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
« Who are you calling weak? Human jaws are surprisingly strong and efficient
Lungs rebuilt in lab and transplanted into rats »

Baby’s first bacteria depend on route of delivery

Newborn

They are mum’s first gift to her newborn baby on the day of its zeroeth birthday – bacteria, fresh from her vagina. Vaginal bacteria are among the trillions of microscopic hitchhikers that share our bodies with us. Collectively known as the ‘microbiota’, these passengers outnumber our own cells by ten to one. Children partly inherit their microbiota from their mothers. During birth, they pass from the largely bacteria-free conditions of the womb through the microbe-laden vagina into the equally bacterial outside world.

Being slathered in vaginal microbes might not seem like much of a treat from our adult perspective, but to a newborn, it’s a key event. The microbiota are important partners, influencing our physiology and our risk of disease. Now, Maria Dominguez-Bello from the University of Puerto Rico found that the way we enter the world determines the identities of our first bacterial colonisers. Babies delivered by Caesarean section end up with a very different portfolio to those who are born naturally.

To characterise baby’s first bacteria, Dominguez-Bello compared the microbiota of 10 mothers and their newborn babies, four of who had been delivered naturally and six of who were born through C-sections. She sampled the mothers’ skins, mouths and vaginas an hour before delivery, and the babies’ skins, mouths and noses less than five minutes afterwards.

She found that all the infants had the same bacteria all over their bodies. That’s very different to the situation in the mothers (and indeed, other adults), where different parts of the body are as varied in their resident species as deserts are to rainforests. In adult bodies, certain species of bacteria dominate certain habitats, so that your butt microbes have more in common with mine that they do with your elbow bacteria. Again, this wasn’t the case in babies.

Dominguez-Bello also found that the membership of the babies’ bacterial clubs was mainly influenced by their route of delivery. Those who were delivered naturally harboured bacteria all over their bodies that resembled those in their mother’s vagina – mainly Lactobacillus, which help us to digest milk.

But babies who were delivered by C-section were colonised by bacteria that are more commonly found on the skin, including Staphylococcus. These colonists didn’t necessarily come from mum either. The skin bacteria of C-section mothers were no more similar to those of their own babies than to those of other infants delivered in the same way. Instead, it seems that C-section babies pick their first bacteria from the hospital environment.

These early differences could directly affect a baby’s health. Staphylococcus is mostly benign but they can also go rogue, causing a wide variety of infections from spots to pneumonia. Antibiotic-resistant strains such as MRSA are particularly problematic and it’s perhaps unsurprising that in a Californian study, between 64-82% of newborns with MRSA infections were delivered through C-sections.

Other scientists have found similar trends for the bacteria in a baby’s gut, which also differ depending on how the child is delivered. Dominguez-Bello’s new study extends this knowledge to other parts of the body, but it’s more of a starting point for further research (and perhaps a narrow one at that, given that it only considered ten babies) rather than a conclusion in itself. We still need to understand the shifts that take place as children grow and the members of their microbiota rise, fall and take up residence in different body parts.

Dominguez-Bello suspects that all of these events hinge on the moment of birth. She thinks that the bacterial heirlooms that babies inherit from their mothers might act as a shield, preventing more dangerous microbes like MRSA from setting up shop. In this way, early colonisers can influence the direction of late successions. By changing baby’s first bacteria, C-sections could alter the make-up of their later communities, leading to long-term effects on health and nutrition.

There is some evidence to support this idea, but to date, it’s pretty circumstantial. Some studies have suggested that babies delivered through C-section might be more susceptible to allergies, although the increase in risk is pretty small. Nonetheless, in one study, probiotic drinks containing Lactobacillus could help to counteract this increased risk, at least for some types of allergies.

