Home >
Community >
Why aren't superbugs weaker than their wild type?
Upvote
26
Downvote
+ Medical research
+ Bacteria
+ Evolution
+ Resistance
Posted by
Khang Nhat
Why aren't superbugs weaker than their wild type?
In short, because mutations are not defined as specific.
A mutation of any bacteria could be mutation that could be weak or strong.
Weak & Strong would be quantified by our technology, treatments and comprehension of the bacteria.
There are two factors important to understanding the change of the bacteria.
Epigenetic Adaptation (No Genetic Mutation)
Genetic Adaptation (Genetic Mutation and Selection)
Bacteria can acquire large pieces of DNA from other bacteria, viruses and the environment.
How Does Selective Pressure Impact Antibiotic Resistance?
In order for a gene to remain functional and a part of the bacteria’s
genome over an extended period, it has to help improve the survival
and/or competitiveness of the bacteria. If a gene stops being helpful
it will eventually become non-functional and will be removed from the
genome. This means that the development and maintenance of antibiotic
resistance is usually dependent on the bacterial population being
frequently exposed to non-lethal doses of the antibiotic (note: some
bacteria are intrinsically resistant to particular antibiotics). This
process eliminates those bacteria that have lost resistance, and
increases the percentage of resistant bacteria. In real life, this
means that antibiotic resistance is likely to emerge in environments
where bacteria are frequently exposed to antibiotics. On an individual
level, this means that a person is more likely to develop an
antibiotic resistant infection from undergoing long-term or
prophylactic antibiotic treatment, as opposed to short-term antibiotic
treatments of acute infections. This also means that bacteria may
lose resistance to antibiotics that are no longer frequently used.
In short, because mutations are not defined as specific.
A mutation of any bacteria could be mutation that could be weak or strong.
Weak & Strong would be quantified by our technology, treatments and comprehension of the bacteria.
There are two factors important to understanding the change of the bacteria.
Epigenetic Adaptation (No Genetic Mutation)
Genetic Adaptation (Genetic Mutation and Selection)
Bacteria can acquire large pieces of DNA from other bacteria, viruses and the environment.
How Does Selective Pressure Impact Antibiotic Resistance?
In order for a gene to remain functional and a part of the bacteria’s genome over an extended period, it has to help improve the survival and/or competitiveness of the bacteria. If a gene stops being helpful it will eventually become non-functional and will be removed from the genome. This means that the development and maintenance of antibiotic resistance is usually dependent on the bacterial population being frequently exposed to non-lethal doses of the antibiotic (note: some bacteria are intrinsically resistant to particular antibiotics). This process eliminates those bacteria that have lost resistance, and increases the percentage of resistant bacteria. In real life, this means that antibiotic resistance is likely to emerge in environments where bacteria are frequently exposed to antibiotics. On an individual level, this means that a person is more likely to develop an antibiotic resistant infection from undergoing long-term or prophylactic antibiotic treatment, as opposed to short-term antibiotic treatments of acute infections. This also means that bacteria may lose resistance to antibiotics that are no longer frequently used.
First of all: When it comes to evolution, Biology doesn't talk of 'strong' and 'weak' , it talks of 'fitness' ("survival of the fittest", for example), which is about how well adapted to their environment an organism is. Fitness includes how well it can survive in its environment and how much it can produce vital offspring.
This seems logical because in ordinary environment, the wild type of virus should be the strongest one. Any mutation of it is to fight back the drug, hence it is not the strongest one anymore
This is a misunderstanding of evolution. The wild type of a species is not the fittest this organism can be. That it is the wild type just means that it evolved and spread. Something that doesn't evolve can't spread (as an hyperbolic example, it might be advantageous for humans to have wings, but since we didn't evolve it, our wild type doesn't include it).
It also helps to remember that "the wild type" is not a uniform thing. There are many genetic variations which we still consider to be the wild type. Even bacteria that reproduce through asexual reproduction are not all the same, even within one host.
In the natural environment of the bacteria you are talking about, an antibiotic resistance confers little benefit because they don't encounter it. So if it evolves, it won't help these organisms survive and would only spread throughout the population by chance. On the contrary, it might even confer a disadvantage - for example, penicillin resistance required producing the protein beta-lactamase. In a penicillin free environment, this might just be a costly extra without a benefit. Over time, it might get lost.
In a human taking antibiotics, however, these bacteria with an antibiotic resistance are indeed fitter and have a survival advantage. Bacteria with multiple resistances even more so. Between bacteria, these resistances can actually be transferred by something called "transformation" that involves actually picking up genetic material, so evolving multiple resistances also isn't as uncommon as it may seem.
As for your virus example, without knowing more, I'd guess that the fitness reduction in the more resistant virus strain is probably a side effect of the resistance. Getting more or less fit through evolving resistance to treatment is not, in itself, a difference between viruses and bacteria.
First of all: When it comes to evolution, Biology doesn't talk of 'strong' and 'weak' , it talks of 'fitness' ("survival of the fittest", for example), which is about how well adapted to their environment an organism is. Fitness includes how well it can survive in its environment and how much it can produce vital offspring.
This seems logical because in ordinary environment, the wild type of virus should be the strongest one. Any mutation of it is to fight back the drug, hence it is not the strongest one anymore
This is a misunderstanding of evolution. The wild type of a species is not the fittest this organism can be. That it is the wild type just means that it evolved and spread. Something that doesn't evolve can't spread (as an hyperbolic example, it might be advantageous for humans to have wings, but since we didn't evolve it, our wild type doesn't include it).
