Re: 99% of microbes from most environments are uncultivable

[Guest guest]

That's a bad call.I don't think you can fail to cultivate anything

that you attempt to cultivate. Basically anything that afflicts man

can be reproduced in a culture medium that reflects man, to use the

99% uncultivatable is warped science.If you can use the oxygen/CO2 and

food source requirement of any species it shouldn't be invisable.I

don't think much that affects man is uncultivatable.

Actually viruses are cultivatable as well if anybody ever bothers

doing viral swabs.

The thing most are unfamiliar with is bad pathogolgy practises waiting

for an immune response clouding of urine or clouding of blood to feel

they have a bacterial infective agent is the cause of these types of

myths.half the cultures have bacteria yet they don't get the response

so they say look we can't cultivate.

Also if something is uncultivatable like the claim they make against

lyme. it has to leave a fingerprint.Toxins and other virulence factors

should be pretty evident.

What organisms that makes us ill can't be grown?Syphillis never needed

to be grown because the test was possably 100% on the mark?Lyme should

be grown because the tests are 100% off the mark?

CHOLERA,HELICOBACTER,SHIGELLA,SALMONELLA. Again there's not too much

you can't untangle.The trick is to study the organisms that kill and

maim us.There's a good 20 in the top 20 list that are all available to

culture.what more do we need.

tony

> " It has been known for over half a century that 99% of all microbial

> species from most environments are uncultivable and as such largely

> unavailable to scientists. Attempts to culture more species in the

lab

> by manipulating growth media were unsuccessful. The riddle of

> uncultivable microorganisms has been recognized as the main

challenge

> for basic and applied research in microbiology by the American

Society

> for Microbiology (Young, 1997). "

>

> Kim Lews, his web page

> http://www.biology.neu.edu/faculty03/lewis03.html

[Guest guest]

I should note, doesnt say the 99% figure applies to the human

body. But I think it would be striking for 99% of human-inhabiting

organisms to be cultivable if 99% of soil/sea/etc organisms are

incultivable.

I agree that it sure seems like most every mammal-inhabting or soil-

inhabiting organism *should* be culturable in a mammal-imitating or

soil-imitating medium. Thats why refers to a " riddle. "

Direct observation trumps our cogitations. It seems the evidence that

soil/sea/etc organisms are mostly uncultivable comes from detecting

the rRNA sequences of unculturable organisms. I have not studied the

evidence but its out there for anyone interested.

Serology has not quite made syphilis dx trivial; the dx does suffer

some equivocality. Therefore the failure to reliably culture T.

pallidum is not due to lack of effort.

I dont know any reason to assume a pathogen must necessarily emit

toxins, let alone detectable (ie humor-stable) ones. I would expect

that inflammation alone can create disease in the absence of toxins.

> > " It has been known for over half a century that 99% of all

microbial

> > species from most environments are uncultivable and as such

largely

> > unavailable to scientists. Attempts to culture more species in

the

> lab

> > by manipulating growth media were unsuccessful. The riddle of

> > uncultivable microorganisms has been recognized as the main

> challenge

> > for basic and applied research in microbiology by the American

> Society

> > for Microbiology (Young, 1997). "

> >

> > Kim Lews, his web page

> > http://www.biology.neu.edu/faculty03/lewis03.html

[Guest guest]

Why did he specifically mention " synthetic culture mediums " ? Maybe

that explains why they're uncultivatable? If the conditions aren't

identical...?

penny

> > > " It has been known for over half a century that 99% of all

> microbial

> > > species from most environments are uncultivable and as such

> largely

> > > unavailable to scientists. Attempts to culture more species in

> the

> > lab

> > > by manipulating growth media were unsuccessful. The riddle of

> > > uncultivable microorganisms has been recognized as the main

> > challenge

> > > for basic and applied research in microbiology by the American

> > Society

> > > for Microbiology (Young, 1997). "

> > >

> > > Kim Lews, his web page

> > > http://www.biology.neu.edu/faculty03/lewis03.html

[Guest guest]

I dono, but I know hes had some success culturing stuff in, eg,

membrane containers immersed in real seawater, or something like that.

Too bad its tough to do something analogous with intact human tissue.

T. pallidum will live longer in a tube if cultured mammal cells are

present - but it still dies after several days.

> Why did he specifically mention " synthetic culture mediums " ? Maybe

> that explains why they're uncultivatable? If the conditions aren't

> identical...?

>

> penny

[Guest guest]

BTW he says the 99% uncultivable figure has been known for half a

century... I dont know at all how that worked in 1955 before nucleic

acid (eg rRNA) sequencing existed.

[Guest guest]

,as the organisms chew us up & multiply the toxic waste products of that process should be detectable ?? Isn't that toxin the trigger for an inappropriate Immune response.... that is toxin lead rather than pathogen lead. ?

