 The Friday Four

1) Stress affects the balance of bacteria in the gut and immune response

Low stress & bacterial biodiversity:
The key to better health?
ScienceDaily (2011-03-22) -- Stress can change the balance of bacteria that naturally live in the gut, according to new research.

This study funded by the NIH shows that stress dysregulates the immune system, changing the natural flora of one's intestines and leaving people more susceptible to infections such as C. difficile. The more biodiverse intestinal flora is, the healthier one's immune system generally is.

Intestinal bacteria have been linked to diseases like inflammatory bowel disease and asthma, and a future goal of the study is see if changes in gut bacteria is related to such diseases worsening when people are under more pressure.

Comments:

Lyme disease patients are already pretty savvy about taking probiotics inbetween taking antibiotics - but is there something that can be done to diversify the number and kind of bacteria in our guts that would reflect the right balance of helpful organisms? Which combination of organisms is most beneficial to have, and how close are common probiotic blends to this beneficial mix?

Original Source Reference:
Bailey. Exposure to a social stressor alters the structure of the intestinal microbiota: Implications for stressor-induced immunomodulation? Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 2011; 25 (3): 397 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbi.2010.10.023

2) 'Knowing it in your gut' is real: Cross-talk between human gut bacteria and brain

ScienceDaily (2011-03-23) -- A lot of chatter goes on inside each one of us and not all of it happens between our ears. Researchers have discovered that the "cross-talk" between bacteria in our gut and our brain plays an important role in the development of psychiatric illness, intestinal diseases and probably other health problems as well including obesity.

This study showed that genes linked to learning and memory are altered in germ-free mice and, in particular, in the hippocampus - one of the key brain regions for learning and memory.

"The take-home message is that gut bacteria influences anxiety-like behavior through alterations in the way the brain is wired," said Jane Foster, associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences of the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine.

Foster's team has a hypothesis that the state of your immune system and your gut bacteria influence your personality - and in this case, influences anxiety.

Comments:

This reminds me of a video I posted in a Friday Four a while ago that showed personality changes in mice based on whether they had cultivated bacteria or not.

One fascinating thing to consider here is if researchers find out that certain bacterial flora combinations create different psychological states and can be directly implicated in mental illness that new treatments involving probiotics may improve conditions that to date have been treated with psychiatric medications. Perhaps these new treatments will avoid some of the more troubling side effects of anti-depressants and anti-psychotic drugs.


Original Source Reference:
K. M. Neufeld, N. Kang, J. Bienenstock, J. A. Foster.Reduced anxiety-like behavior and central neurochemical change in germ-free mice.Neurogastroenterology & Motility, 2011; 23 (3): 255 DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2982.2010.01620.x

3) Biofilm  reorganization: Back to the theoretical drawing board

Staphlococcus aureus biofilm
"In a surprising new study, researchers using image-analysis methods similar to those employed in facial-recognition software have made a startling discovery that rules out the two main theories scientists had created to explain how bacteria self-organize into multicellular aggregate mounds. The study by researchers from Rice University and the University of Georgia has implications for biofilm research and appears online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

What scientists did was make a microscopic movie of Myxococcus xanthus, common soil bacteria, while it was forming aggregates or spore forms with up to 100,000 cells. In this way, the bacteria could survive more easily - just as many other bacteria survive in biofilms to evade antibiotics.

They discovered that the size of the aggregates led to a higher survival rate, and not other factors they predicted such as individual chemical signaling between cells.

So in this case: size matters.

Comments:

More studies on how biofilms form and what can be done to break them up are needed to prevent resistant infections. Studying bacteria and how it organizes itself can tell us more about what makes biofilms work and how to target them for treatment in the future.


4) Breakthrough in delivering drugs to the brain

Alzheimer's plaque
A team of researchers Oxford removed exosomes from mouse dentritic (immune system) cells. Then they attached specific proteins from the rabies virus (not the virus itself) to these exosomes -  proteins which bind to acetylcholine receptors in brain cells.

Then they filled these exosomes with the genetic code, siRNA, and injected them back into the mice.

In doing so, the siRNA got delivered to the mice's brain cells and turned off a gene (BACE1) which is involved in Alzheimer's disease. There was a 60% reduction in the gene's activity.

Comments:

If there is more than one cause for Alzheimer's disease - if it can be treated by using the body's own natural defenses and systems - this could be ground breaking.

