Darwin wants his money back.
17 Mar 2023, 2:15 pm
Humans have cheated Darwin for 100 years and now he wants his money back.
Strong and based American woman:
Note: I speed up the video slightly to make her sound even more high iq than she is, and she is obviously very high iq to begin with.
Serious question: What do we do about the antibiotics crisis?
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 29,339
Location: Right over your left shoulder
17 Mar 2023, 6:03 pm
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7X20307289
Quote:
HAPs are in a category of biocidal products intended for human hygiene, they are antiseptic which alter the membranes or degrade the proteins of micro-organisms which occur on living tissues. Resistance to antiseptics is mostly linked to the changes in the bacterial cell wall, while resistance to antibiotics is more often due to other causes, in particular the destruction of enzymes or modified target sites. Therefore there is no sound reason for hydro-alcoholic solutions to be affected by mechanisms of resistance to BMR and BHRe. To this day, no known study has shown a lesser effect of hydro-alcoholic products on bacteria linked to their resistance to antibiotics phenotype. In 2018 an Australian team suggested that Enterococcus faecium may become increasingly tolerant to alcohol over a period of years. This suggestion was founded on a series of tests using hydro-alcoholic products at 23%. These alarming conclusions provoked a period of clarification by numerous specialists who pointed out that hydro-alcoholic products used as hand sanitizers contain between 60 and 90% alcohol
Quote:
5. Conclusion
The mechanisms of resistance to antibiotics and to antiseptics are different. It is therefore not surprising that antibacterial gels, composed of antiseptics are efficient on germs which are multi-resistant to antibiotics. Nevertheless the confirmation of their bactericidal effect makes it possible to answer questions from health workers who often confuse antibiotics and antiseptics and doubt the efficacy of HAPs on highly resistant bacteria increasingly often isolated in healthcare establishments. Furthermore, audits of standard practice in the use of hydro-alcoholic hand rub show that application time rarely lasts one minute. It is interesting then that this test proved the efficacy of the tested product after 30 seconds, since this is a more realistic application time.
The data could be completed by an in vivo test according to the NF EN 1500 [10] standards and using the same multi-resistant bacteria.
The mechanisms of resistance to antibiotics and to antiseptics are different. It is therefore not surprising that antibacterial gels, composed of antiseptics are efficient on germs which are multi-resistant to antibiotics. Nevertheless the confirmation of their bactericidal effect makes it possible to answer questions from health workers who often confuse antibiotics and antiseptics and doubt the efficacy of HAPs on highly resistant bacteria increasingly often isolated in healthcare establishments. Furthermore, audits of standard practice in the use of hydro-alcoholic hand rub show that application time rarely lasts one minute. It is interesting then that this test proved the efficacy of the tested product after 30 seconds, since this is a more realistic application time.
The data could be completed by an in vivo test according to the NF EN 1500 [10] standards and using the same multi-resistant bacteria.
HAPs = Hydro-alcoholic products
TL;DR: The Australian experiment was using alcohol watered down far beyond the concentration used as a sanitizer. It isn't reflective of proper use of alcohol as a sanitizer.
_________________
I was ashamed of myself when I realised life was a costume party and I attended with my real face
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell
18 Mar 2023, 4:26 am
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Serious question: What do we do about the antibiotics crisis?
"We" do nothing, unless "we" are microbiologists, epidemiologists, or other scientists in related fields.Of course, there is the usual: wash your hands regularly, maintain social distancing, wear face masks in public, exercise, maintain a healthy weight, and eat a healthy diet.
Then we all die anyway.
_________________
18 Mar 2023, 4:35 am
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Humans have cheated Darwin for 100 years and now he wants his money back.
Strong and based American woman:
Note: I speed up the video slightly to make her sound even more high iq than she is, and she is obviously very high iq to begin with.
Serious question: What do we do about the antibiotics crisis?
Strong and based American woman:
Note: I speed up the video slightly to make her sound even more high iq than she is, and she is obviously very high iq to begin with.
Serious question: What do we do about the antibiotics crisis?
