Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Becky Jungbauer | May 29th 2009 09:53 AM | 7 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More A Truth Universally Acknowledged articles

All

About Becky Jungbauer

A scientist and journalist by training, I enjoy all things science, especially science-related humor. My column title is a throwback to Jane Austen's famous first line in Pride and Prejudice


... Full Bio

On the drive home yesterday afternoon I heard a fascinating story on NPR about an ecosystem near and dear to all humans - our skin. Even if bacteria aren't your thing, the story and the findings are really interesting (and actually could be applicable to a wide host of conditions and diseases).

Now, any good microbiology student knows about the vast swath of bacteria that live in and on our bodies. (Have you ever swabbed your belly button and grown the resultant unicellular life on a petri dish? Very cool.) But scientists working on the Human Microbiome Project revealed that the human body contains 10 times as many bacterial cells as it does human cells, according to the NPR report. They also found that bacteria are "part of genuine ecosystems — akin to life on the savannah, the ocean or the rich life of a tropical rain forest."

"We think of the skin as a desert," says Julie Segre, who studies skin, the body's largest organ, at the National Human Genome Research Institute. "But within the desert of our dry skin, there are these streams, and those are the creases of our bodies. And then there are the oases, so places that are very moist and rich. That would be something like the underarm or the bellybutton."

The researchers sampled "the bacterial wildlife" from 20 different spots on the bodies of 10 healthy volunteers. The spots were chosen because they are associated with different dermatological conditions - eczema and psoriasis, for example.

What they found was quite startling - even though the skin cells might be the same and the proximity quite close (eczema on the inside of the elbow, psoriasis on the outside), the bacteria are completely different! Why does that matter? Well, even though psoriasis and eczema don't appear to be caused by bacteria, they could be a reaction, triggered by a change in the ecosystems of the bacteria on our skin.







The most diverse spot on your skin? The forearm, with 44 bacteria species on average, according to this LiveScience article. By comparison, behind the ear saw only 19 bacteria species on average.

"So when we think about what promotes health and what causes disease, we have to consider that it could be the bacteria and the fungi and the other microorganisms that live together with us — that they could be out of balance," Segre says.

What a neat way to think about disease! But my next question was, why haven't we figured this out before? Not to worry, NPR addressed that too:

Considering that the field of microbiology is more than 100 years old, one might think scientists would have discovered all this long ago. But the problem has been that 99 percent of skin bacteria don't grow in the laboratory, so scientists couldn't identify them. Now, they can fingerprint bacteria's DNA and identify specific species. And that's opened up a whole new world.

Given the enormous variety of bacteria catalogued in this latest "population census," NPR says, it's likely that the bacteria in total have far more genes than we do.

Comments

Gerhard Adam's picture
Given the temperatures outside today, the bacteria on my body are experiencing the equivalent of global warming.  Their only advantage is that they don't have any ice caps that might melt (at least none that I'm aware of).

logicman's picture
That's a lot of biomass!

What would the average human weigh if every cell in the body, together with flora and fauna, had the same mass as the body's heaviest cell type? 

How big would we be in the case of the largest cell type?

Could we still fit through a car door?

A recent episode of science-friday was on the same topic. It's pretty good, worth a listen:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/videos/watch/10043

Becky Jungbauer's picture
Thanks, Chris! I am a Science Friday fanatic, as I have a secret crush in Ira. Well, not so secret because it's now on all of the Internets. I didn't know it was today's topic, so either Ira read my blog and whipped up a show or we're just on the same wavelength. :)

adaptivecomplexity's picture
This stuff is an example of the tremendous power of new sequencing technologies - we would never know about much about this microbial diversity without next-gen sequencing.
But the problem is, sequencing is about all we have right now. It's extremely difficult to test hypotheses about the role of these microbes in disease, in part because most of them are unculturable (we detect their presence by sequencing). 

I'm seeing the frustration first-hand (there is a huge microbiome metagenomics lab right next to ours): the possibilities are exciting, but it's extremely hard to get beyond just the basic observation that these microbes are present, to some degree or another, in all of us.


Gerhard Adam's picture
Given the vast amount of knowledge that we lack regarding microbes ... does it strike anyone as risky to be promoting "kills 99% of germs" as a routine cleaning practice?


logicman's picture
Having got the silliness out of my system a little earlier today, see above, I have a serious line of inquiry to suggest.

It appears to me, as an outsider to biology, that there is a broad, but positive correlation between what I would call 'perspiration zones' and the microbiome classes.  This suggests two lines of inquiry:

1 - the relevance of sweat volume to the variance.

2 - the relevance of sweat chemisty variation to the microbiome variance, if such sweat variance exists.

For culturing, I would be looking, rather obviously, at skin/sweat chemistry by location, but I would also consider microbiome exposure/nonexposure to light.

Another factor:  sweat flow and mixing.  If sweat from one area flows into sweat from another area, and the sweats are different, this would make a third environment.

I suggest that there are varieties of sweat and base this on the core concepts of evolution, without which, all biomes found in sweat would be one species.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.