Superbugs: The end of anti-biotics

[Keith&Co.]

And the type that was dominant in those prior conditions will return to being dominant again.

But why? What part of evolutionary theory predicts that the superbugs will return to this 'wild' state when we stop applying a particular antibody?

They may, but by no means 'must.'

So if the human pressure is removed they will dominate again.

You keep saying this, but haven't shown any reason to think this is true.

And there is no reason for hostility.

What hostility? My vocabulary? It is a mechanism for emphasis, not hostility.

 

[untermensche]

Has everyone forgotten how the immune system adapts? Bugs that have been wiped out by the immune system with the aid of antibiotics will still be acting as if antibiotics were there for some generations, perhaps for the entire time manlike beings remain on the earth. We aren't what we were when antibiotics came on the scene.

No. Bacteria adapt to changing conditions. And they do it quickly.

 

[untermensche]

But why? What part of evolutionary theory predicts that the superbugs will return to this 'wild' state when we stop applying a particular antibody?

They may, but by no means 'must.'

Bacteria adapt to the conditions they find themselves in.

There are the pre-antibiotic conditions and the post-antibiotic conditions. Humans have not evolved in this time.

If you remove the antibiotics you return conditions to pre-antibiotic conditions.

And the bacteria will respond to those conditions the same way they responded to them previously.

So if the human pressure is removed they will dominate again.

You keep saying this, but haven't shown any reason to think this is true.

Bacteria will respond to pre-antibiotic conditions the same way they responded to them to begin with.

The same conditions will yield the same response.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No. Bacteria adapt to changing conditions. And they do it quickly.

How does adapt + adapt quickly mean the strains will jettison an immunity?

If this were true, we would not have superbugs.

In your model, if bugs became resistant to antibody #1, we could use antibody #2. Which would mean we'd stop using antibody #1 and your bugs would jettison that immunity. We could eventually go back to using antibody #1, maybe when antibody #5 starts failing.

But that's not what we see, is it? Doctors do not find that strains adapt away from antibodies that used to work but were abandoned. Or do they?

 

[untermensche]

No. Bacteria adapt to changing conditions. And they do it quickly.

How does adapt + adapt quickly mean the strains will jettison an immunity?

If this were true, we would not have superbugs.

In your model, if bugs became resistant to antibody #1, we could use antibody #2. Which would mean we'd stop using antibody #1 and your bugs would jettison that immunity. We could eventually go back to using antibody #1, maybe when antibody #5 starts failing.

But that's not what we see, is it? Doctors do not find that strains adapt away from antibodies that used to work but were abandoned. Or do they?

Only some of the bacteria become resistant.

You have MRSA and you have MSSA. A type of staph that has one strain susceptible to methicillin and one that is not.

The strain you find determines the antibiotic used.

It is far more complicated than stopping and starting one or more antibiotic. All the antibiotics are contributing to the situation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How does adapt + adapt quickly mean the strains will jettison an immunity?

If this were true, we would not have superbugs.

In your model, if bugs became resistant to antibody #1, we could use antibody #2. Which would mean we'd stop using antibody #1 and your bugs would jettison that immunity. We could eventually go back to using antibody #1, maybe when antibody #5 starts failing.

But that's not what we see, is it? Doctors do not find that strains adapt away from antibodies that used to work but were abandoned. Or do they?

Only some of the bacteria become resistant..

Yes.

But this does not mean that any of the strains are retiring their immunity when we stop applying an antibiotic.

 

[fromderinside]

Has everyone forgotten how the immune system adapts? Bugs that have been wiped out by the immune system with the aid of antibiotics will still be acting as if antibiotics were there for some generations, perhaps for the entire time manlike beings remain on the earth. We aren't what we were when antibiotics came on the scene.

No. Bacteria adapt to changing conditions. And they do it quickly.

Wha? Read!

 

[untermensche]

Only some of the bacteria become resistant..

Yes.

But this does not mean that any of the strains are retiring their immunity when we stop applying an antibiotic.