As a former microbiologist I can tell you that bacteria grow on metal, in space, in near boiling water, in close to pure acid or alkali. That there are bacteria that are becoming resistant to alcohol isn't terribly surprising. The problem is when you have supposedly sterile conditions and antiobiotic resistant bugs which are also resistant to swabbing take a hold of open surgical incisions.
18 Mar 2023, 8:53 am
funeralxempire wrote:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0399077X20307289
HAPs = Hydro-alcoholic products
TL;DR: The Australian experiment was using alcohol watered down far beyond the concentration used as a sanitizer. It isn't reflective of proper use of alcohol as a sanitizer.
Quote:
HAPs are in a category of biocidal products intended for human hygiene, they are antiseptic which alter the membranes or degrade the proteins of micro-organisms which occur on living tissues. Resistance to antiseptics is mostly linked to the changes in the bacterial cell wall, while resistance to antibiotics is more often due to other causes, in particular the destruction of enzymes or modified target sites. Therefore there is no sound reason for hydro-alcoholic solutions to be affected by mechanisms of resistance to BMR and BHRe. To this day, no known study has shown a lesser effect of hydro-alcoholic products on bacteria linked to their resistance to antibiotics phenotype. In 2018 an Australian team suggested that Enterococcus faecium may become increasingly tolerant to alcohol over a period of years. This suggestion was founded on a series of tests using hydro-alcoholic products at 23%. These alarming conclusions provoked a period of clarification by numerous specialists who pointed out that hydro-alcoholic products used as hand sanitizers contain between 60 and 90% alcohol
Quote:
5. Conclusion
The mechanisms of resistance to antibiotics and to antiseptics are different. It is therefore not surprising that antibacterial gels, composed of antiseptics are efficient on germs which are multi-resistant to antibiotics. Nevertheless the confirmation of their bactericidal effect makes it possible to answer questions from health workers who often confuse antibiotics and antiseptics and doubt the efficacy of HAPs on highly resistant bacteria increasingly often isolated in healthcare establishments. Furthermore, audits of standard practice in the use of hydro-alcoholic hand rub show that application time rarely lasts one minute. It is interesting then that this test proved the efficacy of the tested product after 30 seconds, since this is a more realistic application time.
The data could be completed by an in vivo test according to the NF EN 1500 [10] standards and using the same multi-resistant bacteria.
The mechanisms of resistance to antibiotics and to antiseptics are different. It is therefore not surprising that antibacterial gels, composed of antiseptics are efficient on germs which are multi-resistant to antibiotics. Nevertheless the confirmation of their bactericidal effect makes it possible to answer questions from health workers who often confuse antibiotics and antiseptics and doubt the efficacy of HAPs on highly resistant bacteria increasingly often isolated in healthcare establishments. Furthermore, audits of standard practice in the use of hydro-alcoholic hand rub show that application time rarely lasts one minute. It is interesting then that this test proved the efficacy of the tested product after 30 seconds, since this is a more realistic application time.
The data could be completed by an in vivo test according to the NF EN 1500 [10] standards and using the same multi-resistant bacteria.
HAPs = Hydro-alcoholic products
TL;DR: The Australian experiment was using alcohol watered down far beyond the concentration used as a sanitizer. It isn't reflective of proper use of alcohol as a sanitizer.
The sciencedirect article from France is long and I didn't read the whole wall of text.
Quote:
The HAPs were tested with concentrations of 80%, 40%, and 8%.
The antibacterial hydro-alcoholic gel Puressentiel® antibacterial sanitizer gel with 3 essential oils showed a reduction of the four antibiotic resistant bacteria being tested which was higher than 5 log10, in 30 seconds. The bactericidal concentration on Pseudomonas aeruginosa which produces carbapenemases (VIM) was 80% and on Staphylocoque epidermidis which is resistant to methicillin and has reduced sensitivity to glycopeptides, Enterococcus faecium which is resistant to glycopeptides (Van A), and Klebsiella pneumoniae which produces carbapenemases (NDM) was 40% (Table 1).
