Every Man Is an Island (of Bacteria) 193
Shipud writes "There are ten times more bacterial cells in our body than our own cells. Most of them are located in our guts, and they affect our well-being in many ways. A group at Washington University has recently reported that although our gut microbes perform similar functions, it appears that different people have completely different compositions of gut bacteria: every man is an island, a unique microbial ecosystem composed of completely different species. One conclusion is that the whole division of bacteria into species may well be over-used in biomedicine."
the whole division of bacteria into species may be (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Agreed but only under the condition that I can't read the article because it's been slashdotted.
Anyway, different pathogenic bacteria have certain antibacterial medicines that they're susceptible to and others that their not. Ergo, division of bacteria into separate species is not overused but necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like it matters.... ?
Re:the whole division of bacteria into species may (Score:5, Informative)
Something doesn't make sense:
There are ten times more bacterial cells in our body than our own cells. Most of them are located in our guts
That means that over 50% of 90% of our body mass in in our guts? Well, the researchers are Americans...
It's because microbial cells are much smaller then eukaryote cells. Imagine a bunch of basket balls surrounded by BBs.
By mass its probably about two pounds.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because microbial cells are much smaller then eukaryote cells. Imagine a bunch of basket balls surrounded by BBs.
By mass its probably about two pounds.
I see, thanks. I didn't even think of that possibility.
Re:the whole division of bacteria into species may (Score:4, Interesting)
In terms of the animal kingdom, the concept of 'species' may easily be understood in terms of the concept of breeding. When two organisms cannot produce fertile offspring, they are separate species. This is a well defined barrier. A population does not become a new species overnight.
In terms of bacteria, they can become what might be termed a new species overnight. In the case of this article, they're noting that though the bacteria may be dissimilar at a genetic level, at a morphological level they are essentially the same, hence the question of the value of the species idea. We all have different species of bacteria living inside of us, but they all do the same basic things.
Re:the whole division of bacteria into species may (Score:4, Interesting)
This is an incredible oversimplification, especially when you realise that asexual reproduction is very common in the animal kingdom. The idea you quote is often cited but is, in itself, an insufficient criterion. For example, there are organisms which can interbreed and can produce fertile offspring that are clearly considered separate species by any objective measure. In many species, lots of individuals are incapable of interbreeding with lots of individuals of the same species. Interbreeding is a complex thing that synthesises anatomical, behavioural, geographical and genetic components. A failure in any of these can cause a failure to interbreed which does not necessarily equate to a different species. There are also complexes of closely related species that interbreed frequently and produce fertile offspring but they are still distinct species.
In any case, TFA is about bacteria and not animals. The principle of using inability to interbreed as a definition of species in animals is even more removed from reality in bacteria which often share genetic material across species, even species that are not closely related.
Finally, the postulate that two creatures that are functionally similar within a diverse community, despite genetic dissimilarity, might not be considered different species is simply ludicrous. For example, in fish community assemblages, there are normally planktivores and piscivores. From a broad community perspective, the top-level piscivores all perform precisely the same function. No one, however, would argue that that makes them the same species. By way of illustration, the lake trout in a salmonid/coregonid community fulfills the same functional role as the northern pike in an esocid/coregonid community. That doesn't make lake trout and northern pike the same species.
Re:the whole division of bacteria into species may (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, no, it is not. One simple initial example to get the ball running: there are hybrids where the males are sterile, but the females are fecund; for example, hybrids of domestic cats with the African serval (the resulting hybrid is called a Savannah cat [wikipedia.org]). Since a housecat and a serval can produce fertile offspring, your test fails to establish them as separate species. (Note that I was careful not to say that the fertile offspring proves that they are the same species, "If A then B" doesn't entail "If B, then A.")
Now, you may be thinking of ways of strengthening your definition against examples like this one, but that was only the starting point. The broader problem is that as you try to come up with more and more precise definitions of "species," all you will do is set yourself up for ever more elaborate examples of intermediate cases that either pose a problem for your definition, or just suggest that your definition makes arbitrary, unprincipled decisions about where the line should lie. (E.g., what if there are two types of organisms that produce infertile offspring 25% of the time? 12.5%? 7.25%? How low must the percentage get to prove a species barrier? Must that number be the same for every pair of organisms, or does it make sense to measure it differently for different pairs because of some fact about genetics? What about pairs of organisms that would produce fertile offspring often enough, but are reproductively isolated by geographical boundaries? Etc.)
