Re: Mycoplasma--adjectives and proper nouns

[Guest guest]

Nowadays there still seems(?) to be some disagreement over certain

phylogenic relations of bacteria, but everyone is on the same page as

far as what to examine: 16S rRNA is the standard.

Before the 90s classification was done basically morphologically.

Mollicutes were one of the three (morphological) groups of eubacteria

(the eubacteria contains every bacterium youve ever heard of; that

other great branch of prokaryotes, the archea, dont bite).

I think mollicutes were defined as being bounded by nothing but a

single membrane, but I'm not sure. Mycoplasmas (which are always

bounded only by a single membrane) were considered archetypic of this

group, so mollicutes were sometimes called mycoplasma-like organisms

(MLO). This nomenclature is just based on their form, not their

phylogenetic relationship. I do not know if MLO is (was) a proper

appelation for L-forms with a small amount of wall material, or only

for forms bounded only by a single membrane. MLO may also be used to

mean mollicute-like organisms as well (not sure).

I have never seen any dispute regarding the viability of CWD bacteria

in culture. Many dozens of investigators report working with them. In

fact, I dont believe their persistance in vivo in mammals is

controversial either. What may be disputed by some (not me) is the

assertion that they can cause disease.

I have seen it said in many sources that only mycoplasma contain

sterols in the membrane - but in fact it seems that while mycoplasma

alone have a sterol requirement, many bacteria including L-forms will

incorporate eg cholesterol into their membranes when it is available

(no known bacterium can itself synthesize cholesterol). In this

assertion Mattman cites PMIDs 5365926, 5729609, and one other work not

in pubmed.

" phagelod " <mpalmer@u...> wrote:

> The word " mycoplasma " is used in more than one way.

> Presumably this is a source of a lot of confusion.

>

> There are a group of bacteria that go by the formal name

> " Mycoplasma " . Their existence is indisputable.

>

> But " mycoplasma " is sometimes used to refer to CWD variants

> of walled bacteria. In this case, the word is used as an

> adjective, not a proper noun. I think that consensus may be

> lacking on the existence of viable CWD variants.

>

> This source sort of describes the distinction:

>

> " Mycoplasma species also have been mistakenly believed to be

> L-forms of bacteria, which also lack cell walls. Unlike

> mycoplasmal organisms, L-form bacteria do not have sterols in

> the cell membranes, and they can revert to their walled parental

> forms.....

>

> ....Mycoplasma species differ from bacteria (including L-forms) in

> the following ways:

>

>

> * Sterols in cell membrane

> * No DNA homology with known bacteria

> * Low guanine plus cytosine content

> * Low molecular weight of genome

> * No reversion to walled forms "

>

>

> http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic1524.htm

>

> Matt

>

[Guest guest]

Matt

An effort should be made to make poeple aware that bacteria are

hearty creatures and they survive dehydrated coming back to life at

the first signs of there requirement's being met.I come from the

school of biologists viewing bacteria from a totally different

perspective.So basically attaching to the word mycoplasma more

weight than it deserves is wrong.

I actually think anyone contemplating any bacterial education should

focus on bacteria's ability to destruct.I know full well that

bacterial evolution doesn't consist of cell walls early in the

program. I virtually stopped bothering to stain swabs until a form

could be observed, so like the rest of the microbiology folk-FOCUS

ON FACTS. story time should be reserved for kid's books...

tony

> > > >

> > > > > Because Mycos have no cell wall they are also not

> subject to

> > ABX.

[Guest guest]

You've missed my point, which I should have made more explicit.

My point was implied by the posts to which I was responding,

which were those between Penny and Jelly concerning CWD

bacteria and Mycoplasma.

It appeared to me that two different ideas were being

co-mingled.

Jelly referred to mycoplasma, including PCR assays:

" If you don't like the PCR/DNA test for Mycoplasma, there is also

Mycoplasma antibodies tests. " (#2497).

She presumably has in mind those bacteria called " Mycoplasma

XYZ " , which were the subject of Garth Nicolson's investigations.

See, for example:

http://tinyurl.com/dcsu5

PMID: 10691196

PCR can identify these " mycoplasma " because they are distinct

species.

But sometimes the word mycoplasma gets used to refer to CWD

bacteria. CWD bacteria are not genetically distinct from their

walled parent forms. PCR cannot, therefore, distinguish

between various bacteria and their wall defective forms.