Results like these are easy to politicise, especially since a quarter of babies in the UK are delivered by Caesarean section. But this study is no condemnation of C-section deliveries, which are often necessary. Opinion pieces often decry women who opt for elective C-sections because they are allegedly “too posh to push”, but the reality is very different to the ones these straw (wo)men caricatures present. Official records show that such births only account for 1.5% of the total. And last year, a UK study showed that just 3% of women would opt for a C-section if they didn’t have a medical need for one.

It’s also important to note that this new study merely documents how the method of delivery affects the bacteria that babies inherit. The effect that this has on our health is still largely speculative (contrary to what some papers would have you believe). And whether those effects have any significant importance in the grand scheme of things also remains to be seen. Dominguez-Bello’s paper ends with a call for more research and that’s exactly what is now needed.

Reference: PNAS http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1002601107

More on the microbiota:

  • Gut bacteria in Japanese people borrowed sushi-digesting genes from ocean bacteria
  • The bacterial zoo in your bowel
  • The bacterial zoo living on your skin
  • Gut bacteria – fat or thin, family or friends, shared or unique
  • Human gut bacteria linked to obesity

An introduction to the microbiome

<p>You could be sitting alone and still be completely outnumbered for your body is home to trillions upon trillions of tiny passengers – bacteria. Your body is made up of around ten trillion cells, but you harbour <em>a hundred </em>trillion bacteria. For every gene in your genome, there are 100 bacterial ones. This is your ‘microbiome’ and it has a huge impact on your health, your ability to digest food and more. We, in turn, affect them. Everything from the food we eat to the way we’re born influences the species of bacteria that take up residence in our bodies.</p>
<p>This slideshow is a tour through this “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/opinion/20tue4.html?_r=1">universe of us</a>”. Every slide has links to previous pieces that I’ve written on the subject if you want to delve deeper. Or download a podcast of <a href="blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/10/19/i-microbes-my-radio-4-talk-on-the-hordes-of-microbes-inside-us/">my Radio 4 programme on these hidden partners</a>.</p>
<p>Image by David Gregory &amp; Debbie Marshall, Wellcome Images</p><p>To our microbiome, the human body must seem like an entire planet, full of different ecosystems. This is especially true for those that <a title="Permanent Link to The bacterial zoo living on your skin" href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/notrocketscience/2010/06/23/2009/05/28/the-bacterial-zoo-living-on-your-skin/">live on our skin</a>. At the microscopic scale, the hairy, moist surface of your armpits is as different from the smooth, dry skin of your forearms as a rainforest is to a desert.</p>
<p>In a thorough survey of our skin microbiome, Elizabeth Grice identified species from at least 205 different genera. Your forearm has the richest community with an average of 44 species, while your nostril, ears and inguinal crease (between leg and groin) are the most stable habitats. Grice also found at bacteria from a specific body part have more in common than those from a specific person. Your butt microbes have more in common with mine than they do with your elbow microbes.</p><p>Despite its diversity, the skin microbiome is a tiny country village compared to the <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/notrocketscience/2010/06/23/2010/03/03/the-bacterial-zoo-in-your-bowel/">bustling metropolis inside your bowels</a>. The dark corridors of your intestine house more bacteria than any other part of your body. A team of international scientists led by Junjie Qin and Ruiqiang Li discovered that each of our bowels carries at least 160 bacterial species. Together, our collective guts have just under 3.3 million bacterial genes, more than 150 times as many as reside in our own genomes. They also showed that the gut microbiome of a healthy person looks very different to that of someone with a bowel condition like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis.</p>
<p>Despite this diversity, Peer Bork has shown that the gut bacteria of people from Europe, North American and Japan collapse <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/20/divided-by-language-united-by-gut-bacteria-%e2%80%93-people-have-three-common-gut-types/">into three enterotypes, or gut types</a>. These clusters cut across age, gender, body weight and nationality. Each produces energy in a slightly different way, manufactures a different vitamin and may affect our susceptibility to different diseases.</p>