The deeper point is that evolution doesn't care about "species"; it cares about populations whose members interbreed, and in the real world, such populations may easily have very vague boundaries, because "X can breed with Y" isn't a yes/no matter.
Reverse your thinking (Score:2)
Bacteria, humans are simply methods by which genes replicate.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it makes perfect sense for two reasons.
One, my impression has always been that noting species is about aggregation, not division--that these specific organisms were all in one class even though they had superficially different species.
Two, say you are able to further separate them based on features but you get some absurdly high number of "species." What does this do for you, exactly? The idea of "species" is a useful tool, but I think when there are a trillion trillion species each with one membe
Crohn's Disease (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Crohn's Disease (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, it's possible: We know that Crohn's / Ulcerative Colitis have genetic predisposition - it's certainly possible that a susceptible person's immune system sees a particular bacterium or portion thereof or byproduct thereof and starts down the pathway of an autoimmune phenomenon.
from Feldman: Sleisenger & Fordtran's Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease, 8th ed.
So sure, maybe. Stay tuned.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a while since I've studied this, but last time I read up on it, I thought people had found a pretty strong association between prenatal measles exposure and development of Crohn's disease, and there was at least some evidence that Crohn's was a chronic focal measles infection of the intestinal system, that the immune system didn't see because it had matured after the infection was established.
Although when I go do some reading, it looks like the infliximab-like stuff they've used to treat Crohn's
Re: (Score:2)
IBD is almost certainly influenced by gut bacteria. Once intenstinal bacteria are fully understood, it would be reasonable to expect either a cure or a highly effective treatment for IBD.
Bacteria and weight (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Human tissue cells routinely outweigh bacterial cells by more than 100 to 1.
Re: (Score:2)
absolutely. we just don't have the answers yet.
Hey. (Score:4, Funny)
I already learned this from an episode of House last year.
Re: (Score:2)
I already learned this from an episode of House last year.
The AC is probably lying
/I learned that from an episode of House too
Re: (Score:2)
I also watch too much House, it has gotten to the point that when somebody sneezes, instead of, "Bless you!", I say, "It could be Lupus" :oD
Re: (Score:2)
Our located? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't believe the summary got "affect" vs. "effect" right, and "than" vs. "then" correct, but whiffed on "our" vs. "are." That's a new one for me.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest their's more two it then just playing lose with homonyms and we should call a spayed a spayed and sea it four what it is (illiteracy). But than, some won wood insist that its all rite. They new what was meant when they red it.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe the summary got "affect" vs. "effect" right, and...
Reading comprehension is good too.
A real user... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, Im a user here, but im going anony because of my topic.
Every man is an island: Bacteria.
I could tell. How? Every person has a certain scent profile about them, even if they cannot smell it most of the time. I know mine when I work outside on a hot day. Some people at work also sometimes have a pronounced smell.. Perhaps its pheromones or something, I dont know. My GF also has one (and no, I dont mean vaginal smell). Like I said, this is one of the reasons why Im being a coward.
Now, why do I know? I had a diarrhea about 2.5 months ago, from being food-poisoned at our local Subway (friend at same, same sickness, assumed food). Standard food poison is vomiting and diarrhea, neither are which are fun in the least. Along with that are heavy sweats. However, I smelled something weird: when I went to #2, I smelled an acrid smell of the faint "pheromone" I normally smell.. It was like whatever bad food I had was killing off all my good bacteria, and I was smelling it.
So yes, I can understand Island of bacteria comment. I could also see linking the specific bacteria to weight gain/loss, BO factor, and other things. It would be neat to see a culture test of healthiness based upon non-self cultures, and perhaps inoculate yourself with other bacteria to aid in true digestion.
Back in the 80's in OMNI, there was a toothpaste on the market for about 1 month before being pulled, that had a plaque bacteria that could not digest teeth (made no cavities). Of course, gross factor was high and was summarily pulled from market...Perhaps they were right, just 20 years too early.
Re:A real user... (Score:4, Interesting)
a plaque bacteria that could not digest teeth (made no cavities). Of course, gross factor was high and was summarily pulled from market...Perhaps they were right, just 20 years too early.
