This seems more like marketing hyperbole than anything else. They're just sterile bags (though the pictures of the plasma sterilization are kind of cool). You don't need plasma to sterile a bag: if we really wanted to use bags for tissue culture, we would have had them 30 years ago.
As a graduate student in the field, I can tell you that the humble petri dish has FAR too may uses, and is far too easy to use, to ever be replaced by something as awkward as a bag for pretty much anything. I suppose that the bags could perhaps be used for some function that's currently being served by the (also enclosed and sterile) flasks that we usually use for tissue culture tissue culture, but bags are harder to stack in an incubator, where space can often be in short supply.
Whiz-bang hyperbole aside, plasma-sterilized bags will probably find a niche use in which it would be handy to culture in a container that can be easily cut away, tissue engineering comes to mind, but to assert that petri dishes are going the way of the dodo is patently absurd.
As it turns out, the town was founded by only 8 families, and only minimally intermarried with anybody from outside.
Hmm... for some reason, the term "founder effect" comes to mind.
While it's certainly true that p16 is not only known, but a major focus of cancer research, this paper isn't announcing its discovery, it's describing an impressive property of naked mole rat cellular biology (namely, its resistance to cancerous transformation), which they traced to the naked mole rat's version of the p16 protein (which is homologous to human p16).
Like a previous poster said, I would be more convinced had the researchers transfected a human cell with the mole rat p16 and showed it to be resistant to cancerous transformation, but that being said, this is likely to be a pretty big discovery. Considering the central role that p16 plays in oncogenesis, this can potentially lead to new insights about that process.
I can see that you didn't read TFA. Read it now. I'll wait.
Done yet? Good. Now you know that the study took place in 45 locations in (wait for it) the United States, that it focused mainly on metropolitan areas with chlorinated water sources, and that the issue was likely exacerbated, and certainly not eliminated, by chlorination.
Probably removing and dipping the shower head in some bleach every now and then will also help.
Chlorine is not recommended. From the original paper:
In one case a Denver Metro showerhead sampled on three occasions, attempted cleaning with bleach solution resulted in a 3-fold increase in the load of M. gordonae, from approximately 25% of the assemblage sequences initially (BSK1Q) to 72% and 74% subsequently (BSK2Q and BSK3Q). Although anecdotal, this observation is interesting in light of the general resistance of mycobacteria to chlorine, which also may be one reason for the mycobacterial enrichment in municipal systems compared to well-water fed systems (discussed below).
(Not seeing what the comparison to TB adds to the story beyond sensationalism, for example.)
Mycobacterium avium is a cousin of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. They have similar biological properties, and are treated with the same manners of long-course antibiotics. The former causes tuberculosis, and the latter (in humans) causes the almost sexily-named "hot tub lung". Fun!
I'd think that the chlorine in the water would help dissuade bacteria from growing. I wonder if that 1/3rd can be accounted for by low chlorine levels, or well water? We have non-chlorinated well water here, as do both my parents and grandmother, all in different parts of the country.
You would think... but the authors of the original article point out that mycobacteria are generally resistant to chlorination, which may be why they're enriched in these cases: less competition. This is supported by the fact that they only found the enrichment in municipal (chlorinated) water sources, but not the (four) un-chlorinated well-water sources.
I have so many questions that this article doesn't answer.
1) Where was the sample taken? UK showers? World wide? Third world countries?
2) Is there an information on different kinds of shower heads? for example, is this more common on massaging heads, low flow/high pressure heads, etc?
3) Does hot water kill this bacteria? Is it more common for people who take colder showers than people who take hot ones?
4) I always start the shower first before getting under it, since it takes about 5+ seconds to warm up... any ideas if this affects infection? (Thats more of a study question than a question from the article).
5) Any real way to prevent the growth? Someone already asked if CLR kills it. If this is so common, mind telling me how I can help myself?
I've never read a BBC article that left me with more questions.
The original article is here. TFA does answer a few of these, but some are not addressed.
Where was the sample taken?: 45 different locations in five US states (NY, CO, ND, IL, TN)
Is there an information on different kinds of shower heads?: No, but they did speculate that there may be a difference between plastic vs metal shower heads and well-water vs municipal-supplied water. Plastic tends to have more, and only municipal sources seemed to have the mycobacterial films (the sample size was too small to say for certain though).
Does hot water kill this bacteria? Is it more common for people who take colder showers than people who take hot ones?: They didn't test the average temperature of the household members' showers, but hot water will kill most of the critters.
