DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
Not Exactly Rocket Science
« Suicidal menopausal aphids save their colony by sticking themselves to predators
I won the 3 Quarks Daily Science Prize. ‘Top quark’. Heh. »

When bacteria fight bacteria, we lose

Haemophilius_Streptococcus

There’s a war going on that you’re completely oblivious to, even though it’s happening right under your nose. Well, actually, inside your nose. Rival species of bacteria compete for precious real estate within the damp linings of your nasal passages. In some cases, this microscopic combat works in our favour, when harmless species repress the growth of deadlier ones. But not always – sometimes a species can only gain the advantage over its competitors by becoming more virulent, and we suffer collateral damage.

Elena Lysenko from the University of Pennsylvania has discovered one such rivalry, at least within the noses of mice. She studied the conflict between two species of bacteria – Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae, both of which can cause pneumonia, meningitis and other human diseases.

S.pneumoniae spends much of its time in our noses without causing any harm. Only in a minority of carriers does it gain the potential to cause diseases, such as pneumonia and sepsis. But that doesn’t make any sense, because these conditions are potentially fatal but not contagious. The bacteria risk killing their host (and by extension themselves) without gaining the opportunity to colonise a new one. Why would they go down this dead end route? Lysenko thinks she has an answer – S.pneumoniae turns nasty as a side effect of its tussle with H.influenzae.

There’s not enough space in a nose for these two bacteria. H.influenzae plays dirty – it actually summons our own immune system into battle, setting white blood cells called neutrophils against S.pneumoniae. This call-to-arms is so effective that in most cases, H.influenzae can completely oust its rival from a nose.

But S.pneumoniae has a defence. The bacterium is surrounded by a sugary capsule and there are at least 90 different types of these coats. Some of them are particularly thick and they act as suits of armour that protect the bacterium against white blood cells that try to engulf it. Encased in these shields, S.pneumoniae can evade the host’s immune system. It neutralises H.influenzae’s secret weapon but it also gains the ability to invade other tissues and cause serious diseases.

Lysenko demonstrated the effects of this battle using both mathematical models and experimental evidence. When she incubated H.influenzae with different strains of S.pneumoniae, she found that only those with armoured shells could hold their ground against their competitor. Strains without these thicks shells were soon driven out. And just to show that this competitive edge wasn’t due to the genes carried by different strains, she managed to turn a weedy strain into a tough one by transplanting an armoured shell onto it.

But why doesn’t S.pneumoniae use its armoured shells all the time? To find out, Lysenko pitted the different strains against each other in the absence of any other competing species. This duel revealed that the armoured strains are actually inferior to non-armoured ones in terms of colonising the nose. Presumably, making a heavy shell takes up a lot of energy, which means that these well-defended strains can’t grow as quickly as other more vulnerable ones.

They only gain the upper hand when H.influenzae is around. At that point, the ability to resist death by white blood cell more than makes up for their natural disadvantages. And of course, the armoured strains, by shrugging off attacks from the immune system, are better at causing invasive infections than their mild-mannered cousins.

Of course, Lysenko has only demonstrated that this happens in mice but it is likely that similar competitions operate in human noses. And that’s fascinating – it means that many human diseases really have nothing to do with us at all. They’re the result of battles waged between different species of bacteria, and we just happen to be caught in the crossfire.

Reference: Current Biology http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.05.051

More on bacteria:

  • Fighting bacteria with bacteria – common nose germ provides new weapon against superbugs
  • Bacteria on your keyboard point to your identity but forensic value is unlikely
  • When enslaved bacteria go bad
  • The bacterial zoo in your bowel
  • Cooperating bacteria are vulnerable to slackers
  • Bacteria and languages reveal how people spread through the Pacific



Twitter.jpg Facebook.jpg Feed.jpg Book.jpg

Share

June 17th, 2010 Tags: Bacteria, Haemophilus, Lysenko, Streptococcus, virulence
by Ed Yong in Bacteria, Medicine & health | 9 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

9 Responses to “When bacteria fight bacteria, we lose”

  1. 1.   Jumblepudding Says:
    June 17th, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    So my nose is basically the Gaza strip?

