Microbes In Space Mutated and Developed a Remarkable Ability (sciencealert.com) 22
"A box full of viruses and bacteria has completed its return trip to the International Space Station," reports ScienceAlert, "and the changes these 'bugs' experienced in their travels could help us Earthlings tackle drug-resistant infections..."
Scientists aboard the space station incubated different combinations of bacteria and phages for 25 days, while the research team led by biochemist Vatsan Raman carried out the same experiments in Madison, down here on Earth. "Space fundamentally changes how phages and bacteria interact: infection is slowed, and both organisms evolve along a different trajectory than they do on Earth," the researchers explain. In the weightlessness of space, bacteria acquired mutations in genes involved in the microbe's stress response and nutrient management. Their surface proteins also changed. After a slow start, the phages mutated in response, so they could continue binding to their victims.
The team found that certain space-specific phage mutations were especially effective at killing Earth-bound bacteria responsible for urinary tract infections (UTIs). More than 90 percent of the bacteria responsible for UTIs are antibiotic-resistant, making phage treatments a promising alternative.
The team found that certain space-specific phage mutations were especially effective at killing Earth-bound bacteria responsible for urinary tract infections (UTIs). More than 90 percent of the bacteria responsible for UTIs are antibiotic-resistant, making phage treatments a promising alternative.
Confusing title (Score:2)
Re: Confusing title (Score:1)
"A return trip to the ISS" is correct. It went to the ISS and returned. Similar to "a return flight to Australia".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh, that would be a return flight from Australia :)
Interesting regionalism. I have never heard anyone anywhere in the USA describe "my return flight from Placename" to mean they are going to Placename. You can't return to somewhere you've never been, and you can't return from somewhere you already are.
In the article, the researchers created two sets of microbes.
One set stayed on Earth where experiments were performed.
The other set went to the ISS where experiments were performed. Then it returned from the ISS to Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Another clickbait science story (Score:2)
1. X happened or was studied
and
2. It could cure cancer or some easy to digest by the non-scientist reader
and
3. My company found that ... (self promotion line)
Mutation is not bad (Score:4)
If something, especially a microbe, "mutates" on some spaceship it is not going be harmful to humans. For something to accumulate enough mutations to be harmful, there has to be an evolutionary pressure for it to be harmful. There's no way a single mutation can cause harm because in even a small bacteria colony there'll be a variety of mutations no matter if it's on Earth or space. There needs to be selective pressure to accumulate the right set of mutations.
Re: Mutation is not bad (Score:5, Interesting)
The mutations are random, and the ones that help them survive continue. As do others, though, that happened alongside.
There's no guarantee that the mutations are NOT harmful to humans.
Poisonous mushrooms didn't necessarily evolve to be harmful to us. There's no pressure on them to be harmful to us. It just sucks for us that whatever random mutations happened in their evolutionary history that helped them survive happens to kill us.
Whilst the likelihood is low that the mutations are harmful, you cannot assume that they are not.
Re: Mutation is not bad (Score:4, Informative)
Your example, mushrooms is false. Mushrooms evolved very specifically to be toxic -- to not get eaten. Mushrooms don't have seeds or spores that can survive the digestive system. If they get eaten they're toast. The most deadly of mushroom toxins has a complex structure that selectively and strongly binds to RNA polymerase II found in animals (but not RNA polymerase I, which is in yeast). It has no other known purpose than fucking up anything that tries to eat it.
Re: (Score:1)
While you are correct that mushroom spores can't survive the digestive system, there are other things to consider.
If an organism consumes a mushroom and dies very close by, then the body of the organism could (perhaps) benefit the colony from which the sacrificial mushroom originates.
Many fungi find dead bodies to be quite hospitable to their growth.
But, even if they prefer to colonize other locations, it is likely that a decomposing body would be a source of nutrients for the mushroom's local area and (per
Re: (Score:3)
If something, especially a microbe, "mutates" on some spaceship it is not going be harmful to humans. For something to accumulate enough mutations to be harmful, there has to be an evolutionary pressure for it to be harmful. There's no way a single mutation can cause harm because in even a small bacteria colony there'll be a variety of mutations no matter if it's on Earth or space. There needs to be selective pressure to accumulate the right set of mutations.
A space microbe suddenly globing onto some foreign object (spaceship) crafted from blended materials never seen anywhere else is a shock to its environment. A shock probably large enough to trigger mutations.
And to say a single mutation isn't enough to be harmful to very fragile meatsacks is an assumption born from ignorance that humans haven't been able to shed for tens of thousands of years. Needless to say some mutations are welcome on our species.
Re: (Score:2)
The chance that it would mutate/evolve into a toxic species without selection pressure is very low, basically impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, it doesn't work in that deterministic a fashion. If you meant "the way to bet is", then you would be correct. But which mutations aren't exactly random, they have a very large random element. Evolution selects among the variations available to be selected from, and mutations usually don't only do one thing. It *could* be harmful to people. That's not the way to bet in this environment, but it needs to be checked.
Re: (Score:2)
The chance of harmful is mathematically impossible if there is no selection pressure.
Re: (Score:2)
*infeasible I mean.
90%? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: 90%? (Score:4)
90% of the 89 urine samples that showed infection, from 273 urine samples collected from out patients at one particular hospital.
I think more data is needed to assert 90% across the entire population.
Still, 90% is high in just one study.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile.... (Score:2)
less antibiotics (Score:2)
It's well known that the resistance genes come at a cost. As soon as they stop being important, they start giving way to other things the cell needs more. It's great to see phage treatment making inroads here in the west, but if we could stop hammer our own thumbs with antibiotics that would be an excellent start.