Now, they would just have to spin it right ("Pro-biotic! No artificial whiteners! Organic ingredients!") and they could make millions.
Re:A real user... (Score:4, Informative)
Bacteria do not digest your teeth. They eat the sugar that you consume. It's their #2 (as you called shit) that dissolves the enamel on your teeth.
Re:A real user... (Score:4, Interesting)
Back in the 80's in OMNI, there was a toothpaste on the market for about 1 month before being pulled, that had a plaque bacteria that could not digest teeth (made no cavities). Of course, gross factor was high and was summarily pulled from market.
I heard that something like this is being going through human trials right now; a strain of bacteria that replaces the current kind entirely, populating your mouth but not causing caries or other dental complications. For our children the phenomenon may happily be a thing of the past.
Re: (Score:2)
I recall reading about that here a few years ago, but I couldn't find any more information on it when I searched a few months back.
This topic reminds me of Bruce Sterling's Bitter Resistance [eff.org], an entertaining and informative article about bacteria. That sounds like marketing-speak, so here's a topical excerpt:
Bacteria live on and inside human beings. They always have;
bacteria were already living on us long, long before our species became
human. They creep onto us in the first instants in which we are held to
our mother's breast. They live on us, and especially inside us, for as long
as we live. And when we die, then other bacteria do their living best to
recycle us.
An adult human being carries about a solid pound of commensal
bacteria in his or her body; about a hundred trillion of them. Humans have
a whole garden of specialized human-dwelling bacteria -- tank-car E. coli,
balloon-shaped staphylococcus, streptococcus, corynebacteria,
micrococcus, and so on. Normally, these lurkers do us little harm. On the
contrary, our normal human-dwelling bacteria run a kind of protection
racket, monopolizing the available nutrients and muscling out other rival
bacteria that might want to flourish at our expense in a ruder way.
But bacteria, even the bacteria that flourish inside us all our lives,
are not our friends. Bacteria are creatures of an order vastly different
from our own, a world far, far older than the world of multicellular
mammals. Bacteria are vast in numbers, and small, and fetid, and
profoundly unsympathetic.
With Deepest Apologies to John Donne (Score:5, Funny)
So, I'm a self-propelled ecosystem... (Score:3, Funny)
And it's ever changing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Briefly, mice with no gut bacteria were innoculated with bacteria from either obese or lean mice. The animals given bacteria from obese mice got fat, the animals given bacteria from lean mice stayed thin. There's a good writeup here [scienceblogs.com].
The details for humans aren't known, but it seems likely that it's basically the same for us. I used to know a guy who worked on classifying gut bacteria. He was alwa
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Though I would also recommend boiling the water in Tijuana, the additional bacteria you pick up there will not give you more energy...
I noticed a distinct change in mine (Score:3, Interesting)
A couple years ago I got very, very sick--nastiness coming out of both ends to the point of hospitalization for dehydration. It took a week for my abdominal muscles to get over the soreness from the heaving. Before that sickness, I had a very tolerant digestive system--spicy, rich, or strange foods did not bother me at all. Since the sickness, certain foods upset my digestive system, causing gas, bloating, etc. And it's weirdly specific--I used to love Progresso canned soup, but since the sickness any Progr
New episodes of CSI comming up (Score:2)
....with a nice alternative to fingerprints....
Re: (Score:2)
goethe - 'conceive of the animal as a small world' (Score:2)
We conceive of the individual animal as a small world, existing for its own sake, by its own means. Every creature is its own reason to be. All its parts have a direct effect on one another, a relationship to one another, thereby constantly renewing the circle of life; thus we are justified in considering every animal physiologically perfect. Viewed from within, no part of the animal is a useless or arbitrary product of the formative impulse (as so often thought). Externally, some parts may seem useless bec
Re: (Score:2)
That's just sophistry. Every animal is "physiologically perfect?" Only if your definition of perfect is meaningless...
What does it even mean? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Basically, species classifications are ambiguous and fuzzy even in higher animals, but they've served us really well as modelling tools, much like Newtonian physics, so we apply them everywhere. As long as we keep it in mind that they're not necessarily accurate, it's a fine idea.
With that said, there are characteristics that are unique to some species of bacteria, and shared by all members of that species. It's not a terrible approximation. All Clostridium species are anaerobic, for instance. So if you
Re: (Score:2)
What does it even mean to break bacteria up into species? They don't reproduce sexually
Hmm... Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species ... then Cell Type, Virus Type, Record industry representatives and eBay'd WoW account holders.