Little bit more on the diversity of these enigmatic microbes .Most of the small scale world is unknown to us Go out into the woods - any woods at all-bend down and scoop up a handful of soil , and you will be holding up to 10 billion bacteria, most of them unknown to science.A couple of Norwegians scooped up a gram of earth They carefully analysed it's bacterial content .They found that this single small sample contained between 4,000 & 5'000 separate bacteria species [more than most text books quote as known] Then they travelled a few miles and scooped up another gram of earth and found it contained 4 t 5 thousand OTHER species

It has been observed that if 9'000 microbial types exist in two pinches of substrate from two localities ,how many more await discovery in other habitats .Well according to one estimate it could be as many as four hundred million .

-----Original Message-----From: infections [mailto:infections ]On Behalf Of Sent: 10 September 2005 17:32infections Subject: [infections] Re: "99% of microbes from most environments are uncultivable"I should note, doesnt say the 99% figure applies to the human body. But I think it would be striking for 99% of human-inhabiting organisms to be cultivable if 99% of soil/sea/etc organisms are incultivable.I agree that it sure seems like most every mammal-inhabting or soil-inhabiting organism *should* be culturable in a mammal-imitating or soil-imitating medium. Thats why refers to a "riddle." Direct observation trumps our cogitations. It seems the evidence that soil/sea/etc organisms are mostly uncultivable comes from detecting the rRNA sequences of unculturable organisms. I have not studied the evidence but its out there for anyone interested.Serology has not quite made syphilis dx trivial; the dx does suffer some equivocality. Therefore the failure to reliably culture T. pallidum is not due to lack of effort. I dont know any reason to assume a pathogen must necessarily emit toxins, let alone detectable (ie humor-stable) ones. I would expect that inflammation alone can create disease in the absence of toxins.> > "It has been known for over half a century that 99% of all microbial > > species from most environments are uncultivable and as such largely > > unavailable to scientists. Attempts to culture more species in the > lab > > by manipulating growth media were unsuccessful. The riddle of > > uncultivable microorganisms has been recognized as the main > challenge > > for basic and applied research in microbiology by the American > Society > > for Microbiology (Young, 1997)."> > > > Kim Lews, his web page> > http://www.biology.neu.edu/faculty03/lewis03.html

[Guest guest]

my passion is myth busting. The thing with bacteria is you find

many species when there's no pathogens. Pathogens emit antibiotic

substances to make the area there own.The majority of nasal swabs

reveal the king of the hill bacterium as it competes in nature

exactly the same as the lion in the wild.I think they are

generalising with this type of statement to include the smallest

multiplying things.If you've got a healthy soil it only becomes

healthy because a certain species or 2 of bacteria are comfortably

fermenting in it.

Often on occasion I have visited the garden and did that bacteria

soil thing and found not many species as opposed to 5000 plus

claimed.I thought if you could find stuff to outcompete the

pathogens in our body it would be interesting.

tony

> > > " It has been known for over half a century that 99% of all

> microbial

> > > species from most environments are uncultivable and as such

> largely

> > > unavailable to scientists. Attempts to culture more species in

> the

> > lab

> > > by manipulating growth media were unsuccessful. The riddle of

> > > uncultivable microorganisms has been recognized as the main

> > challenge

> > > for basic and applied research in microbiology by the American

> > Society

> > > for Microbiology (Young, 1997). "

> > >

> > > Kim Lews, his web page

> > > http://www.biology.neu.edu/faculty03/lewis03.html

[Guest guest]

<dumbaussie2000@y...> wrote:

> Often on occasion I have visited the garden and did that bacteria

> soil thing and found not many species as opposed to 5000 plus

> claimed.I thought if you could find stuff to outcompete the

> pathogens in our body it would be interesting.

> tony

How did you identify the species?

[Guest guest]

I was just looking for identafiable species. Identifying clearly

requires heaps of biochemical tests. i just studied there morphology,

for egs. gram negative spore forming bacteria etc.i do have a friend

that alway's backs me up on what i may think.basically if anything

important is found like pseudonomads you want to know if it's

aueriganosa.

> > Often on occasion I have visited the garden and did that bacteria

> > soil thing and found not many species as opposed to 5000 plus

> > claimed.I thought if you could find stuff to outcompete the

> > pathogens in our body it would be interesting.

> > tony

>

> How did you identify the species?

[Guest guest]

Tony, if you kill the alpha male so to speak, then doesn't a new

alpha male arise, which is why you have to keep testing and switching

abx?

> > > Often on occasion I have visited the garden and did that

bacteria

> > > soil thing and found not many species as opposed to 5000 plus

> > > claimed.I thought if you could find stuff to outcompete the

> > > pathogens in our body it would be interesting.

> > > tony

> >

> > How did you identify the species?