Jelly seems to co-mingle these two concepts here:

" My understanding of CWDs is based entirely on my

understanding of Mycoplasma. " (#2477).

But later seems to distinguish between the two:

" A true CWD or L-form is just that way, it didn't mutuate to get the

title of CWD. When talking about " these " forms cell wall

deficient... " (#2494).

Penny seemed to have in mind CWD bacteria, not mycoplasma

spp.

Matt

> Matt

> An effort should be made to make poeple aware that bacteria

are

> hearty creatures and they survive dehydrated coming back to

life at

> the first signs of there requirement's being met.I come from the

> school of biologists viewing bacteria from a totally different

> perspective.So basically attaching to the word mycoplasma

more

> weight than it deserves is wrong.

> I actually think anyone contemplating any bacterial education

should

> focus on bacteria's ability to destruct.I know full well that

> bacterial evolution doesn't consist of cell walls early in the

> program. I virtually stopped bothering to stain swabs until a

form

> could be observed, so like the rest of the microbiology

folk-FOCUS

> ON FACTS. story time should be reserved for kid's books...

> tony

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Matt.

I'm afraid we lay people are often guilty of mixing things up. I'm

glad we've got people like you here to keep us on tracks. It's the

old adage, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, that gets us

into trouble.

What's scary is when you see doctors running full steam ahead with

this kind of partial understanding, which in turn perpetuates a lot

of incorrect treatment mythology among patients.

One thing I know, there's still a lot to learn about both mycoplasma

and CWD bacteria, and any impact they may have on our illness.

In a certain sense, I agree with Tony about Lida Mattman's work. Not

that her work is bad, but that so much weight is put on it when it's

so narrow in scope. We need a lot more research being done on all

kinds of bacterial forms, known and not so well known, and which

ones cause the most damage.

There are doctors out there who understand, but very few researchers

who are looking at how destructive your every day garden variety

organisms are and how they are contributing to chronic illness in

such a huge way.

Instead of understanding these organisms, the dollars have been

spent trying to find the latest new abx that the bugs won't become

resistant to, and since that's going so well (not), pharmaceutical

companies are giving up on developing new abx (because they can't

keep up with the bugs). I believe this means they've given up on us,

and are just raking in the profits from older standby abx that are

given to feed animals and children (and who cares about the % of the

population who's resistant?). When they do create a new abx, like

Zyvox, it's $60 a pill!

In the meantime, while these deadly, widespread organisms

proliferate, everyone else is searching for the illusive invisible

bug, even though treating the visible ones sees tremendous health

benefits.

Of course, long term therapy to treat these highly resistant,

adaptable bugs is not cost effective either (if you ignore the long

term ramifications), so there's certainly no campaign to bring this

out into the open (but there ARE campaigns to make abx usage look

bad - but only in people, not cows or chickens). So, for the most

part, with a few exceptions, there's no testing, no research, no

effective treatment plans.

This infuriates me, and I simply don't understand why we're letting

the medical establishment get away with this miseducation of the

public (and even their own med school students), just so insurance

companies can save money, and doctors can make more money performing

other procedures (because the doc doesn't make his money ordering

labwork and prescribing abx correctly).

And don't believe for a second that the medical school system isn't

all about making more money for their alumni. As a doctor friend

explained to me, how else can you explain the inhumane residency

system in this country, as well as the fact that so many qualified

people are not accepted into medical school? Because they (eg. the

AMA) don't want to split the money pie up any more than it's already

being split.

penny

> > Matt

> > An effort should be made to make poeple aware that bacteria

> are

> > hearty creatures and they survive dehydrated coming back to

> life at

> > the first signs of there requirement's being met.I come from the

> > school of biologists viewing bacteria from a totally different

> > perspective.So basically attaching to the word mycoplasma

> more

> > weight than it deserves is wrong.

> > I actually think anyone contemplating any bacterial education

> should

> > focus on bacteria's ability to destruct.I know full well that

> > bacterial evolution doesn't consist of cell walls early in the

> > program. I virtually stopped bothering to stain swabs until a

> form

> > could be observed, so like the rest of the microbiology

> folk-FOCUS

> > ON FACTS. story time should be reserved for kid's books...

> > tony

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >