MRSA, When Should Disclosure Be Required?!

Should hospital staff that test positive as carriers for MRSA be allowed to continue to work with seriously ill patients? I say NO! Why? Given all the guidelines for prevention, there are still outbreaks in the hospitals.

A hospital staff member that is a carrier of MRSA just needs to sneeze into their hand and turn a door knob to get the spreading started. Prevention, it is easy, but, it will take a few minutes of your time.

http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/fs021025.htm, click at this site for correct hand washing guidelines.

The BC Health Files states "...you do not need treatment and you should continue with your normal activities" and "You do not need to disclose to your workplace, school or daycare setting the fact that you carry MRSA. " What! If I had children, I would not place them in a daycare where any individual is a carrier of MRSA.

The BC Health Files states for hospital visits, "Important: If you may be a carrier of MRSA and are going to be admitted into hospital, it is very important for you to let hospital admitting staff know. Steps will be taken to protect other patients and hospital staff from MRSA infection." This should be the case in all institutions. At the hospital you need to protect those that are seriously ill-Yes.

What about in the community with the weak elderly, young children, or immunocompramised individuals. Do they not have the right to be protected like the Hospital Staff?

It IS important to let your employer, school, daycare...etc know if you are a carrier of MRSA.

Image. http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mfl/lowres/mfln242l.jpg
BC HealthFile #73, September 2005. http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile73.stm#hf0735

Robert Koch's ironic discovery

Robert Koch's Original photos!

The reason I say IRONIC is because we all know about Robert Koch (or should) and his discovery of Koch's Postulates, but what we don’t know is that he was using some of the most virulent bacteria that live still today. You may remember Anthrax from the "Amerithrax" phase in September 2001, following the terrorist attack on the twin towers. Robert Koch was the first to isolate this capsule-forming and spore-forming gram-positive bacteria named Bacillus anthracis. If you remember the formation of Koch's postulates, you will recognize the process by witch he discovered the relationship between a causative bacteria and a disease. The first causative bacteria to prove this association therefore, was Bacillus anthracis! Also interesting is that Robert Koch discovered Bacillus anthracis's ability to form endospores in 1877, however, the severe toxic properties of the bacteria were not recognized until 1954. Do you think Koch knew the phenomenon of the bacteria he selected at the time? The part that I find fascinating is that they believed that, because of the potency of anthrax bacilli observed in the deceased animals, the cause of death was actually the effect of a suggested "log-jam" theory (referring to a block in the capillaries). The fascinating part is not the theory (although intriguing), the fascinating part is that Koch survived, because the dead body of a bacillus anthracis infected mammal is considered a very dangerous source of anthrax spores. At this point, Lister’s idea of Phenol was evident, however, we know that this period of experimentation had not allowed for the safety procedures of today’s standards to mature in light of sanitation. It seems amazing that Koch, or anyone working with him, did not develop any obvious symptoms of the deadly disease cause by the bacteria. This is why:

The "log-jam" theory failed upon proof that cells extracted from animals dying of anthrax infection were toxin-filled and that was the real cause of symptoms and death due to the anthrax disease. Upon observation of this consistently appearing toxin, it was confirmed that a diffusible exotoxin made the bacillus anthracis highly pathogenic! But that’s not it!!!! ..... Bacillus Anthracis also has the ability to form a clycocalyx made of poly-D-glutamate polypeptide. The capsule is a strong survival mechanism, protecting its self from phagocytosis as well as aiding in the initial stages of infection. The bacteria form a spore as well, making it resistant to heat (of up to 80 degrees), cold, and desiccation. The spore has been known to survive for decades, sprouting consequential growth at an opportune change of environment any ware across the globe. Bacillus anthracis is contacted in humans in three ways: Ingestion, by skin contact, or by inhalation. Skin contact infection gives rise to the Greek origin on the name “anthrax”, meaning coal, due to the distinctive black lesion an infection produces. Inhalation is the most fatal, often causing death if not treated promptly. Seeing as the most common way to contract the disease is by direct contact with infected animals or their carcasses, Koch must have been either very careful in his experiments or very lucky. In fact, Koch lived to be 66 years old, and died from a heart attack that seems to be unrelated to his study of disease.