It also helps to remember that "the wild type" is not a uniform thing. There are many genetic variations which we still consider to be the wild type. Even bacteria that reproduce through asexual reproduction are not all the same, even within one host.
In the natural environment of the bacteria you are talking about, an antibiotic resistance confers little benefit because they don't encounter it. So if it evolves, it won't help these organisms survive and would only spread throughout the population by chance. On the contrary, it might even confer a disadvantage - for example, penicillin resistance required producing the protein beta-lactamase. In a penicillin free environment, this might just be a costly extra without a benefit. Over time, it might get lost.
In a human taking antibiotics, however, these bacteria with an antibiotic resistance are indeed fitter and have a survival advantage. Bacteria with multiple resistances even more so. Between bacteria, these resistances can actually be transferred by something called "transformation" that involves actually picking up genetic material, so evolving multiple resistances also isn't as uncommon as it may seem.
As for your virus example, without knowing more, I'd guess that the fitness reduction in the more resistant virus strain is probably a side effect of the resistance. Getting more or less fit through evolving resistance to treatment is not, in itself, a difference between viruses and bacteria.
(though I agree with your answer) sort of perpetuate a misunderstanding. Maybe discuss in terms of advantages in niches? I'm not sure exactly how to address it except in that way. And the cost to the bacteria which develops an antibiotic resistance is a great point.More
In short, because mutations are not defined as specific.
A mutation of any bacteria could be mutation that could be weak or strong.
Weak & Strong would be quantified by our technology, treatments and comprehension of the bacteria.
There are two factors important to understanding the change of the bacteria.
Bacteria can acquire large pieces of DNA from other bacteria, viruses and the environment.
Check out This Article for more information.
In short, because mutations are not defined as specific.
A mutation of any bacteria could be mutation that could be weak or strong.
Weak & Strong would be quantified by our technology, treatments and comprehension of the bacteria.
There are two factors important to understanding the change of the bacteria.
Bacteria can acquire large pieces of DNA from other bacteria, viruses and the environment.
Check out This Article for more information.
More
VOTE
VOTE
(This answer is related to my answer on Bacteria resistance to natural antibiotics on the Biology SE)
First of all: When it comes to evolution, Biology doesn't talk of 'strong' and 'weak' , it talks of 'fitness' ("survival of the fittest", for example), which is about how well adapted to their environment an organism is. Fitness includes how well it can survive in its environment and how much it can produce vital offspring.
This is a misunderstanding of evolution. The wild type of a species is not the fittest this organism can be. That it is the wild type just means that it evolved and spread. Something that doesn't evolve can't spread (as an hyperbolic example, it might be advantageous for humans to have wings, but since we didn't evolve it, our wild type doesn't include it).
It also helps to remember that "the wild type" is not a uniform thing. There are many genetic variations which we still consider to be the wild type. Even bacteria that reproduce through asexual reproduction are not all the same, even within one host.
In the natural environment of the bacteria you are talking about, an antibiotic resistance confers little benefit because they don't encounter it. So if it evolves, it won't help these organisms survive and would only spread throughout the population by chance. On the contrary, it might even confer a disadvantage - for example, penicillin resistance required producing the protein beta-lactamase. In a penicillin free environment, this might just be a costly extra without a benefit. Over time, it might get lost.
In a human taking antibiotics, however, these bacteria with an antibiotic resistance are indeed fitter and have a survival advantage. Bacteria with multiple resistances even more so. Between bacteria, these resistances can actually be transferred by something called "transformation" that involves actually picking up genetic material, so evolving multiple resistances also isn't as uncommon as it may seem.
As for your virus example, without knowing more, I'd guess that the fitness reduction in the more resistant virus strain is probably a side effect of the resistance. Getting more or less fit through evolving resistance to treatment is not, in itself, a difference between viruses and bacteria.
Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance
Mechanisms of Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics
What is fitness?
(This answer is related to my answer on Bacteria resistance to natural antibiotics on the Biology SE)
First of all: When it comes to evolution, Biology doesn't talk of 'strong' and 'weak' , it talks of 'fitness' ("survival of the fittest", for example), which is about how well adapted to their environment an organism is. Fitness includes how well it can survive in its environment and how much it can produce vital offspring.
This is a misunderstanding of evolution. The wild type of a species is not the fittest this organism can be. That it is the wild type just means that it evolved and spread. Something that doesn't evolve can't spread (as an hyperbolic example, it might be advantageous for humans to have wings, but since we didn't evolve it, our wild type doesn't include it).
It also helps to remember that "the wild type" is not a uniform thing. There are many genetic variations which we still consider to be the wild type. Even bacteria that reproduce through asexual reproduction are not all the same, even within one host.
In the natural environment of the bacteria you are talking about, an antibiotic resistance confers little benefit because they don't encounter it. So if it evolves, it won't help these organisms survive and would only spread throughout the population by chance. On the contrary, it might even confer a disadvantage - for example, penicillin resistance required producing the protein beta-lactamase. In a penicillin free environment, this might just be a costly extra without a benefit. Over time, it might get lost.
In a human taking antibiotics, however, these bacteria with an antibiotic resistance are indeed fitter and have a survival advantage. Bacteria with multiple resistances even more so. Between bacteria, these resistances can actually be transferred by something called "transformation" that involves actually picking up genetic material, so evolving multiple resistances also isn't as uncommon as it may seem.
As for your virus example, without knowing more, I'd guess that the fitness reduction in the more resistant virus strain is probably a side effect of the resistance. Getting more or less fit through evolving resistance to treatment is not, in itself, a difference between viruses and bacteria.
Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance
Mechanisms of Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics
What is fitness?
More
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE