Seed Media Group

Discovering Biology in a Digital World

My thoughts on biology, teaching, life, and exploring the living world via the digital one. Only my opinions are represented by these postings, they do not represent the viewpoints of any funding agency or Geospiza, Inc.

Profile

Sandra Porter I am a microbiologist and molecular biologist turned tenured biotech faculty turned bioinformatics scientist turned entrepreneur. My passion is developing instructional materials for 21st century biology (Geospiza Education).

Search this blog

Learn about DNA with molecular models

Exploring DNA Structure


Subscribe to Geospiza Education News


e-mail digitalbio at gmail.com


DigitalBio Favorites

Molecular Momentos


Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Rotating Blogroll

Science Education Groups

Science Blogs School Fundraiser



Keep up to date

Awards

Red Orbit

Digital Bio at Blogged


Add Digital Bio to your Technorati Favorites!

Interesting places

  • xkcd
  • The Tangled Bank
    MicrobeWorld Radio

    « Teachers step right up! Get your free "An Inconvenient Truth" DVD | Main | with visions of Animalcules dancing in their heads »

    Oh sure, blame it on the bacteria!

    Category: BioinformaticsGenomicsMicrobiologysequence analysis
    Posted on: December 22, 2006 8:00 AM, by Sandra Porter

    Bacteria can cause other epidemics, why not obesity? Is there a relationship between our body weight and our bacterial inhabitants?

    Two reports in Nature (1, 2) suggest that bacterial populations differ between people who are obese and people who not, and that the bacterial inhabitants of their guts, may be partly to blame.

    In one study, the authors studied the bacterial populations of their volunteers' intestines by compiling a data set of 18,348 DNA sequences for bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA by sampling feces. Wow! That's a lot of ... well, I won't say it, but you know what I mean. In the other study, they looked the bacteria in mouse poop. If I were a lab technician at WSU, I know which study I would have preferred.

    The results were pretty interesting. Lean people (and mice) had a higher ratio of one bacterial group (Bacteroidetes) to another (Firmicutes), than obese people (and mice). If obese people dieted, their ratios changed to become more like those found in lean people.

    ratio.gif

    The question that comes to mind, is that maybe the populations of bacteria reflect what people are are feeding them. Maybe obese people eat different kinds of food than lean people.

    Maybe.

    But in one of the mouse studies, the researchers were able to raise mice in sterile environments, add different sorts of bacterial populations to the mice, and show that mice gained more weight when they got the population of bacteria from obese mice than they did when they were colonized with bacteria from lean mice.

    I think the ideas put forth in the articles, that bacteria can breakdown food, that some bacterial species will be more efficient at doing so than others, and that bacterial populations can cause some people to use food more efficiently, are quite reasonable and really intriguing.

    After all, bacteria make it possible for cows (and other ruminants) to live on grass. The bacteria break down the cellulose and the cows get the food. Humans also depend on bacterial metabolites for health. Bacteria make our vitamin K, which we need for blood clotting.

    But, do our bacterial cohabitants really contribute to our weight?

    I'm having this weird flashback to a moment in college when a friend told me that she had managed to repopulate her bowels with "good" bacteria after taking antibiotics. Unfortunately, I can instantly see all kind weird ways that the results of this study might be abused.

    Nevertheless, the idea deserves further investigation.


    References:
    1. Ley, R. et. al. "Microbial ecology: Human gut microbes associated with obesity" Nature 440
    1022-1023 (21 December 2006).

    2. Turnbaugh, et. al. "An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest" Nature 440 Nature 444, 1027-131 (21 December 2006).


    technorati tags: , ,

    Post a Comment

    (Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)





    Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)

    Search All Blogs

    Blogs in the Network

    Top Five: Most Active

    1. Biology needs to explain gravity? 05.16.2008 · PZ Myers
    2. We are such bad boys 05.16.2008 · PZ Myers
    3. California Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Gay Marriage 05.16.2008 · Ed Brayton
    4. Pielke train wreck 05.16.2008 · Tim Lambert
    5. Burn the Sikh! He's Different From Us! 05.16.2008 · Ed Brayton

    Top Science Stories

    powered by SEED - seedmagazine.com