Another notable fact that made Bacillus anthracis's "claim to fame" for previously oblivious microbiology students and people alike, was the anthrax panic in the United States in 2001. The strain of bacteria used in the letters was originally a warfare weapon for World War II (sick hey?) but is now being controlled within an estimated 15 labs throughout the United States. Two forms of anthrax were synthesized from the same bacterial Ames strain. The anthrax letters, addressed to different media stations in New York as well as to the senator, were contaminated with the cutaneous anthrax (the skin contact infection) and the more serious inhalation form of anthrax. Five people died of anthrax infections, 11 were in critical condition, and 22 people showed sever symptoms, but were treated efficiently.


Overall, I thought this was a pretty interesting bacteria. Let me know what you all think!
Sorry about my horrid spelling- I spell checked but I know Im not the best speller.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/Anthrax.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_anthracis
http://michigan.gov/documents/Healthcare_provider_FAQ-anthrax_08-2004_104327_7.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_disease

Have you ever heard of natto?

Although there are some pathogenic one, some bacteria help our everyday life as we can see from this blog. We learned that bacteria is really important for the carbon, nitrogen and sulfur cycle in our life. For instance, without bacterias' help, we cannot use nitrogen since the nitrogen as a waste is too stable for us to use. And as everyone knows, bacteria are also used for various kinds of food which usually promote more health benefits for us.

Natto (fermented soy beans) is the Japanese traditional food which we Japanese people especially eat for a breakfast. There are differences about the origin of natto among some sources, but people started to eat long time ago. Originally, people stored soybeans in straws for preservation since Japanese people grew rice as a staple diet, and they got natto from them. How did the soybeans become natto? That is the job bacillus natto do! Bacillus natto live in straws, and they ferment soybeans, which leads to more healthy soybean food. By fermenting soybeans, it is also said that proteins are more easy to assimilate to our body compare to the non-fermented soybeans. Moreover, the well-known job bacillus natto does is the production of the enzyme called nattokinase. Natto contains a lot of nattokinase which lyses clotting in blood stream, and we can prevent incidence of thrombosis such as myocardial and cerebral infarction.

Natto is rich in source of vitamin K since it is made from soybeans. Vitamin K is pro-coagulants which is converted from vitamin K in a liver as a clotting factors. Therefore you have to pay attention since vitamin K is associated with some blood clotting activity, and especially people taking certain medicine (such as warfrin) have to attention the excess intake of natto. So don't take natto too much although it is highly nutritional. I believe moderate intake works best no matter how nutritious the food is.

It is hard to get natto here, but you can get it at some Japanese grocery stores. As a microbiology student, why don't you try one:)?

References:

http://faculty.washington.edu/kepeter/118/notes/pdf-set3/118clotting-fall07.pdf

http://www.jafra.gr.jp/eng/interview-sumi.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natt%C5%8D (also image)

They are talking about us!!!

The Bayblab dudes are a very nice bunch. Interesting guys and interested in science and everything in between....and they are talking about us!!! Visit them here: http://bayblab.blogspot.com/2007/10/teaching-science-with-web-20.html

"Cleaning-Up": Pollution eating bacteria give new hope to future.

Bacteria are given a bad reputation for causing disease, infections, etc... Although this isn't entirely untrue, without bacteria many of the processes/cycles that occur in nature, and with in our bodies, would not take place without the aid of bacteria. Not only this, bacteria proves its efficiency by being able to "clean-up" our polluted planet. Although this is not an entirely new concept, it is now being researched and taken advantage more as our planet is becoming overwhelmingly polluted. There are many different bacteria that have the ability to break down toxic chemicals/pollutants, inflicted on the environment by its most ignorant inhabitants. Humans of course! Bacteria can be used to clean-up contamination of groundwater, soil, and ozone due to: the disposal/use of industrial solvents, gasoline, and other toxic chemicals, as well as oil spills and mining.