The antibacterial hydro-alcoholic gel Puressentiel® antibacterial sanitizer gel with 3 essential oils showed a reduction of the four antibiotic resistant bacteria being tested which was higher than 5 log10, in 30 seconds. The bactericidal concentration on Pseudomonas aeruginosa which produces carbapenemases (VIM) was 80% and on Staphylocoque epidermidis which is resistant to methicillin and has reduced sensitivity to glycopeptides, Enterococcus faecium which is resistant to glycopeptides (Van A), and Klebsiella pneumoniae which produces carbapenemases (NDM) was 40% (Table 1).
I am not a professional biologist so I don't understand the whole article. But from what I gathered from the article was that the alcohol only reduced the bacteria but did not exterminate them. Could that suggest that bacteria is becoming resistant to alcohol?
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 29,339
Location: Right over your left shoulder
18 Mar 2023, 9:37 am
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
I am not a professional biologist so I don't understand the whole article. But from what I gathered from the article was that the alcohol only reduced the bacteria but did not exterminate them. Could that suggest that bacteria is becoming resistant to alcohol?
The one Australian study that most articles are written about found a degree of tolerance for alcohol after exposure to a 23% solution.
The one I linked to showed that antibiotic resistance is not an indicator of resistance to anti-septics, such as alcohol(HAPs).
It didn't address whether or not alcohol resistance can occur (unfortunately).
Since chemicals like alcohol, soap and bleach kill by denaturing, causing physical destruction of the bacteria. It seems that developing a significant tolerance might not be possible, there's likely always going to be a concentration at which those chemicals still do what's expected.
Significant tolerance doesn't mean no tolerance might be developed. Tolerance to low concentrations and limited exposures might be possible. Once the concentration is high enough to cause denaturing it seems unlikely for tolerance to be possible.
This study involved 30 second exposures, which is less than what is typically recommended but typical of real-world applications.
_________________
I was ashamed of myself when I realised life was a costume party and I attended with my real face
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell
18 Mar 2023, 11:39 am
funeralxempire wrote:
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
I am not a professional biologist so I don't understand the whole article. But from what I gathered from the article was that the alcohol only reduced the bacteria but did not exterminate them. Could that suggest that bacteria is becoming resistant to alcohol?
The one Australian study that most articles are written about found a degree of tolerance for alcohol after exposure to a 23% solution.
The one I linked to showed that antibiotic resistance is not an indicator of resistance to anti-septics, such as alcohol(HAPs).
It didn't address whether or not alcohol resistance can occur (unfortunately).
Since chemicals like alcohol, soap and bleach kill by denaturing, causing physical destruction of the bacteria. It seems that developing a significant tolerance might not be possible, there's likely always going to be a concentration at which those chemicals still do what's expected.
Significant tolerance doesn't mean no tolerance might be developed. Tolerance to low concentrations and limited exposures might be possible. Once the concentration is high enough to cause denaturing it seems unlikely for tolerance to be possible.
This study involved 30 second exposures, which is less than what is typically recommended but typical of real-world applications.
What about when they put bacteria on a petri dish and put alcohol on the bacteria, and some of the bacteria survive? Would that be bacterial evolution where all the strongest bacteria that can survive alcohol remain, resulting in more and more generations of alcohol impervious bacteria? Because usually the alcohol never wipes out all the colonies.
Quote:
Significant tolerance doesn't mean no tolerance might be developed. Tolerance to low concentrations and limited exposures might be possible. Once the concentration is high enough to cause denaturing it seems unlikely for tolerance to be possible.
When alcohol is too high a concentration (100%) it is less effective because bacteria immediately puts up a shield. This suggests that it may be possible to breed (maybe unintentionally) a super bacteria that is resistant to any form of alcohol.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 29,339
Location: Right over your left shoulder
18 Mar 2023, 12:00 pm
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
I am not a professional biologist so I don't understand the whole article. But from what I gathered from the article was that the alcohol only reduced the bacteria but did not exterminate them. Could that suggest that bacteria is becoming resistant to alcohol?
The one Australian study that most articles are written about found a degree of tolerance for alcohol after exposure to a 23% solution.
The one I linked to showed that antibiotic resistance is not an indicator of resistance to anti-septics, such as alcohol(HAPs).
It didn't address whether or not alcohol resistance can occur (unfortunately).
Since chemicals like alcohol, soap and bleach kill by denaturing, causing physical destruction of the bacteria. It seems that developing a significant tolerance might not be possible, there's likely always going to be a concentration at which those chemicals still do what's expected.
Significant tolerance doesn't mean no tolerance might be developed. Tolerance to low concentrations and limited exposures might be possible. Once the concentration is high enough to cause denaturing it seems unlikely for tolerance to be possible.
This study involved 30 second exposures, which is less than what is typically recommended but typical of real-world applications.
What about when they put bacteria on a petri dish and put alcohol on the bacteria, and some of the bacteria survive? Would that be bacterial evolution where all the strongest bacteria that can survive alcohol remain, resulting in more and more generations of alcohol impervious bacteria?
It might be useful to experiment and confirm if tolerance is heritable. So far most of the work done involved Enterococcus faecium.
Tolerance to alcohol may be the result of changes to carbohydrate metabolism, but this wouldn't extend to the point of immunity. At high enough concentrations exposure still equals death.
Bacteria can also produce biofilms that protect them from exposure.
Quote:
Mutations in carbohydrate metabolism enable bacteria to survive at higher alcohol concentrations. Formation of multicellular biofilms with their sticky exopolymeric matrix acting as a physical barrier can protect bacteria from alcohol killing.
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Quote:
Significant tolerance doesn't mean no tolerance might be developed. Tolerance to low concentrations and limited exposures might be possible. Once the concentration is high enough to cause denaturing it seems unlikely for tolerance to be possible.
When alcohol is too high a concentration (100%) it is less effective because bacteria immediately puts up a shield. This suggests that it may be possible to breed (maybe unintentionally) a super bacteria that is resistant to any form of alcohol.
70% alcohol works best as an anti-septic, iirc.
Overall it seems like resistance to alcohols can emerge, but it's likely to be restricted to environments like hospitals, and distilleries. The selective pressures don't appear to be very strong outside of those sorts of environments.
That said, apparently chlorine-resistant bacteria also exist.
I couldn't find anything about soap-resistant bacteria.
A bacteria that's resistant to alcohol would most likely still be vulnerable to soap and bleach.
A bacteria that's resistant to alcohol wouldn't be more likely to be resistant to antibiotics.
It seems unlikely that all of these resistances would all occur in a single type of bacteria, but if it's going to happen it'll be in a hospital.
_________________
I was ashamed of myself when I realised life was a costume party and I attended with my real face
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell
18 Mar 2023, 1:03 pm
Quote:
It might be useful to experiment and confirm if tolerance is heritable. So far most of the work done involved Enterococcus faecium.
Tolerance to alcohol may be the result of changes to carbohydrate metabolism, but this wouldn't extend to the point of immunity. At high enough concentrations exposure still equals death.
Bacteria can also produce biofilms that protect them from exposure.
70% alcohol works best as an anti-septic, iirc.
Tolerance to alcohol may be the result of changes to carbohydrate metabolism, but this wouldn't extend to the point of immunity. At high enough concentrations exposure still equals death.
Bacteria can also produce biofilms that protect them from exposure.
70% alcohol works best as an anti-septic, iirc.
Yes, if the concentration is too much they produce a bio film shield. In theory could bacteria evolve for this occur at low concentrations such as 70% alcohol? And with the current bacteria, is 50% alcohol enough to kill bacteria colonies?
Quote:
Overall it seems like resistance to alcohols can emerge, but it's likely to be restricted to environments like hospitals, and distilleries. The selective pressures don't appear to be very strong outside of those sorts of environments.
People clean their homes and the bacteria could transport from home to home.
Quote:
That said, apparently chlorine-resistant bacteria also exist.
I couldn't find anything about soap-resistant bacteria.
A bacteria that's resistant to alcohol would most likely still be vulnerable to soap and bleach.
A bacteria that's resistant to alcohol wouldn't be more likely to be resistant to antibiotics.
It seems unlikely that all of these resistances would all occur in a single type of bacteria, but if it's going to happen it'll be in a hospital.
I couldn't find anything about soap-resistant bacteria.
A bacteria that's resistant to alcohol would most likely still be vulnerable to soap and bleach.
A bacteria that's resistant to alcohol wouldn't be more likely to be resistant to antibiotics.
It seems unlikely that all of these resistances would all occur in a single type of bacteria, but if it's going to happen it'll be in a hospital.
Is it mechanically possible for a bacterium to be resistant to both alcohol and antibiotics or does resistance to one mechanically negate resistance to the other?
18 Mar 2023, 1:24 pm
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Quote:
It might be useful to experiment and confirm if tolerance is heritable. So far most of the work done involved Enterococcus faecium.
Tolerance to alcohol may be the result of changes to carbohydrate metabolism, but this wouldn't extend to the point of immunity. At high enough concentrations exposure still equals death.
Bacteria can also produce biofilms that protect them from exposure.
70% alcohol works best as an anti-septic, iirc.
Tolerance to alcohol may be the result of changes to carbohydrate metabolism, but this wouldn't extend to the point of immunity. At high enough concentrations exposure still equals death.
Bacteria can also produce biofilms that protect them from exposure.
70% alcohol works best as an anti-septic, iirc.
Yes, if the concentration is too much they produce a bio film shield. In theory could bacteria evolve for this occur at low concentrations such as 70% alcohol? And with the current bacteria, is 50% alcohol enough to kill bacteria colonies?
Quote:
Overall it seems like resistance to alcohols can emerge, but it's likely to be restricted to environments like hospitals, and distilleries. The selective pressures don't appear to be very strong outside of those sorts of environments.
People clean their homes and the bacteria could transport from home to home.
Quote:
That said, apparently chlorine-resistant bacteria also exist.
I couldn't find anything about soap-resistant bacteria.
A bacteria that's resistant to alcohol would most likely still be vulnerable to soap and bleach.
A bacteria that's resistant to alcohol wouldn't be more likely to be resistant to antibiotics.
It seems unlikely that all of these resistances would all occur in a single type of bacteria, but if it's going to happen it'll be in a hospital.
I couldn't find anything about soap-resistant bacteria.
A bacteria that's resistant to alcohol would most likely still be vulnerable to soap and bleach.
A bacteria that's resistant to alcohol wouldn't be more likely to be resistant to antibiotics.
It seems unlikely that all of these resistances would all occur in a single type of bacteria, but if it's going to happen it'll be in a hospital.
Is it mechanically possible for a bacterium to be resistant to both alcohol and antibiotics or does resistance to one mechanically negate resistance to the other?
One doesnt negate the other. But one talent of resistance doesnt correlate, or automatically empower resistance against the other thing either.
Body armor protects a soldier from bullets, but doesnt help protect him from death by drowning. A life jacket helps with drowning but doesnt protect much from bullets. And so on.
Microbes might evolve structural defenses against one thing but not other things, and indeed would be depleted of resources by trying to evolve multiple new structures at once.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 29,339
Location: Right over your left shoulder
18 Mar 2023, 1:43 pm
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Quote:
It might be useful to experiment and confirm if tolerance is heritable. So far most of the work done involved Enterococcus faecium.
Tolerance to alcohol may be the result of changes to carbohydrate metabolism, but this wouldn't extend to the point of immunity. At high enough concentrations exposure still equals death.
Bacteria can also produce biofilms that protect them from exposure.
70% alcohol works best as an anti-septic, iirc.
Tolerance to alcohol may be the result of changes to carbohydrate metabolism, but this wouldn't extend to the point of immunity. At high enough concentrations exposure still equals death.
Bacteria can also produce biofilms that protect them from exposure.
70% alcohol works best as an anti-septic, iirc.
Yes, if the concentration is too much they produce a bio film shield. In theory could bacteria evolve for this occur at low concentrations such as 70% alcohol? And with the current bacteria, is 50% alcohol enough to kill bacteria colonies?
Quote:
Overall it seems like resistance to alcohols can emerge, but it's likely to be restricted to environments like hospitals, and distilleries. The selective pressures don't appear to be very strong outside of those sorts of environments.
People clean their homes and the bacteria could transport from home to home.
People clean their homes, but usually don't sterilize everything like a hospital. If people sterilize their homes like they were hospitals it would make it more of an issue. Individuals with particularly aggressive sterilization regimens might potentially create circumstances where this could emerge, but it so far seems to largely be limited to hospitals and environments where there's persistent exposure to alcohol fumes.
Hospital settings often show a preference for HAPs over soap and water, that's one of the reasons why this problem is mostly relevant to those settings, rather than households. A household might be more likely to use a wider range of sanitizers/anti-septics.
I'm not sure of the concentration ranges needed to be lethal, I would anticipate that it might vary between species. Commercial sanitizers claim to be 99.9% effective, they're recommended to be at least 60% so I would anticipate that's the bare minimum to be broadly effective.
I found this, for anyone reading who isn't aware of the increase in biofilms in response to increased concentrations of alcohol:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471055/
Here's greater detail on how alcohol works, from the same article:
Quote:
The bactericidal effect of alcohol depends upon dehydration and denaturation of proteins. Mixtures of alcohols and water (60–90% v/v) are more effective because proteins are denatured more quickly in the presence of water. Ethanol also causes leakage of the plasma membrane, disrupting bacterial growth and metabolism.
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Is it mechanically possible for a bacterium to be resistant to both alcohol and antibiotics or does resistance to one mechanically negate resistance to the other?
Some strains with antibiotic resistance also show increased biofilm production, according to the study I linked earlier.
This article has to deal with chlorhexidine on facial prosthetics:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4656749/
In that context it seems quite effective. It's already used in hospitals for disinfecting and can be added to alcohol.
_________________
I was ashamed of myself when I realised life was a costume party and I attended with my real face
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 29,339
Location: Right over your left shoulder
18 Mar 2023, 1:49 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
One doesnt negate the other. But one talent of resistance doesnt correlate, or automatically empower resistance against the other thing either.
Body armor protects a soldier from bullets, but doesnt help protect him from death by drowning. A life jacket helps with drowning but doesnt protect much from bullets. And so on.
Microbes might evolve structural defenses against one thing but not other things, and indeed would be depleted of resources by trying to evolve multiple new structures at once.
Body armor protects a soldier from bullets, but doesnt help protect him from death by drowning. A life jacket helps with drowning but doesnt protect much from bullets. And so on.
Microbes might evolve structural defenses against one thing but not other things, and indeed would be depleted of resources by trying to evolve multiple new structures at once.
I'm not sure the analogies are applicable.
Antibiotic resistance is an inherent trait of bacteria because bacteria produce their own antibiotics in order to maintain communities; resistance is developed to a specific community's own antibiotic mixture.
Biofilms are also part of how bacteria normally operate. They typically live in mixed communities, a mixture of bacteria and protein they've created called a biofilm.
In both cases they don't need to develop new structures, just tune the ones they already have.
_________________
I was ashamed of myself when I realised life was a costume party and I attended with my real face
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell
18 Mar 2023, 7:26 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
Microbes might evolve structural defenses against one thing but not other things, and indeed would be depleted of resources by trying to evolve multiple new structures at once.
Well that's not quite true. Bacteria that live in sulphuric hot springs several miles at the bottom of the ocean have to adapt to
high temperatures near ocean/volcanic vents
high acidity from sulphuric gases
high water pressure due to depths
18 Mar 2023, 7:33 pm
[quote="Lecia_Wynter"]
Yes, if the concentration is too much they produce a bio film shield. In theory could bacteria evolve for this occur at low concentrations such as 70% alcohol? And with the current bacteria, is 50% alcohol enough to kill bacteria colonies?
