« Home | Cow tipping debunked » | Doesn't look too bad for 175 years old... » | Evolution of resistance--bacteria win again » | ID advocate Guillermo Gonzalez speaking in Lima, O... » | IA and ID in the WSJ; update on CfS » | Prions popping up all over the place » | Which is better for surgery: soap or bacteria? » | Influenza ecology » | Yay Dover, boo Kansas » | Dramatic decrease in measles in Africa » 

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 

More bacteria discovered using metagenomics strategy

I know, everyone's so sick of all the new "omics"es. But "metagenomics" is one that I don't see going away anytime soon. At its core, metagenomics is a way of looking at organisms in concert as a complex ecology, rather than as an individual, as genomic analysis has traditionally been done. Rather than isolating 10 different species of bacteria from, say, a gram of soil and analyzing them all separately, a metagenomics strategy would investigate all the organisms in the soil (or in sea water, dental plaque, or even human feces). A huge advantage to this approach is that we can get sequence data even from organisms that we're unable to culture; as such, it's not surprising that huge numbers of novel microbes are found whenever researchers tackle a new area using this strategy. Also, as you may expect, one focus of this research in humans is to discover causes and/or cofactors of diseases.

One of these diseases is bacterial vaginosis, one of the most common infections among women. Despite this distinction, scientists and doctors know little about the causes of bacterial vaginosis (BV), a usually benign disease that is also linked to serious health problems including pelvic inflammatory disease, an increase in the viral load of HIV from infected women and a two-fold increase in risk for pre-term labor and delivery. A study in the Nov. 3rd issue of the New England Journal of Medicine seeks to shed some light on this mystery.

Previous studies of this disease have been based on culture of bacterial organisms. However, this has a fatal flaw: we know that many of the bacteria that live within our bodies are not amenable to culture by traditional means. Therefore, investigators used a strategy targeting the bacterial 16sRNA gene. This is a gene present in all bacterial species that has been widely used for species identification. Their results?

Women without bacterial vaginosis had 1 to 6 vaginal bacterial species (phylotypes) in each sample (mean, 3.3), as detected by broad-range PCR of 16S rDNA, and lactobacillus species were the predominant bacteria noted (83 to 100 percent of clones). Women with bacterial vaginosis had greater bacterial diversity (P<0.001),>with 9 to 17 phylotypes (mean, 12.6) detected per sample and newly recognized species present in 32 to 89 percent of clones per sample library (mean, 58 percent). Thirty-five unique bacterial species were detected in the women with bacterial vaginosis, including several species with no close cultivated relatives. Bacterium-specific PCR assays showed that several bacteria that had not been previously described were highly prevalent in subjects with bacterial vaginosis but rare in healthy controls. FISH confirmed that newly recognized bacteria detected by PCR corresponded to specific bacterial morphotypes visible in vaginal fluid.

So, the women with BV not only had a greater diversity of bacteria, but they were also more likely to be colonized with these previously unknown species of bacteria. Obviously, if we don't even have a clue as to what these bacteria are, we don't know the best way to treat them. It still amazes me at times to contemplate how little we know about the organisms we are most intimately associated with.

|

About me

  • I'm Tara C. Smith
  • From Iowa, United States
  • I'm a mom and a scientist, your basic stressed-out, wanna-have-it-all-and-do-it-all Gen Xer. Recently transplanted from Ohio to Iowa, I've spent most of my life in the midwest (with 4 years of college spent out east in "soda" territory). My main interest, and the subject of my research, is infectious disease: how does the microbe cause illness? What makes one strain nasty, and another "avirulent?" Are the latter really not causing any disease, or could some of those be possible for the development of chronic disease years down the road? Additionally, I've spent a lot of time discussing the value of teaching evolution, and educating others about "intelligent design" and other forms of creationism. My interest in history of science and medicine is also useful as a way to tie all of the above interests together. [Disclaimer: the views here are solely my own, and do not represent my employer, my spouse, that guy who's always sitting by the fountain when I come into work, or anyone else with whom I may be remotely affiliated.]
My profile

Links

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates

Powered by Blogger

Creative Commons License
The Tangled Bank Locations of visitors to this page
Enter your email address below to subscribe to Aetiology!


powered by Bloglet


The Evolution Education Site Ring

This site ring is owned by John Stear

Previous Site

List Sites

Random Site

Join Ring

Next Site