4 ms·

This is an amazing video[1] from Harvard Medical School released couple of days ago showing evolution of bacteria that evolve in 10 days to become resistant to

by lossolo 10y ago

This is an amazing video[1] from Harvard Medical School released couple of days ago showing evolution of bacteria that evolve in 10 days to become resistant to antibiotics. [1] https://youtu.be/plVk4NVIUh8 https://youtu.be/plVk4NVIUh8

kristofferR 10y ago
Paper behind the experiment: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6304/1147 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6304/1147 http://kristofferR.com/files/baym2016.pdf http://kristofferR.com/files/baym2016.pdf
DanBC 10y ago
It is amazing. They've been doing that experiment for a while now, so I hope the video makes people realise how serious it is. Here's a clip with a bit more information from the BBC Horizon popular science programme. http://v6.tinypic.com/player.swf?file=24goih4&s=6 http://v6.tinypic.com/player.swf?file=24goih4&s=6 (Sorry for the sub-optimal hosting, but YouTube's contentID blocks this clip.) One of the things they don't mention in that video is what the safe human dose of that antibiotic is. I'm not sure where on that slab the dose of antibiotics starts killing humans.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  You can also have severe side effects that aren't lethal. Organ damage, hearing loss, stuff like that.
arethuza 10y ago
That video is both fascinating and rather scary - as a colleague said watching over my shoulder "evolution in action".
biesnecker 10y ago
Amazing video. Question that comes to mind is how easy would it be to take the bacteria that make it to the center, and put them on a new plate with a different antibiotic in the same configuration, and then repeat until you've gone through all available antibiotics, then scoop that last batch up and do something really nasty with it? It must be harder than it seems, because otherwise why do terrorists and the like even bother with (seemingly much harder to obtain, though admittedly flashier) chemical and nuclear weapons?
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  just as they gain the resistance, they gradually lose it by evolution/mutation if it's not relevant anymore (since it takes place on the genome)
- Retric 10y ago
  The problem is bacteria are generally not that dangerous. You might need antibiotics a few times in your life. But, people regularly lived to 70+ without them. Thus post attack the deaths would take a long time to add up and be hard to trace back to some attack. PS: I had a foot of my intestines removed without being prescribed antibiotics or getting an infection.
- grhino 10y ago
  Bioweapons are hard to deploy in a targeted fashion. Also, development of an antibiotic resistant bacteria that would be truly dangerous to a population requires great care during development not to kill those doing the development themselves. Also, I think we tend to overestimate the resources available to terrorists.
  - 0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
    > to kill those doing the development themselves Maybe that's considered a noble sacrifice, but I don't know what they think.
- gph 10y ago
  >why do terrorists and the like even bother with (seemingly much harder to obtain, though admittedly flashier) chemical and nuclear weapons? What terrorists are you talking about? Seems to me like 99% of terrorists use regular weapons I.E. explosives, guns, and knives.
  - biesnecker 10y ago
    Fair point! I suppose I should reword it to say something like "why aren't we more concerned with this, at least as concerned as we are about chemical and nuclear weapons," but I guess "they're actually not that acutely dangerous that other comments have pointed to is the reason.

by lossolo 10y ago

kristofferR 10y ago

Paper behind the experiment: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6304/1147 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6304/1147 http://kristofferR.com/files/baym2016.pdf http://kristofferR.com/files/baym2016.pdf

DanBC 10y ago

It is amazing. They've been doing that experiment for a while now, so I hope the video makes people realise how serious it is. Here's a clip with a bit more information from the BBC Horizon popular science programme. http://v6.tinypic.com/player.swf?file=24goih4&s=6 http://v6.tinypic.com/player.swf?file=24goih4&s=6 (Sorry for the sub-optimal hosting, but YouTube's contentID blocks this clip.) One of the things they don't mention in that video is what the safe human dose of that antibiotic is. I'm not sure where on that slab the dose of antibiotics starts killing humans.

maxerickson 10y ago
You can also have severe side effects that aren't lethal. Organ damage, hearing loss, stuff like that.

arethuza 10y ago

That video is both fascinating and rather scary - as a colleague said watching over my shoulder "evolution in action".

biesnecker 10y ago

Amazing video. Question that comes to mind is how easy would it be to take the bacteria that make it to the center, and put them on a new plate with a different antibiotic in the same configuration, and then repeat until you've gone through all available antibiotics, then scoop that last batch up and do something really nasty with it? It must be harder than it seems, because otherwise why do terrorists and the like even bother with (seemingly much harder to obtain, though admittedly flashier) chemical and nuclear weapons?

saiya-jin 10y ago
just as they gain the resistance, they gradually lose it by evolution/mutation if it's not relevant anymore (since it takes place on the genome)
Retric 10y ago
The problem is bacteria are generally not that dangerous. You might need antibiotics a few times in your life. But, people regularly lived to 70+ without them. Thus post attack the deaths would take a long time to add up and be hard to trace back to some attack. PS: I had a foot of my intestines removed without being prescribed antibiotics or getting an infection.
grhino 10y ago
Bioweapons are hard to deploy in a targeted fashion. Also, development of an antibiotic resistant bacteria that would be truly dangerous to a population requires great care during development not to kill those doing the development themselves. Also, I think we tend to overestimate the resources available to terrorists.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
  > to kill those doing the development themselves Maybe that's considered a noble sacrifice, but I don't know what they think.
gph 10y ago
>why do terrorists and the like even bother with (seemingly much harder to obtain, though admittedly flashier) chemical and nuclear weapons? What terrorists are you talking about? Seems to me like 99% of terrorists use regular weapons I.E. explosives, guns, and knives.
- biesnecker 10y ago
  Fair point! I suppose I should reword it to say something like "why aren't we more concerned with this, at least as concerned as we are about chemical and nuclear weapons," but I guess "they're actually not that acutely dangerous that other comments have pointed to is the reason.