I always start the shower first before getting under it...: Running the water at any temperature for a few minutes will wash most of the looser bugs out.
Any real way to prevent the growth?: If you're immunosuppressed or have another condition that makes you susceptible to mycobacterial infection, you might want to use private well water and a metal showerhead, and run your water for a few minutes before showering.
For those craving details, the original article can be found here.
Here's a copy of the abstract, for my fellow bio nerds:
The environments we humans encounter daily are sources of exposure to diverse microbial communities, some of potential concern to human health. In this study, we used culture-independent technology to investigate the microbial composition of biofilms inside showerheads as ecological assemblages in the human indoor environment. Showers are an important interface for human interaction with microbes through inhalation of aerosols, and showerhead waters have been implicated in disease. Although opportunistic pathogens commonly are cultured from shower facilities, there is little knowledge of either their prevalence or the nature of other microorganisms that may be delivered during shower usage. To determine the composition of showerhead biofilms and waters, we analyzed rRNA gene sequences from 45 showerhead sites around the United States. We find that variable and complex, but specific, microbial assemblages occur inside showerheads. Particularly striking was the finding that sequences representative of non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) and other opportunistic human pathogens are enriched to high levels in many showerhead biofilms, >100-fold above background water contents. We conclude that showerheads may present a significant potential exposure to aerosolized microbes, including documented opportunistic pathogens. The health risk associated with showerhead microbiota needs investigation in persons with compromised immune or pulmonary systems.
Germs are EVERYWHERE. Hospitals do all kinds of disinfection that you wouldn't and couldn't do in your own home, and people still get staph infections.
While true there are germs everywhere, this is actually a tad more than nothing. First, this isn't a generic brand germ, it's a pretty well-known lung pathogen (a weakling cousin of TB, actually). Second, it seems to like forming biofilms inside shower heads, so the water that comes out has two orders of magnitude more critters than your average point in "everywhere".
I can't say I agree with you. IAA molecular pathologist who studies papillomaviruses, and from time to time somebody will ask me whether viruses are alive or not alive, to which I always respond "yes". They're kind of like a biological koan that way.
When infecting their hosts, viruses are effectively part of the host's cellular biology and are as alive as the system that it requires for replication. When they're inactive, they exist either as packets of protein and genetic material completely lacking in metabolism, or as DNA integrated into the hosts genomic DNA (in the case of latant retroviruses).
Most virologists will give the same answer when asked if viruses are living or non-living: "yes". This includes the author of the source you cited.
Slashdot Mirror
This seems more like marketing hyperbole than anything else. They're just sterile bags (though the pictures of the plasma sterilization are kind of cool). You don't need plasma to sterile a bag: if we really wanted to use bags for tissue culture, we would have had them 30 years ago.
As a graduate student in the field, I can tell you that the humble petri dish has FAR too may uses, and is far too easy to use, to ever be replaced by something as awkward as a bag for pretty much anything. I suppose that the bags could perhaps be used for some function that's currently being served by the (also enclosed and sterile) flasks that we usually use for tissue culture tissue culture, but bags are harder to stack in an incubator, where space can often be in short supply.
Whiz-bang hyperbole aside, plasma-sterilized bags will probably find a niche use in which it would be handy to culture in a container that can be easily cut away, tissue engineering comes to mind, but to assert that petri dishes are going the way of the dodo is patently absurd.
Which is every pathogen’s wet dream.
What could possibly go wrong...?
Just imagine how they would feel if we started growing whole people on beds of nanowires!
Allow me to clarify...
As it turns out, the town was founded by only 8 families, and only minimally intermarried with anybody from outside. Hmm... for some reason, the term "founder effect" comes to mind.
Like a previous poster said, I would be more convinced had the researchers transfected a human cell with the mole rat p16 and showed it to be resistant to cancerous transformation, but that being said, this is likely to be a pretty big discovery. Considering the central role that p16 plays in oncogenesis, this can potentially lead to new insights about that process.
Well, just a thought, but wouldn't one such possible control be shining the laser on flies without ATP receptors?
The cost of the one senior executive's porn surfing was somewhere between $13,800 and $58,000.
I can see that you didn't read TFA. Read it now. I'll wait.
Done yet? Good. Now you know that the study took place in 45 locations in (wait for it) the United States, that it focused mainly on metropolitan areas with chlorinated water sources, and that the issue was likely exacerbated, and certainly not eliminated, by chlorination.