TCA1, Dehalococcoides Ethenogenes, Pseudomonas, Rhodococcus...These are just a few of the bacteria used individually, or in a consortium (mix of bacteria), to help rid the environment of some of the deadly toxins, and/or help degrade these toxins to less toxic compounds.

TCA1 breaks down trichloroethane (TCA) to a less toxic substance. TCA is a widely used industrial solvent found in products like degreaser and cleaner for metals, drycleaner and spot remover,propellant in aerosol cans, etc...It contaminates soil, ground water, and when airborne can erode the ozone layer.

Dehalococcoides Ethenogenes detoxifies carcinogenic chemicals such as perchloroethylene (PCE), and trichloroethylene (TCE), to a less toxic compound by dechloronation. PCE and TCE are found in industrial cleaners, and due to their disposal methods, are one of the worst organic groundwater pollutants.

Pseudomonas can work individually or in a consortium with Rhodococcus. Individually pseudomonoas degrade pre-dissolved benzene, toluene, and p-xylene (BTX). BTX is used for industrial purposes as well as for components in gasoline. In a consortium (mix of both along with other bacteria), the two bacteria help to degrade oil pollution due to oil spills. As much as 29 million gallons of petroleum enter the North American ocean waters each year alone; 85% of this is from land-based run-off, polluted rivers, airplanes, small boats and jet skis...all from human activities, while only 8% is actually from oil spills. Approximately another 47 million gallons comes naturally from the sea floor. The effects of oil pollution range from damage to marine life and the ocean environment, all the way to crippling a society based on profiting off of the ocean (tourism, fishing, etc...).

Along side oil pollution, pollution from mining also poses a serious threat to the environment (mainly by contamintating water from run-off); the most hazardous type in BC being Acid Mining. Acid mine drainage produces sulphuric acid, which leads to acid rain as well as acidic water unable to support life. Mining of all types can also lead to heavy metal contamination of water due to leaching (leaching is accelerated in the presence of acidity), contamination by chemicals (cyanide and sulphuric acid) used to separate minerals from ore, and contamination from sediment due to erosion of exposed earth. The problem may be partially solved. Newly discovered extremophile, "mineral-loving", bacteria can be used not only to help mine the metals, but also to clean up corrosive acid pollution byproducts of mining.

These are just a few examples of how bacteria can benefit our environment when it comes to ridding the planet of pollution. Although there are clear advantages to using bacteria in the case of pollution, whether it be pollution from the present or past, should we really continue to pollute the way we do and rely on other microorganisms to clean up after us? Or should we get to the root of the problem by trying to find more efficient, "environmentally friendly" ways to go about living? That way we can all enjoy a happier, healthier planet...and not just for the present, perhaps for the future too!

References:

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18436/story.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/02/990205085440.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070620103258.htm

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-05/958849072.Mi.r.html

http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/bacteria/Dehalococcoides_ethenogenes.html

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10388

http://www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Environment&F=1&id=7707

http://www.miningwatch.ca/updir/amd.pdf

Picture is taken by me.

Microbes on Mars (lets hope they aren’t too virulent)

Martians are generally imagined as three fingered, green, bald headed creatures; however, recent theory suggests that the Martians may be or have been microorganisms.

It is believed that Mars may have once had water on its surface. As we all know, on Earth, water means life. Channels and craters on Mars differ from those on the Moon or Mercury, which make scientists believe that water may be present on Mars. As it turns out, Mars has massive polar ice caps (complete with a permafrost layer) which, if melted, would produce enough water to cover the entire planet “eleven meters” deep.