<p>The quest to understand gut microbes may seem like an arcane niche of science, but it’s actually very important for public health. We rely on these microscopic passengers more than we realise. They harvest energy from our food, provide us with nutrients that would otherwise be denied to us, prevent the growth of harmful bacteria, and more. In many ways, they’re like a forgotten organ. They can also go rogue, changing their community in ways that are linked to obesity or bowel diseases.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Image by Med. Mic. Sciences Cardiff Uni, Wellcome Images</p><p><a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/notrocketscience/2010/06/23/baby%e2%80%99s-first-bacteria-depend-on-route-of-delivery/">We inherit our microbiomes from our mother</a>, picking up billions of them as we slide from her largely bacteria-free womb through her microbe-laden vagina. Being slathered in vaginal microbes might not seem like much of a treat but it’s vital for a newborn.</p>
<p>Babies end up with a very different portfolio of skin and gut bacteria depending on how they are delivered. Those who are born naturally harbour a more diverse array of bacteria, which resemble those in their mother’s vagina, including several species that are important for digestion. Those who are delivered by C-section are colonised by a less diverse array of bacteria, including some like <em>Staphylococcus</em> that are picked up from the hospital environment.</p>
<p>These early differences could directly affect a baby’s health for these first colonisers determine which the species that will follow. The bacterial heirlooms that babies inherit from their mothers might act as a shield, preventing more dangerous microbes like from setting up shop. By changing baby’s first bacteria, C-sections could alter the make-up of their later communities, leading to long-term effects on health and nutrition.</p><p><a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/notrocketscience/2010/08/03/you-are-what-you-eat-%e2%80%93-how-your-diet-defines-you-in-trillions-of-ways/">Our microbiome is like a hidden organ</a>, helping us to break down foodstuffs that our own cells cannot cope with. And in turn, our food affects our microbiome. Our first set is laden with genes for digesting milk proteins, allowing us to make full use of our only source of nourishment as babies. Breast milk might even have evolved to nourish the most beneficial bacteria with special sugars.</p>
<p>Just before we move onto solid foods, our microbiome starts activating genes that break down the complex sugars and starches in plants, preparing us for the menu to come. As our diet diversifies, so do our bacteria. They activate genes that use carbohydrates effectively, produce vitamins, and break down unusual and diverse chemicals. As adults, our microbiome becomes relatively stable, but its membership roster depends on the food we eat. The guts of African villagers who eat high-fibre diets are dominated by plant-digesting specialists, which are much rarer in the guts of Europeans who eat high-fat diets.</p><p>Before the age of better food hygiene, our meals used to provide a rich source of foreign bacteria that our microbiome could plunder for genetic tools. Bacteria trade genes as easily as humans trade gifts. For example, the gut bacteria of Japanese people have borrowed genes from a marine species, which now <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/notrocketscience/2010/04/07/gut-bacteria-in-japanese-people-borrowed-sushi-digesting-genes-from-ocean-bacteria/">allows them to digest the special carbohydrates in seaweed</a>. The marine bacterium eats seaweed, including the types that are used to make nori, a common sushi ingredient.  In the past, when diners wolfed down morsels of nori, some also swallowed seaweed-eating bacteria, which traded genes with those in their own guts.</p>
<p>This wouldn’t happen nowadays because nori is roasted before being eaten. In fact, processing food presents a blockade to bacteria from the outside world and as a result, Western gut communities have become gentrified. They lack genetic diversity, and they have few ways of increasing it.</p>
<p>Images by Alice Wiegand, Alex Kovach, Tristan Barbeyron and Mirjam Czjzek</p><p>The microbiome is more than just our partners-in-digestion – they affect our health too. They have been linked to a variety of medical conditions, including allergies, immune diseases, and even obesity. For example, the balance of the two major groups – the Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes – <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/notrocketscience/2010/06/23/2008/10/06/human-gut-bacteria-linked-to-obesity/">could influence our body weight</a>.</p>