Grr... (Score:2)
summary has wrong emphasis (Score:2)
from the actual abstract written by the scientists: ..level. ...[changes]. These results demonstrate that a diversity of organismal assemblages can nonetheless yield a core microbiome at a functional level, and that deviations f
each person's gut microbial community varies in the [species present]..... However, there was a wide array of shared microbial genes among sampled individuals, comprising an extensive, identifiable 'core microbiome' at the gene, rather than at the organismal
Obesity is associated with
Our guts are not the same, I know (Score:2)
About 3 years ago, I had a terrible meal. Cheeseburger with broiled spinach topping.
That's not the gross part.
I had the diarrhea as I have never had before. It took more than a week for me to keep anything from going through me in an hour or less. But let's not make this alt.gross...
Before that, I had no serious digestive problems. Never constipation for more than a day, nothing to complain about. My wife hated that, she has her issues.
Since then, however, my digestion is different. In almost every wa
Same thing happened to me! (Score:2)
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1106471&cid=26635287 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'll ask you too, just to get a straw poll going here:
Have you ever suffered from appendicitis or had your appendix removed? If so, was this before or after this incident?
Re: (Score:2)
Just as a query: Have you ever suffered from appendicitis?
Current theory has it that the appendix is used to "reboot" the gut flora after illness.
Re: (Score:2)
Had mine out when I was 5.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder, then, if this was a factor. If you had an appendix, the current theory goes, then it would contain and isolate some of those gut flora that existed before you got ill. Thus, when you were ill enough to have to re-populate the gut, the appendix would have re-populated it with the same (or similar, or a subset of your original) flora.
It's being touted only as a possibility but in completely unscientific, anecdotal evidence, the few people I have heard of with similar complaints had their appendix
Try probiotics (Score:2)
Try one of the better probiotic [jigsawhealth.com] supplements. Align [aligngi.com] is the one doctors usually recommend, if they've heard about probiotics at all, but Jigsaw's is more complete. The probiotics sold at most chain stores are worthless.
Go easy on wheat and dairy. Gluten and casein (wheat and dairy proteins) are very hard to digest. Digestive enzyme supplements can help.
Go easy on refined sugar. That feeds all sorts of bad things. Fake sugar (Aspartame) is bad too. Forget about soft drinks.
Steel cut oats help.
I'm not fat... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That could explain why they're vitamin deficient...
Re:can anyone explain this with actual science? (Score:5, Informative)
Each of your cells takes up 100-1000x more space than bacteria.
yes, size does matter (Score:2)
Was just wondering about this myself... cells are big factories that carry out specialized tasks on a large scale, and contain a copy of the DNA for the entire body. (short of RBC's) Bacteria only need to contain one small set of mechanics for their own life, they're not performing a function for the body and so can be much smaller. All bacteria do is eat and divide.
You've got a box of BBs, and I've got a box the same size, of bowling balls. Of course you have "more" of them. Same box though.
The summary
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure exactly what your last comment is about.
Consider the following set. (0, 100, 100, 100, 100). There are three primary measures of average. When most people say average, they mean the mean. In this case the mean is 80. The mode and median are both 100. In each case if these were test scores, only 20% of students scored below average.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. Mode is closer to the layman's definition. When he talks of the average family, he isn't thinking of a mother, a father, two children and a disembodied leg.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And so the legend of torso boy continues... He may only be .4 of a boy, but he's 110% heroic, in this weeks episode... Sorry that made me chuckle.
You are probably right, although in the context of test scores I'm not convinced. My stats are right even if my knowledge of what people are thinking when they say stuff sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid not...
The median is the middle value when the values are ordered. In this instance it is the value 100 as we have five values and the third (middle) value is (0, 100,) 100. Here I interpret below as less than, hence there is only one element of this set less than 100, zero. Hence only 20% of students are below the median.
The mode is the most common value, in this instance also 100.
Re: (Score:2)
As a further point, the midrange, the value that is halfway between the max and min is 50. So as it turns out 20% of people in this set scored below the midrange as well.
The midrange sucks as a measure of central tendency (as this data set shows).
