3 ms·

There has been work done is creating GM S. mutans that don't produce biofilms, and that would replace your native S. mutans. It could be done by just brushing y

There has been work done is creating GM S. mutans that don't produce biofilms, and that would replace your native S. mutans. It could be done by just brushing your teeth with a toothbrush treated with the bacteria so it would cost pennies per treatment.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Retric 4y ago
That’s a long way from actually replacing brushing and flossing. For one thing, streptococcus sobrinus is more closely associated with cavity formation than streptococcus mutans. But more importantly these biofilms are a significant evolutionary advantage so this replacement is an unstable situation. Some positive benefits are likely, just don’t assume it can work alone.
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  Biofilms are an evolutionary advantage for the bacteria, not the host. Biofilms make the colony much, much harder to kill. How advantageous can it be to the host anyways, if 4 out of 5 dentists recommends obliterating it 2-3x a day?
  - dataangel 4y ago
    They may indirectly be an advantage for the host because if the bacteria aren't competitive they will get replaced by bacteria that are. The devil you know...
    - arrosenberg 4y ago
      I hear you, but again - the strongly recommended medical advice is to brush your teeth twice a day to remove bacteria before they can form a biofilm, so if that was true, you would expect to see people who brush their teeth have worse problems from advantageous bacteria.
  - Retric 4y ago
    This is trying to replace the bacteria population not the host. It’s like trying to stop drug use by busting drug dealers. As long as the niche exists a city can’t stop and say we caught all the bad guys problem is solved.
    - arrosenberg 4y ago
      That analogy doesn't hold - the niche is still being filled. A better equivalent would be the synthol drink from Star Trek - it's the same bacteria, but modified to remove the most problematic part.
      - Retric 4y ago
        It’s the same relationship: We might call it the same species, but the relevant chararistic changed is detrimental to a [human] host but beneficial to the [bacteria] parasite. We might call it the same species, but the relevant chararistic changed is detrimental to a [city] host but beneficial to the [drug dealer] parasite. Consider if you removed all the wings on misquotes in a city. That would be useful on day 1, but not going to do anything a year from now. It’s the same species, but missing a very useful trait means it’s getting outcompeted.
        arrosenberg 4y ago
        > Consider if you removed all the wings on misquotes in a city. That's not an accurate analogy for biofilms. Even if it was, I noted below that the mechanical action of brushing your teeth annihilates any biofilm (i.e. plaque) that has built up. That being the case, how do you explain the fact that people who brush their teeth are not suffering from infection from advantageous disease? If you wipe out your gut flora, there are health serious implications. All evidence seems to point to the opposite case in your mouth.
        Retric 4y ago
        I think you may have confused me with the other poster: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32007812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32007812 Anyway brushing your teeth doesn't sterilize your mouth or even disrupt your mouth flora that much. But brushing and flossing does do many things. It helps your spit/toothpaste to remineralize your teeth repairing microscopic damage, removes leftover buts of food, and generally makes your mouth noticeably less hospitable to bacteria alongside reducing biofilms. As soon as you stop bushing things start getting worse, but that's why it's a daily activity.
- rhinoceraptor 4y ago
  For sure, I don't think it would replace as much as supplement. And obviously your mouth flora can change based on any number of factors, so it might have to be something like a special toothpaste since it likely wouldn't be a one-time treatment. Plus, I would imagine it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than nanobots once the bacteria strains are developed and tested.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Retric 4y ago

That’s a long way from actually replacing brushing and flossing. For one thing, streptococcus sobrinus is more closely associated with cavity formation than streptococcus mutans. But more importantly these biofilms are a significant evolutionary advantage so this replacement is an unstable situation. Some positive benefits are likely, just don’t assume it can work alone.

arrosenberg 4y ago
Biofilms are an evolutionary advantage for the bacteria, not the host. Biofilms make the colony much, much harder to kill. How advantageous can it be to the host anyways, if 4 out of 5 dentists recommends obliterating it 2-3x a day?
- dataangel 4y ago
  They may indirectly be an advantage for the host because if the bacteria aren't competitive they will get replaced by bacteria that are. The devil you know...
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    I hear you, but again - the strongly recommended medical advice is to brush your teeth twice a day to remove bacteria before they can form a biofilm, so if that was true, you would expect to see people who brush their teeth have worse problems from advantageous bacteria.
- Retric 4y ago
  This is trying to replace the bacteria population not the host. It’s like trying to stop drug use by busting drug dealers. As long as the niche exists a city can’t stop and say we caught all the bad guys problem is solved.
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    That analogy doesn't hold - the niche is still being filled. A better equivalent would be the synthol drink from Star Trek - it's the same bacteria, but modified to remove the most problematic part.
    - Retric 4y ago
      It’s the same relationship: We might call it the same species, but the relevant chararistic changed is detrimental to a [human] host but beneficial to the [bacteria] parasite. We might call it the same species, but the relevant chararistic changed is detrimental to a [city] host but beneficial to the [drug dealer] parasite. Consider if you removed all the wings on misquotes in a city. That would be useful on day 1, but not going to do anything a year from now. It’s the same species, but missing a very useful trait means it’s getting outcompeted.
      - arrosenberg 4y ago
        > Consider if you removed all the wings on misquotes in a city. That's not an accurate analogy for biofilms. Even if it was, I noted below that the mechanical action of brushing your teeth annihilates any biofilm (i.e. plaque) that has built up. That being the case, how do you explain the fact that people who brush their teeth are not suffering from infection from advantageous disease? If you wipe out your gut flora, there are health serious implications. All evidence seems to point to the opposite case in your mouth.
        Retric 4y ago
        I think you may have confused me with the other poster: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32007812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32007812 Anyway brushing your teeth doesn't sterilize your mouth or even disrupt your mouth flora that much. But brushing and flossing does do many things. It helps your spit/toothpaste to remineralize your teeth repairing microscopic damage, removes leftover buts of food, and generally makes your mouth noticeably less hospitable to bacteria alongside reducing biofilms. As soon as you stop bushing things start getting worse, but that's why it's a daily activity.
rhinoceraptor 4y ago
For sure, I don't think it would replace as much as supplement. And obviously your mouth flora can change based on any number of factors, so it might have to be something like a special toothpaste since it likely wouldn't be a one-time treatment. Plus, I would imagine it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than nanobots once the bacteria strains are developed and tested.