  2. 2.   sittingoverhere Says:
    June 17th, 2010 at 8:12 pm

    The problem of the ‘armoured’ or encapsulated strains being less efficient colonisers is somewhat overcome by their ability to undergo a shift in ‘armour quantity’. This process, called ‘phase variation’, results in lower quantities of sugary capsule being expressed at the sites of colonisation but once inside the blood or other tissues capsule production goes up to protect the pneumococcus in those environments. It’s thought that less capsule is better when trying to attach to and colonise a surface as bacterial adhesions can interact better with host cells when there isn’t so much capsule in the way.

    Great article Ed, I couldn’t help myself though :)

  3. 3.   Szwagier Says:
    June 18th, 2010 at 8:15 am

    I propose a two-nose solution.

  4. 4.   Geoff Says:
    June 18th, 2010 at 8:38 am

    Thanks, Ed…I might have to use this article in my Microbiology class next year!

  5. 5.   George Anderson Says:
    June 19th, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    Geeze next time I get the sniffles, I’m going to have to call the UN.

  6. 6.   Cufflinks Says:
    June 20th, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    I wonder how hayfever affects the battle going on in my nose. All that mucus must swing things in one bacterias favour.

  7. 7.   Jenny Says:
    June 24th, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    So does that mean that with Haemophilus influenzae B vaccinations, there is less strep pneumo turning into serious pneumonia? What part does non-typeable H. influenzae play in all this?

  8. 8.   JustanEducator Says:
    June 26th, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    This would be great to use when teaching about resource allocation, evolution, and competition. It really shows the complexity of the natural world around us. I wonder if this shows us a path or reason for why some pathogens are so virulent and others are not. It’s always been perplexing, to me, that organisms have evolved to destroy their host and in essence themselves. THANKS for sharing! – Justan Educator

  9. 9.   Chris Says:
    July 18th, 2010 at 10:37 am

    Great story Ed. I am a colleague of Elena Lysenko and she was pleased to see her research has not gone unnoticed.

Leave a Reply





    • About Not Exactly Rocket Science



      Ed Yong is an award-winning British science writer. His work has appeared in New Scientist, the Times, WIRED, the Guardian, Nature and more. Not Exactly Rocket Science is his attempt to talk about the awe-inspiring, beautiful and quirky world of science to as many people as possible.

      My personal website with biography, other writing, speaking engagements, and more

      Some interviews with me
      Some awards that I’ve won
      Who my readers are: 2008, 2009 and 2010 editions
      A complete list of posts from this blog

      Follow me on Twitter or Google+

      Contact me on edyong209[at]googlemail[dot]com

    • Support science writers


      Every month, I choose ten excellent blog posts and donate £3 to their authors. If you want to join me in supporting great science writing, use the first button. Any donations in June will be split evenly between these ten writers.

      If you would like to support this blog in particular, use the second button. For anything you donate, I will match a third and donate it to the month's chosen writers.

    • What others say

      "One of the best sites for in-depth analysis of interesting scientific papers" - The Times

      "One of the smartest science bloggers I read... a prime practitioner among the new generation of scientifically authoritative bloggers" - David Rowan, editor of Wired UK

      "Engaging and jargon-free multimedia storytelling about science and the digital age" - National Academy of Sciences

      "A consistently illuminating home for long, thoughtful, and thorough explorations of science news" - National Association of Science Writers

      "Head and shoulders above many broadsheet hacks" - Ben Goldacre

      "Ed Yong... is made of pure unobtanium and rides TWO Toruks." - Frank Swain

      "Ed Yong is better than chocolate, fairy lights, and kittens chasing yarn. That is all." - Christine Ottery

    • Do you want to be a science writer?