<p>Fat mice and humans have a less diverse milieu of gut bacteria, with a <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience//notrocketscience/2008/12/01/gut-bacteria-fat-or-thin-family-or-friends-shared-or-unique/">greater proportion of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes in their bowels</a>. This ratio increases if we eat high-fat diets and falls if we eat low-fat diets. And if the gut bacteria from fat mice are transplanted into mice with no gut bacteria of their own, they can make the new hosts overeat and pile on the pounds. This research suggests that gut bacteria could be manipulating us for their own ends. Some species send out signals that make us hungrier, encourage us to eat more, and affect the way we store fat. And some of our immune genes help to moderate these signals.</p>
<p>As we learn more about our bacterial partners, we might eventually find ways of influencing them to improve our health. This is already happening. In 2008, Alexander Khoruts from the University of Minnesota managed to cure a woman with a “vicious gut infection” by giving her <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13micro.html?_r=2&amp;pagewanted=1">a transplant of her husband’s gut bacteria</a>.</p><p>What happens in the gut doesn’t stay in the gut – it sometimes affects the brain. Animal studies have started to show that the microbiome, from its staging ground in the bowel, can influence the development of its host’s brain.</p>
<p>Rochellys Diaz Heijtz found that <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/notrocketscience/2011/01/31/gut-bacteria-steer-the-development-of-the-young-brain/">germ-free mice, without any microbiome</a>, were more active, less anxious and less risk-averse than usual. Their brains differed in the activity of over a hundred genes that provide cells with energy, influence chemical communications in the brain and strengthen the connection between nerve cells. Heijtz could even shift her germ-free mice towards “normal” behaviour and genetic activity by giving them a microbiome transplant, but this only worked early in their lives.</p>
<p>But later,  Javier Bravo  at University College Cork managed to<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/08/29/from-guts-to-brains-%e2%80%93-eating-probiotic-bacteria-changes-behaviour-in-mice/"> change the behaviour of normal adult mice</a> by feeding them with a probiotic bacterium  called <span id="apture_prvw1" class="aptureLink"><span class="aptureLinkIcon" style="background-position: right -1348px;"> </span><span class="aptureLink snap_noshots"><em>Lactobacillus rhamnosus</em></span></span>,  often found in yoghurts and dairy products. The bacterial menu changed  the levels of signalling chemicals in the rodents’ brains, and reduced  behaviours associated with stress, anxiety and depression.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Gil Sharon found that <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/notrocketscience/2010/11/01/gut-bacteria-change-the-sexual-preferences-of-fruit-flies/">gut bacteria can shape the sexual choices of flies</a>. Flies that are raised on diets of starch prefer to mate with other “starch flies” while those raised on maltose prefer “maltose flies”. When Sharon dosed the flies with antibiotics, she killed both their gut bacteria <em>and </em>their sexual preferences. If she inoculated the sterile flies with the microbiome of their peers, their preferences reappeared instantly. It’s possible that the bacteria influence the levels of sex pheromones that affect the fly’s attractiveness.</p>
<p>These studies show that you can’t understand an animal’s evolution simply by considering the evolutionary pressures that act on its genome. You also have to consider the genes of the bacteria and other passengers that live inside it. We’re each like a superorganism – a unified alliance between the genes of several different species, only one of which is human.</p>The teeming masses of the microbiome also contain a record of our evolutionary past. Howard Ochman found that the <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/notrocketscience/2010/11/16/gut-bacteria-recap-the-evolution-of-apes/">evolution of the gut microbes in great apes</a> perfectly recaps that of their host. The bacteria from the two species of gorilla are more closely related to each other than they are to human gut bacteria. Geography, diet and disease aside, the main thing that influences the members of these bacterial cities is the species of the host. You could reconstruct the evolution of the apes, simply by comparing the bacteria in their bowels.<p>The bacteria of our microbiome are mostly our allies. <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/10/13/beneficial-gut-bacteria-can-become-virus-collaborators/">But they can also they can be turned against us.</a> Two new studies in mice have found  that viruses - including one that causes polio, and another that causes cancer - can exploit gut bacteria to infect our bodies.</p>
<p>They use molecules on the bacteria's surfaces as reins, to ride towards host cells, or backstage passes to sneak past the immune system. Our microscopic allies can turn into  unwitting collaborators for dangerous infections.</p>
Share