/quote]
In theory bacteria could adapt to lower alcohol concentrations and over time adapt to progressively higher concs. Alcohol concentrations > 70% are essentially a preservative in that genetic material can't reproduce but bacteria can evolve mechanisms to have alcohol resistant spores. The spores are capable of cryopreservation in zero gravity of space, in ice, in boiling water and in pure acid/alkali.
There's no reason to think antibiotic resistant bacteria are 100% incapable of alcohol resistant spores which once exposed to the right condition on a human surface starts to reproduce.
22 Mar 2023, 6:49 am
funeralxempire wrote:
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Quote:
It might be useful to experiment and confirm if tolerance is heritable. So far most of the work done involved Enterococcus faecium.
Tolerance to alcohol may be the result of changes to carbohydrate metabolism, but this wouldn't extend to the point of immunity. At high enough concentrations exposure still equals death.
Bacteria can also produce biofilms that protect them from exposure.
70% alcohol works best as an anti-septic, iirc.
Tolerance to alcohol may be the result of changes to carbohydrate metabolism, but this wouldn't extend to the point of immunity. At high enough concentrations exposure still equals death.
Bacteria can also produce biofilms that protect them from exposure.
70% alcohol works best as an anti-septic, iirc.
Yes, if the concentration is too much they produce a bio film shield. In theory could bacteria evolve for this occur at low concentrations such as 70% alcohol? And with the current bacteria, is 50% alcohol enough to kill bacteria colonies?
Quote:
Overall it seems like resistance to alcohols can emerge, but it's likely to be restricted to environments like hospitals, and distilleries. The selective pressures don't appear to be very strong outside of those sorts of environments.
People clean their homes and the bacteria could transport from home to home.
People clean their homes, but usually don't sterilize everything like a hospital. If people sterilize their homes like they were hospitals it would make it more of an issue. Individuals with particularly aggressive sterilization regimens might potentially create circumstances where this could emerge, but it so far seems to largely be limited to hospitals and environments where there's persistent exposure to alcohol fumes.
Hospital settings often show a preference for HAPs over soap and water, that's one of the reasons why this problem is mostly relevant to those settings, rather than households. A household might be more likely to use a wider range of sanitizers/anti-septics.
I'm not sure of the concentration ranges needed to be lethal, I would anticipate that it might vary between species. Commercial sanitizers claim to be 99.9% effective, they're recommended to be at least 60% so I would anticipate that's the bare minimum to be broadly effective.
I found this, for anyone reading who isn't aware of the increase in biofilms in response to increased concentrations of alcohol:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471055/
Here's greater detail on how alcohol works, from the same article:
Quote:
The bactericidal effect of alcohol depends upon dehydration and denaturation of proteins. Mixtures of alcohols and water (60–90% v/v) are more effective because proteins are denatured more quickly in the presence of water. Ethanol also causes leakage of the plasma membrane, disrupting bacterial growth and metabolism.
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Is it mechanically possible for a bacterium to be resistant to both alcohol and antibiotics or does resistance to one mechanically negate resistance to the other?
Some strains with antibiotic resistance also show increased biofilm production, according to the study I linked earlier.
This article has to deal with chlorhexidine on facial prosthetics:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4656749/
In that context it seems quite effective. It's already used in hospitals for disinfecting and can be added to alcohol.
No offense but I am not clicking that because NIH is an evil organization. I am thinking about quitting all medical research altogether since there is a good chance search engines or articles will link to NIH.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 29,339
Location: Right over your left shoulder
22 Mar 2023, 9:31 am
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
No offense but I am not clicking that because NIH is an evil organization.
Oh, how exactly?
_________________
I was ashamed of myself when I realised life was a costume party and I attended with my real face
"Many of us like to ask ourselves, What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?' The answer is, you're doing it. Right now." —Former U.S. Airman (Air Force) Aaron Bushnell
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| How can I save money? |
19 Oct 2024, 2:16 am |
| You either have the time and no money or money and no time |
09 Oct 2024, 4:02 am |
| Lionel Messi got lucky or is it because of the money? |
08 Dec 2024, 2:09 pm |
| Waste of time, money, and energy |
28 Nov 2024, 6:10 am |
