Seed Media Group

Mike the Mad Biologist

Mad rantings about politics, evolution, and microbiology

Search this blog

Profile

ntm4-30-7 Mad rantings about politics, evolution, and microbiology. Comment policy: say what you want, but back it up with an email address. I don't like anonymous trolls.

Recent Posts

Donors Choose Drive

Thanks!

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Science Links

« What Do Focus Groups Actually Tell Us? | Main | An Exciting New Area for Creationist Science »

Linkage and the Antibiotic Resistance Problem

Category: AntibioticsE. coliGeneticsMicrobiologyWe're Really Fucked
Posted on: September 12, 2008 11:03 AM, by Mike

New data show that antibiotic resistance genes travel together, at least in E. coli isolated from farms. Lookee, a picture:

Slide1
(click to embiggen)

These are the major types of antibiotics. Anytime you see a "+", that means that a gene that provides resistance to some or all of the antibiotic in that class*. For example, the second "+" in the first column means that E. coli with a tetracycline resistance gene are more likely than those without a tetracycline resistance gene to also have an aminoglycoside resistance gene. And by more likely, it's usually five to fifty times more likely.

When strains are resistant to multiple classes of drugs, not only are they harder to treat, but it is much harder to reduce resistance, since the use of any single drug 'drags along' all of the other resistance genes (the technical term is linkage).

If this were easy, I suppose we would have solved this by now....

Cited article: Gow SP, Waldner CL, Harel J, Boerlin P. 2008. Associations between antimicrobial resistance genes in fecal generic Escherichia coli isolates from cow-calf herds in western Canada. Appl Environ Microbiol. 74:3658-66.

Comments

That's not a picture, that's a table. Pictures in scientific articles are called figures, and tables are called...tables. That's a table. It says so right on the top.

Posted by: Michael Schmidt | September 12, 2008 3:03 PM

I included this in my introductory lectures back in the '70's. If fish taxonomist knew about this back in the 70's, what is new?

Posted by: Jim Thomerson | September 12, 2008 5:08 PM

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)

Blogs in the Network

Advertisement

Top Five: Most Active

  1. Zombies defend Christmas! 11.22.2008 · PZ Myers
  2. Not my cup of tea 11.22.2008 · PZ Myers
  3. Oh. Canada. 11.22.2008 · Orac
  4. Quadrant's war on science 11.21.2008 · Tim Lambert
  5. Little Isis Says Science... 11.22.2008 · Isis the Scientist

Search All Blogs