[Guest guest]

Then I dont see how you concluded that there could not possibly be

5000 species present.

> > > Often on occasion I have visited the garden and did that

bacteria

> > > soil thing and found not many species as opposed to 5000 plus

> > > claimed.I thought if you could find stuff to outcompete the

> > > pathogens in our body it would be interesting.

> > > tony

> >

> > How did you identify the species?

[Guest guest]

> > > > Often on occasion I have visited the garden and did that

> bacteria

> > > > soil thing and found not many species as opposed to 5000

plus

> > > > claimed.I thought if you could find stuff to outcompete the

> > > > pathogens in our body it would be interesting.

> > > > tony

> > >

> > > How did you identify the species?

[Guest guest]

Basically because this didn't occur and in general in nature you

have species competing for space by making an area there own by

producing enzymes and toxins making it impossable for other

competition. so to get a 5000 species out of a small area of soil is

sort of very iffy.There's possabilities of very benign organisms

living cloes to each other becaue they just do nothing as far as

contributing to there surroundings.I just found that the bacteria

that makes yogurt blows everything else away when it comes to

culturing the yogurt.The same applies to fermenting wine the

bacteria responsable is sometimes capable of being displaced by

other bacteria that get into the oak of the cask rendering it

worthless and making winemaking impossable.

These claims are possable but in an area of great contribution to

surrounding eco systems the opposite is more the norm IMO.I sort of

thought about why people would feel wonderfull and invigorated by

mud face masks, I sort of come to the theory maybe it is that

distribution of toxins (antimicrobial subsatnces) that may determine

the different levels of excitement to these products.Not to forget

the south american jungle versions of benefits to wound healing and

the like possably fostered by these scenario's.

just babbling again. tony

> > > > Often on occasion I have visited the garden and did that

> bacteria

> > > > soil thing and found not many species as opposed to 5000

plus

> > > > claimed.I thought if you could find stuff to outcompete the

> > > > pathogens in our body it would be interesting.

> > > > tony

> > >

> > > How did you identify the species?

[Guest guest]

The information of the number of species came from two text books ..The Norway study .. ,The diversity of Life p197 & the four hundred million from Trudge , The Variety of Life p8 It is accepted as fact. To me it's fairly conclusive that at least in the soil harmony exists, no dominate species is running rampant ..Perhaps when the food source is unlimited or particularly suited to one microbe things are different .

-----Original Message-----From: infections [mailto:infections ]On Behalf Of dumbaussie2000Sent: 11 September 2005 11:22infections Subject: [infections] Re: "99% of microbes from most environments are uncultivable"Basically because this didn't occur and in general in nature you have species competing for space by making an area there own by producing enzymes and toxins making it impossable for other competition. so to get a 5000 species out of a small area of soil is sort of very iffy.There's possabilities of very benign organisms living cloes to each other becaue they just do nothing as far as contributing to there surroundings.I just found that the bacteria that makes yogurt blows everything else away when it comes to culturing the yogurt.The same applies to fermenting wine the bacteria responsable is sometimes capable of being displaced by other bacteria that get into the oak of the cask rendering it worthless and making winemaking impossable.These claims are possable but in an area of great contribution to surrounding eco systems the opposite is more the norm IMO.I sort of thought about why people would feel wonderfull and invigorated by mud face masks, I sort of come to the theory maybe it is that distribution of toxins (antimicrobial subsatnces) that may determine the different levels of excitement to these products.Not to forget the south american jungle versions of benefits to wound healing and the like possably fostered by these scenario's.just babbling again. tony> > > > Often on occasion I have visited the garden and did that > bacteria > > > > soil thing and found not many species as opposed to 5000 plus > > > > claimed.I thought if you could find stuff to outcompete the > > > > pathogens in our body it would be interesting.> > > > tony> > > > > > How did you identify the species?

[Guest guest]

Certainly, in some infections that is entirely correct.

In others (esp. some Gpositive) it is the load, and the resulting

immune battle with the microbe and may depend on whether fluid, mucous

or pus is formed.

Barb

J wrote:

,as the organisms chew us up & multiply the toxic waste products

of that

> process should be detectable ?? Isn't that toxin the trigger for an

> inappropriate Immune response.... that is toxin load rather than

pathogen load

[Guest guest]

Tony, I just wanted to say that your babbling is the best babbling

on the internet and when I searching for babbling, your insights

always come to mind.

(I know that sounded tongue in cheek, but I really mean't it)

Peg

> > > > > Often on occasion I have visited the garden and did that

> > bacteria

> > > > > soil thing and found not many species as opposed to 5000

> plus

> > > > > claimed.I thought if you could find stuff to outcompete

the

> > > > > pathogens in our body it would be interesting.

> > > > > tony

> > > >

> > > > How did you identify the species?