5 ms·

I was chatting to doctor friend recently who has a masters in this area and he said that in theory yes but it would likely require the bacteria to have a reason

I was chatting to doctor friend recently who has a masters in this area and he said that in theory yes but it would likely require the bacteria to have a reason to loose the mutation that caused the resistance in the first place so there is no guarantee.

crimsonalucard 10y ago
Your doctor friend is incorrect. Unused traits will be lost eventually through the accumulation of random mutations. In order for a trait to form and be stable in an organism, selection pressure must not just be applied... it must be maintained. This backwards process is actually observable. Many fish living in underground caves have lost their eyes through evolution. While eyes don't aid a fish in surviving in the dark, they certainly don't hinder the fish from surviving either... Yet cave fish have lost their eyes despite the lack of negative selection pressure.
- cariaso 10y ago
  > Many fish living in underground caves have lost their eyes through evolution. some have, yes. but in order to get the antibiotic benefit we're looking for, you'd need to have ALL fish having lost their eyes. That's a much higher bar. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_fish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_fish seems to be a reasonably comprhensive list ). We also need the antibiotics to be viable again in a reasonable timespan ( a decade or two?), in order to be useful -- not on the timescale that was involved in cavefish eye degeneration.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - crimsonalucard 10y ago
    Bacteria mutate much quicker than fish. Generations of bacteria form within minutes. There is significant possibility in the viability of cycling antibiotics as bacteria lose resistance.
ocschwar 10y ago
The reason is there: bacteria have to be stingy in how much DNA they devote to anything.
- simonbarker87 10y ago
  Sounds reasonable, we were chatting about it briefly in a noisy pub so he would have glossed over details.

crimsonalucard 10y ago

Your doctor friend is incorrect. Unused traits will be lost eventually through the accumulation of random mutations. In order for a trait to form and be stable in an organism, selection pressure must not just be applied... it must be maintained. This backwards process is actually observable. Many fish living in underground caves have lost their eyes through evolution. While eyes don't aid a fish in surviving in the dark, they certainly don't hinder the fish from surviving either... Yet cave fish have lost their eyes despite the lack of negative selection pressure.

cariaso 10y ago
> Many fish living in underground caves have lost their eyes through evolution. some have, yes. but in order to get the antibiotic benefit we're looking for, you'd need to have ALL fish having lost their eyes. That's a much higher bar. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_fish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_fish seems to be a reasonably comprhensive list ). We also need the antibiotics to be viable again in a reasonable timespan ( a decade or two?), in order to be useful -- not on the timescale that was involved in cavefish eye degeneration.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- crimsonalucard 10y ago
  Bacteria mutate much quicker than fish. Generations of bacteria form within minutes. There is significant possibility in the viability of cycling antibiotics as bacteria lose resistance.

ocschwar 10y ago

The reason is there: bacteria have to be stingy in how much DNA they devote to anything.

simonbarker87 10y ago
Sounds reasonable, we were chatting about it briefly in a noisy pub so he would have glossed over details.