Re: (Score:2)
Was just wondering about this myself... cells are big factories that carry out specialized tasks on a large scale, and contain a copy of the DNA for the entire body. (short of RBC's) Bacteria only need to contain one small set of mechanics for their own life, they're not performing a function for the body and so can be much smaller. All bacteria do is eat and divide.
Bacteria are not as simple as you might think, they carry out some quite complex tasks. Rather than implying they're small because they're simple, I'd say they are small because they're so much more efficient than our own cells.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bones and collagen aren't cells?
How do they grow then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:can anyone explain this with actual science? (Score:4, Informative)
Prokayrotic (most bacteria) cells are much much smaller than Eukaryotic (your body) cells. Therefore event though you have less cells, those cells you do have weigh much more.
Re: (Score:2)
Most bacteria are much, much smaller than most somatic cells. The statement is true but uninteresting.
Re: (Score:2)
Bacteria are simple and do not need to do much. You, on the other hand, have an entire system to maintain. This means things like proteins, blood (water), bones, etc. Also, most (if not all) human cells are quite a bit larger than bacterial cells.
It all adds up a great deal.
Re:can anyone explain this with actual science? (Score:5, Informative)
Bacteria are a tiny fraction of the size of your cells.
http://www.cellsalive.com/howbig.htm [cellsalive.com] has a nifty little flash movie demonstrating the size difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Um, most of your body weight is water. And water is not cells :)
Actually, the vast majority of the water in your body is found inside your cells, so in fact water IS cells (or rather cells ARE water)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe only ~7 kg of your body is "you" and the other ~70 kg is bacteria.
Or maybe what the other guys said, about how bacteria are smaller than human cells.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. (Score:2)
This struck me as curious as well.
Some have noted that the relative size between human and bacterial cells is different. That makes sense. But still. . ! My first impulse was to look at my body and think, "So my torso, legs, arms, head. . , only 1/10th of that is human? Sure. Pull the other one. Be careful though, according to this article it might come off in your hands like a zombie limb!"
About 10 seconds of Googling informed me that estimates of the number of cells in a human body range all the way
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Many /. readers never took biology, or if they did they were drunk or stoned when they came to class.
Re: (Score:2)
Guilty as charged. Biology is my weakest science by far. Only took the one quarter required by my high school at the time, and wimped out taking environmental science to satisfy my bioscience college requirement.
But if you met my bat-shit loco biology teacher in high school I think you'd understand. I suspect his knowledge of biology came from comparative organic compound ingestion. It was made more scary that he was also my driver ed teacher.
Re:Not news (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard about it in the radio (assuming it was the same research, I heard it about 2 weeks ago), and what I found interesting was the caloric intake for different foods was dramatically different for different people (based on stomach biology).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not news (Score:5, Funny)
Since most of the useful bacteria likely live lower in the digestive system, eating your shit might be more productive for those unfortunate people.
You may find Yakult or Joghurt more palatable (Score:2)
e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probiotic [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What kind of radio do you have? Sadly, I can't fit into mine.
Re: (Score:2)
How about "Stuff that matters"? No? Maybe it will generate a good discussion?
I don't see the point of criticizing in an obvious way (ie "I CAN FIND THIS IN A BOOK") without contributing something to our general knowledge =)
Re:Not news (Score:5, Interesting)
Common knowledge you can find in most microbiology or immunology textbooks.
Quite the opposite. What you would find in most textbooks is the assumption that there is a core human gut microbiome common to whole human populations. The Nature article refutes this. There are millions of $ being put into sequencing the human core gut microbes, but apparently there are no core gut microbes, and this human microbiome sequencing strategy needs rethinking.
Re:Not news (Score:4, Funny)
There are millions of $ being put into sequencing the human core gut microbes, but apparently there are no core gut microbes, and this human microbiome sequencing strategy needs rethinking.
What this paper means is that you can spend billions of dollars sequencing the gut bacteria of thousands of different people and never get the same Nature paper twice. It also means that the number of boring "we sequenced everything we could find" papers in Nature and Science is going to skyrocket from what is already too many.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking along the lines of:
What this paper means is that you can spend billions of dollars sequencing the gut bacteria of thousands of different people and all you'll get is shit.