Yes, reading really is fundamental.
Probably removing and dipping the shower head in some bleach every now and then will also help.
Chlorine is not recommended. From the original paper:
In one case a Denver Metro showerhead sampled on three occasions, attempted cleaning with bleach solution resulted in a 3-fold increase in the load of M. gordonae, from approximately 25% of the assemblage sequences initially (BSK1Q) to 72% and 74% subsequently (BSK2Q and BSK3Q). Although anecdotal, this observation is interesting in light of the general resistance of mycobacteria to chlorine, which also may be one reason for the mycobacterial enrichment in municipal systems compared to well-water fed systems (discussed below).
(Not seeing what the comparison to TB adds to the story beyond sensationalism, for example.)
Mycobacterium avium is a cousin of Mycobacterium tuberculosis . They have similar biological properties, and are treated with the same manners of long-course antibiotics. The former causes tuberculosis, and the latter (in humans) causes the almost sexily-named "hot tub lung". Fun!
I'd think that the chlorine in the water would help dissuade bacteria from growing. I wonder if that 1/3rd can be accounted for by low chlorine levels, or well water? We have non-chlorinated well water here, as do both my parents and grandmother, all in different parts of the country.
You would think... but the authors of the original article point out that mycobacteria are generally resistant to chlorination, which may be why they're enriched in these cases: less competition. This is supported by the fact that they only found the enrichment in municipal (chlorinated) water sources, but not the (four) un-chlorinated well-water sources.
Ain't biology cool?
I have so many questions that this article doesn't answer.
1) Where was the sample taken? UK showers? World wide? Third world countries? 2) Is there an information on different kinds of shower heads? for example, is this more common on massaging heads, low flow/high pressure heads, etc? 3) Does hot water kill this bacteria? Is it more common for people who take colder showers than people who take hot ones? 4) I always start the shower first before getting under it, since it takes about 5+ seconds to warm up... any ideas if this affects infection? (Thats more of a study question than a question from the article). 5) Any real way to prevent the growth? Someone already asked if CLR kills it. If this is so common, mind telling me how I can help myself?
I've never read a BBC article that left me with more questions.
The original article is here. TFA does answer a few of these, but some are not addressed.
Here's a copy of the abstract, for my fellow bio nerds:
The environments we humans encounter daily are sources of exposure to diverse microbial communities, some of potential concern to human health. In this study, we used culture-independent technology to investigate the microbial composition of biofilms inside showerheads as ecological assemblages in the human indoor environment. Showers are an important interface for human interaction with microbes through inhalation of aerosols, and showerhead waters have been implicated in disease. Although opportunistic pathogens commonly are cultured from shower facilities, there is little knowledge of either their prevalence or the nature of other microorganisms that may be delivered during shower usage. To determine the composition of showerhead biofilms and waters, we analyzed rRNA gene sequences from 45 showerhead sites around the United States. We find that variable and complex, but specific, microbial assemblages occur inside showerheads. Particularly striking was the finding that sequences representative of non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) and other opportunistic human pathogens are enriched to high levels in many showerhead biofilms, >100-fold above background water contents. We conclude that showerheads may present a significant potential exposure to aerosolized microbes, including documented opportunistic pathogens. The health risk associated with showerhead microbiota needs investigation in persons with compromised immune or pulmonary systems.
Germs are EVERYWHERE. Hospitals do all kinds of disinfection that you wouldn't and couldn't do in your own home, and people still get staph infections.
While true there are germs everywhere, this is actually a tad more than nothing. First, this isn't a generic brand germ, it's a pretty well-known lung pathogen (a weakling cousin of TB, actually). Second, it seems to like forming biofilms inside shower heads, so the water that comes out has two orders of magnitude more critters than your average point in "everywhere".
I can't say I agree with you. IAA molecular pathologist who studies papillomaviruses, and from time to time somebody will ask me whether viruses are alive or not alive, to which I always respond "yes". They're kind of like a biological koan that way.
When infecting their hosts, viruses are effectively part of the host's cellular biology and are as alive as the system that it requires for replication. When they're inactive, they exist either as packets of protein and genetic material completely lacking in metabolism, or as DNA integrated into the hosts genomic DNA (in the case of latant retroviruses).
Most virologists will give the same answer when asked if viruses are living or non-living: "yes". This includes the author of the source you cited.