Treatment systems similar to these exosome injections could also potentially be used to deliver medicine past the blood brain barrier for other conditions including cancer and infectious diseases.
Read More

Monday, February 7, 2011

0 Koch's Postulates

Just an FYI... for tales of xenodiagnosis...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch's_postulates


Koch's postulates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Koch's postulates are four criteria designed to establish a causal relationship between a causative microbe and a disease. The postulates were formulated by Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler in 1884 and refined and published by Koch in 1890. Koch applied the postulates to establish the etiology of anthrax and tuberculosis, but they have been generalized to other diseases.


The postulates

  1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
  2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
  3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
  4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.
However, Koch abandoned the universalist requirement of the first postulate altogether when he discovered asymptomatic carriers of cholera[1] and, later, of typhoid feverAsymptomatic or subclinical infection carriers are now known to be a common feature of many infectious diseases, especially viruses such as polioherpes simplexHIV and hepatitis C. As a specific example, all doctors and virologists agree that poliovirus causes paralysis in just a few infected subjects, and the success of the polio vaccine in preventing disease supports the conviction that the poliovirus is the causative agent.
The third postulate specifies "should", not "must", because as Koch himself proved in regard to both tuberculosis and cholera,[2] not all organisms exposed to an infectious agent will acquire the infection. Noninfection may be due to such factors as general health and proper immune functioning; acquired immunity from previous exposure or vaccination; or genetic immunity, as with the resistance to malaria conferred by possessing at least one sickle cell allele.
The second postulate may also be suspended for certain microorganisms or entities that cannot (at the present time) be grown in pure culture, such as prions responsible for Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease.[3] In summary, a body of evidence that satisfies Koch's postulates is sufficient but not necessary to establish causation.


History

Koch's postulates were developed in the 19th century as general guidelines to identify pathogens that could be isolated with the techniques of the day.[4] Even in Koch's time, it was recognized that some infectious agents were clearly responsible for disease even though they did not fulfill all of the postulates.[2][5] Attempts to rigidly apply Koch's postulates to the diagnosis of viral diseases in the late 19th century, at a time when viruses could not be seen or isolated in culture, may have impeded the early development of the field of virology.[6][7]Currently, a number of infectious agents are accepted as the cause of disease despite their not fulfilling all of Koch's postulates.[8] Therefore, while Koch's postulates retain historical importance and continue to inform the approach to microbiologic diagnosis, fulfillment of all four postulates is not required to demonstrate causality.
Koch's postulates have also influenced scientists who examine microbial pathogenesis from a molecular point of view. In the 1980s, a molecular version of Koch's postulates was developed to guide the identification of microbial genes encoding virulence factors.[9]


See also


References

  1. ^ Koch Robert (1893). "Über den augenblicklichen Stand der bakteriologischen Choleradiagnose" (in German). Zeitschrift für Hygiene und Infectionskrankheiten 14: 319–333.doi:10.1007/BF02284324.
  2. a b Koch Robert (1884). "2 Die Aetiologie der Tuberkulose". Mitt Kaiser Gesundh. pp. 1–88.
  3. ^ Inglis TJ (November 2007). "Principia aetiologica: taking causality beyond Koch's postulates"J. Med. Microbiol. 56 (Pt 11): 1419–22. doi:10.1099/jmm.0.47179-0PMID 17965339.
  4. ^ Walker L, Levine H, Jucker M (2006). "Koch's postulates and infectious proteins.". Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 112 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1007/s00401-006-0072-xPMID 16703338.
  5. ^ Koch R (1893). "Ueber den augenblicklichen Stand der bakteriologischen Choleradiagnose". J. Hyg. Inf. 14: 319–33. doi:10.1007/BF02284324.
  6. ^ Brock TD (1999). Robert Koch: a life in medicine and bacteriology. Washington DC: American Society of Microbiology Press. ISBN 1555811434.
  7. ^ Evans AS (May 1976). "Causation and disease: the Henle-Koch postulates revisited"Yale J Biol Med 49 (2): 175–95. PMID 782050.
  8. ^ Jacomo V, Kelly P, Raoult D (2002). "Natural history of Bartonella infections (an exception to Koch's postulate)"Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 9 (1): 8–18. doi:10.1128/CDLI.9.1.8-18.2002.PMID 11777823.
  9. ^ Falkow S (1988). "Molecular Koch's postulates applied to microbial pathogenicity". Rev. Infect. Dis. 10 (Suppl 2): S274–6. PMID 3055197.


Further reading
Read More

The Camp Other Song Of The Month


Why is this posted? Just for fun!

Get this widget

Lyme Disease

Borrelia

Bacteria

Microbiology