Re:Not news (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed, and this is an understatement. I've been told that the reason dogs can track you by smell is not so much that your OWN cells produce a unique smell, it's more that they're actually smelling your unique bacterial garden growing on your body. Which is also why they need fairly fresh clothing or scent, it changes over time. Another interesting tidbit I was told in microbiology class: every time you made out with someone, you probably picked up new SPECIES of bacteria in your mouth. Of course, he was talking to a classroom of college students, maybe that's not true for dating in a senior center.
Note that I'm not saying that I myself have so much as wiki'd this information. But if this is new knowledge, I've been massively lied to.
Re:Not news (Score:4, Insightful)
Another interesting tidbit I was told in microbiology class: every time you made out with someone, you probably picked up new SPECIES of bacteria in your mouth. Of course, he was talking to a classroom of college students, maybe that's not true for dating in a senior center.
You have obviously never dipped your pen in senior center ink, my friend.
Re:Not news (Score:5, Funny)
Only seniors and calligraphers use pens that you need to dip into ink. The rest of us use ball points or cartridge driven quills. Quick to use, they are ready at a moment's notice. They are far less messy and less prone to leakage. They have greater "staying power", as there is no need to go back to the well for a refill.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, and this is an understatement. I've been told that the reason dogs can track you by smell is not so much that your OWN cells produce a unique smell, it's more that they're actually smelling your unique bacterial garden growing on your body. Which is also why they need fairly fresh clothing or scent, it changes over time. Another interesting tidbit I was told in microbiology class: every time you made out with someone, you probably picked up new SPECIES of bacteria in your mouth. Of course, he was talking to a classroom of college students, maybe that's not true for dating in a senior center.
Note that I'm not saying that I myself have so much as wiki'd this information. But if this is new knowledge, I've been massively lied to.
True. But the thought was that every human would have a core microbime, at least in the gut. Even if there were variances between people, and within the same person over time. But it appears to be that there is no set of core species. Also, you're talking about skin, somewhat different story given that there is a lot less symbiotic and interlinked metabolic activity going on there, so a lot less need of "social engineering" of bacteria.
Re: (Score:2)
True. But the thought was that every human would have a core microbime, at least in the gut. Even if there were variances between people, and within the same person over time. But it appears to be that there is no set of core species.
Actually, if you look at the Human Gut Microbiome Initiative [wustl.edu], there are core set of species that seem to be very important. Bacteriodes thetaiotaomicron is a very big player in must everybody's gut.
The real thrust of the research is how the ratios between the different species is different for everyone. These ratios are measured by targeted 16s RNA reading (it's part of the mechanism that turns RNA into Amino acid chains, so essential to life). This data can infer species. But it has no real linkage to
Re:Not news (Score:4, Informative)
"Common knowledge you can find in most microbiology or immunology textbooks" doesn't generally get a publication in Nature.
I've worked with one of the authors (Rob Knight) of the most recent paper, so I have some idea of what their research entails. Basically they were expecting to find some diversity in bacterial populations between individuals, but the amount they found was the big surprise -- there is more genetic diversity between the gut bacteria population of any two randomly selected people than there is between two soil bacteria populations in a deep sea trench and on a mountaintop! How strongly the bacterial populations predict leanness vs. obesity was also far beyond any previously published result.
Re: (Score:2)
So, is it possible to uniquely identify someone say by their shit?
No, because the composition of your shit changes over time. RTFA. You are an island, but with a huge population migration turnover rate.
Re: (Score:2)
But I would think you could get a person's DNA from a stool sample (although I wouldn't want to.) Your body sheds a very large number of intestinal cells every day. There's more bacteria, but there's still billions of your own cells, many with your DNA still intact.
Re: (Score:2)
But I would think you could get a person's DNA from a stool sample (although I wouldn't want to.) Your body sheds a very large number of intestinal cells every day. There's more bacteria, but there's still billions of your own cells, many with your DNA still intact.
Yes, in this case you could use human-specific primers to amplify only the shedded human intestinal cells that are in the feces.
Re: (Score:2)
A recent example from Australia [news.com.au] - a hotel patron in Sydney found poo in his gelato, I believe after having made a complaint earlier that day. DNA tests and hilarity ensued.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm offended. Sex with ducks is NEVER redundant. What are you implying, mods?!?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every man is an island
and obviously, the summary was written in the 40s, before feminist criticism of language became familiar to the mainstream.
Obviously, you did not recognize the John Donne reference.