      Read origin stories and advice from over 130 science writers from around the world.
    • Not Exactly Rocket Science content

      RSS Recent Posts

      Recent Posts

      • The two-genome waltz: how the threat of mismatched partners shapes complex life [Repost]
      • Hacking the genome with a MAGE and a CAGE [Repost]
      • The Peking Man, and other lost treasures that science wants back
      • Defeating dengue by releasing mosquitoes with virus-blocking bacteria [Repost]
      • Tiny water insect makes record-breaking song with his penis [Repost]
      • Forget butterflies – wasps and flies have hidden rainbows in their wings [Repost]
      • I’ve got your missing links right here (04 February 2012)
      • Random gene sets can predict breast cancer survival better than supposedly cancer-related ones
      Categories

      Categories

      Archives

      Archives

      • February 2012
      • January 2012
      • December 2011
      • November 2011
      • October 2011
      • September 2011
      • August 2011
      • July 2011
      • June 2011
      • May 2011
      • April 2011
      • March 2011
      • February 2011
      • January 2011
      • December 2010
      • November 2010
      • October 2010
      • September 2010
      • August 2010
      • July 2010
      • June 2010
      • May 2010
      • April 2010
      • March 2010
      • February 2010
      • January 2010
      • December 2009
      • November 2009
      • October 2009
      • September 2009
      • August 2009
      • July 2009
      • June 2009
      • May 2009
      • April 2009
      • March 2009
      • February 2009
      • January 2009
      • December 2008
      • November 2008
      • October 2008
      • September 2008
      • August 2008
      • July 2008
      • June 2008
      • May 2008
      • April 2008
      • March 2008
      • February 2008
    • RSS Twitter

    • My wife, who makes it all possible

      Alice.jpg
    • Blogroll

      Science blogs

      Science blogs

      • 80 Beats
      • A Blog Around the Clock
      • Adventures in Ethics and Science
      • Aetiology
      • Alice Bell
      • Ars Technica
      • Arthropoda
      • Atlantic Science
      • Babel's Dawn
      • Bad Astronomy
      • Bad Science
      • BPS Research Digest Blog
      • Cancer Research UK Science Update Blog
      • Child's Play
      • Cocktail Party Physics
      • Collision Detection
      • Culture Dish
      • Culturing Science
      • Deep Sea News
      • Discoblog + NCBI ROFL
      • Dot Earth
      • Dr Petra Boynton
      • Drugmonkey
      • EarthLab
      • Embargo Watch
      • Epiphenom
      • Evolving Thoughts
      • Finite Attention Span
      • Fistful of Science
      • Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview
      • Gene Expression
      • Genetic Future
      • Genomeboy
      • Genomicron
      • Gimpy's Blog
      • Highly Allochthonous
      • Ionian Enchantment
      • JL Vernon Presents American Psico
      • Joanne Loves Science
      • John Pavlus
      • Just a Theory
      • Lab Rat
      • Laelaps
      • Last Word on Nothing
      • Lay Scientist
      • Loom
      • Mark Changizi
      • Mind Hacks
      • Myrmecos
      • Neuroanthropology
      • Neurologica
      • Neuron Culture
      • Neurophilosophy
      • Neurotic Physiology (SciCurious)
      • Neurotribes
      • Obesity Panacea
      • Observations of a Nerd
      • On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess
      • Open Minds and Parachutes
      • Political Science (Evan Harris)
      • Predictably Irrational
      • Retraction Watch
      • Save Your Breath for Running Ponies
      • Schooner of Science
      • Science Punk
      • ScienceLine
      • ScienceLush
      • Sentence First
      • Sex, Drugs and Rockin' Venom – Confessions of an Extreme Scientist
      • Skepchick
      • Speakeasy Science
      • Superbug
      • Take as Directed
      • Terra Sigillata
      • Tetrapod Zoology
      • The Artful Amoeba
      • The Chicken or the Egg
      • The Examining Room of Dr Charles
      • The Flying Trilobite
      • The Frontal Cortex
      • The Gleaming Retort
      • The Great Beyond
      • The Intersection
      • The Inverse Square Blog
      • The Millikan Daily
      • The Primate Diaries
      • The Science Project
      • Thoughtomics
      • Thus Spake Zuska
      • TYWKIWDBI
      • Vagina Dentata
      • Voyages Around my Camera
      • Weird Bug Lady
      • White Coat Underground
      • Why Evolution is True
      • Wild Muse
      • Wired Science
      • Words of Science
      • XKCD
      • Zooillogix
      Other blogs

      Other blogs

      • Cafe Philos
      • Miss Cellania
    • NetworkedBlogs
      Blog:
      Not Exactly Rocket Science
      Topics:
      science, biology, news
       
      Follow my blog


  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us