June 23rd, 2010 Tags: baby, Bacteria, birth, C-section, microbiota, vagina
by Ed Yong in Anthropology and social science, Bacteria, Child development, Medicine & health, Microbiome | 8 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

8 Responses to “Baby’s first bacteria depend on route of delivery”

  1. 1.   Tom Says:
    June 23rd, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    Ed, I just found your blog and I intend to read back through a lot of it when I find the time. It’s great to have a place with cool scientific content that appeals to a broad demographic. Keep up the great work.

  2. 2.   southlakesmom Says:
    June 23rd, 2010 at 9:01 pm

    I had my two kids, one by each method. The one delivered by C section is robustly healthy and always has been. The one delivered vaginally struggled with skin and food allergies for the first few years, and was diagnosed (via an anaphylactic response) with nut allergies when he was three, so that will be a life long thing. On the other hand, he outgrew the rest of the stuff, is 13 years old and nearly 6 feet tall, a competitive swimmer, i.e. obviously fine except for needing to carry the epi-pen for nuts.

    So, once again, my kids have to do things ‘backwards’ from what the studies might suggest!

  3. 3.   Dennis Says:
    June 24th, 2010 at 10:34 pm

    I feel dirty!

  4. 4.   elizabeth Says:
    June 24th, 2010 at 11:36 pm

    with regard to C-sections- i have 4 kids, the first 2 by emergency C-section, the latter 2 by elective C-section. those second 2 go into the stats as elective, but tain’t nothing to do with “too posh to push”. the ultimate goal of pregnancy and labour is a BABY. everyhting else is baggage. kind of glad my son was C-section tho’. if he read this and thouoght he had my vaginal microbiota all over him, he might just self flay!

  5. 5.   Vaishnavi Raghunathanhan Says:
    June 26th, 2010 at 8:15 am

    I’vent given birth.. yet. I believe anything that’s not natural has its own added baggage. It happens for a reason.

  6. 6.   Jennie Says:
    June 26th, 2010 at 10:02 am

    “just 3% of women would opt for a C-section if they didn’t have a medical need for one.”

    The definition of medical need, and the causes of its arising, should be looked at. In Holland, where most births are at home, the need for medical intervention is much lower than in the UK.

    For the record, I have three sons, all by vaginal delivery with a few puffs of entonox at the end, all breast fed and weaned naturally. They are extraordinarily healthy.

    Sometimes I think we tend to forget that Homo sapiens did not evolve with access to hospitals, C sections and formula milk.

  7. 7.   Terrance Smelcer Says:
    August 11th, 2011 at 4:20 am

    Merely, admirable what you have performed here. It truly is pleasing to seem you express through the heart as well as your clarity on this important content material may be quickly looked. Impressive publish and will appear ahead in your long run update.

  8. 8.   Jo Says:
    November 19th, 2011 at 10:12 am

    @Jennie, do us all a favor and you or your family ever has medical problems (cancer, broken bones, etc.) don’t go to a doctor or hospital. Let natural selection take it’s course since homosapians didn’t evolve with access to hospitals.

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

    • 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

      • Neurons transplanted into mouse spines reverse chronic pain
      • Virtual resurrection shows that early four-legged animal couldn’t walk very well
      • New sense organ helps giant whales to coordinate the world’s biggest mouthfuls
      • Here’s where all the magic happens
      • Blind mice regain sight after scientists persuade their optic nerves to grow
      • I’ve got your missing links right here (19 May 2012)
      • Meet the paralysed woman who commandeered a robotic arm
      • Deep-sea bacteria redefine life in the slow lane
      Categories

      Categories

      Archives

      Archives

      • May 2012
      • April 2012
      • March 2012
      • 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