Water, as a liquid however, cannot exist except at very low elevations because of the weak atmosphere. Still, it is thought because of the unusual craters and striations across the planet that beneath the ice lays even more water. In 2002, the Mars Odyssey spacecraft used its gamma ray spectrometer and confirmed that there is “enormous quantities of water ice beneath the surface of Mars.”

It is further argued that there must have been -or still is- water on Mars due to its “debris pattern and colouring” though this is possibly due to carbon dioxide frost or dust movement. However, many believe that the presence of hematite and goethite (“usually formed in a wet environment”) found on Mar’s surface is indicative of water’s presence and lends hope to there having been life on Mars. To further that hope, in December of 2006, scientists believed that the geological changes shown in photographs at the time suggest that water occasionally flows over parts of the surface.

In addition to water possibly being on its surface, Mars boasts a small atmosphere with methane gas pockets throughout. Due to the methane pockets and polar ice caps, the most recent theory is that if microbes existed on Mars they would be much like our terrestrial methanogens. Methanogens can live deep in ice (such as in Antarctica or Greenland). If this is true, Mars may already be supporting life. If not, microbes are known for their adaptability and tenacity; it is possible that they are dormant.

Many of the experiments done on Mars (1970’s) to see if microbial life existed there were done with saline as the main “internal fluid” in mind. It is now thought that these series of tests would have only drowned or burned the possible life forms. With the cold and dry (water is not really observable) climate it is thought that, should the microorganisms exist, they would be made up of water and hydrogen peroxide as it freezes at a much lower temperature.

Among the previous theories lies another: the possibility that microbes on Mars have magnetisomes. A meteorite, named ALH84001, is believed to contain the fossilized remains of microbes from Mars.

However, until it is proven without a doubt that Mars has water, it is impossible to tell whether alien microbes have lived on our neighbouring planet.

References:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2004/88.cfm

http://airandspace.si.edu/etp/Mars/surface/water.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/98/24/13490?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=%28Mars+AND+magnetite%29&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/98/5/2164?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=%28Mars+AND+magnetite%29&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WireStory?id=2776816&page=1

Deadly space bugs

It is known that microgravity (MG) affects the way cells react. For example, astronauts coming back to Earth after a long time spent under very low gravity show signs of bone resorption and muscle mass loss. Bacteria react to low gravity too. In a paper published in 2002, Dr. Cheryl Nickerson and her team (see reference and link to pdf file below) discovered that the expression of many genes is in fact affected by MG (Figure on right). As can be seen, some genes are expressedm or not under normal gravity (1xg) but this expression pattern can be almost completely reversed under MG (or LSMMG - Low Shear Modeled Micro Gravity).

Because gene expression seems to be influenced by microgravity, the obvious experiment was now to determine if the virulence of bacteria is increased un der MG...in other words are microbes susceptible to become "superbugs" in space? The answer, sadly, seems to be YES!

In another study, to be published in PNAS, Dickerson and fisrt author James Wilson show that some virulence genes are in fact turned on by microgravity. In a mere 12 days in september, during spaceflight STS-115, Salmonella tiphymurium became more virulent. According to the authors, the shape of bacteria did not change but they seem to form a biofilm which is more difficult to eliminate by the immune system. In fact, when these "spacebugs" were fed to mice, they show a 3-times increase in virulence.

Space is definitively a weird place to be...even for bacteria! Astronauts beware...bring your Purell!

For audio of this story follow this link

References:

James W. Wilson, Rajee Ramamurthy, Steffen Porwollik, Michael McClelland, Timothy Hammond, Pat Allen, C. Mark Ott, Duane L. Pierson, and Cheryl A. Nickerson. Microarray analysis identifies Salmonella genes belonging to the low-shear modeled microgravity regulon
PNAS 2002 99: 13807-13812

Wilson et al. Space flight alters bacterial gene expression and virulence and reveals a role for global regulator Hfq.
PNAS doi/10/1073/pnas.0707155104.

NOTE: This blog post is also published on my other blog