They only have the immunity in numbers because of the antibiotics.

Remove the antibiotics and they are no longer the best at adapting and their numbers will fall.

They have nothing driving their ability to dominate without the antibiotics.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes.

But this does not mean that any of the strains are retiring their immunity when we stop applying an antibiotic.

They only have the immunity in numbers because of the antibiotics.

Remove the antibiotics and they are no longer the best at adapting and their numbers will fall.

They have nothing driving their ability to dominate without the antibiotics.

Okay, fine, sure.
If there are no antibodies in the environment, then the immunity to any number of antibiotics becomes a disadvantage to surviving.

Yep. That's obvious.

You got it.

You should publish.

 

[untermensche]

They only have the immunity in numbers because of the antibiotics.

Remove the antibiotics and they are no longer the best at adapting and their numbers will fall.

They have nothing driving their ability to dominate without the antibiotics.

Okay, fine, sure.
If there are no antibodies in the environment, then the immunity to any number of antibiotics becomes a disadvantage to surviving.

Yep. That's obvious.

You got it.

You should publish.

I'm not sure publishing would help you.

You have to understand basic principles of genetics first.

Like the wild type was the wild type for environmental reasons, not because they chose to be that way.

And if the environment returned to a pre-antibiotic environment the wild type would reemerge as the dominant type for those same reasons.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Okay, fine, sure.
If there are no antibodies in the environment, then the immunity to any number of antibiotics becomes a disadvantage to surviving.

Yep. That's obvious.

You got it.

You should publish.

I'm not sure publishing would help you.

You have to understand basic principles of genetics first.

Like the wild type was the wild type for environmental reasons, not because they chose to be that way.

And if the environment returned to a pre-antibiotic environment the wild type would reemerge as the dominant type for those same reasons.

Yeah, sure. Because antibody resistance is detrimental if there are no antibodies, so that's why the superbugs would be at a disadvantage. Sure.
Because to become the superbugs they simply HAD to have lost all those advantages they had when they lived in a pre-antibiotic environment.

Sure. That's how genetics works. MUST work. Not sorta, maybe, sometimes works.

 

[untermensche]

I'm not sure publishing would help you.

You have to understand basic principles of genetics first.

Like the wild type was the wild type for environmental reasons, not because they chose to be that way.

And if the environment returned to a pre-antibiotic environment the wild type would reemerge as the dominant type for those same reasons.

Yeah, sure. Because antibody resistance is detrimental if there are no antibodies, so that's why the superbugs would be at a disadvantage. Sure.
Because to become the superbugs they simply HAD to have lost all those advantages they had when they lived in a pre-antibiotic environment.

Sure. That's how genetics works. MUST work. Not sorta, maybe, sometimes works.

We are talking about antibiotics, not antibodies.

And the bacteria that are resistant are a variation from the wild type.

Why did they not exist in numbers before the introduction of antibiotics if they have the same likelihood of survival without them?

You're talking about some fantasy land where wild types exist for no reason.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We are talking about antibiotics, not antibodies.

Whoops. Mea culpa.

And the bacteria that are resistant are a variation from the wild type.

Why did they not exist in numbers before the introduction of antibiotics if they have the same likelihood of survival without them?

So, wait. You want me to explain why bugs that developed a resistance to manmade antibiotics did not dominate the gene pool before they developed the resistance to an antibiotic they hadn't yet encountered....? S'rously?

That's a good one.

You're talking about some fantasy land where wild types exist for no reason.

Nope.
Talking about genetics.
Gene pools or gene strains will retain a trait that gives them an advantage.
They will jettison traits that are detrimental.

And if a specific trait is no longer key to survival, it may be lost without cost due to mutation and further evolution.
However, to my knowledge, gene pools or strains do not jettison traits simply because they are no longer needed.

You have yet to explain any reason that the superbugs would jettison their immunities in the post-anti-biotic environment. Just some oft-repeated blather about 'the wild ones' existing for a nameless reason.

So, really, why? WHY would the superbugs lose their immunity?

Or, what gives the 'wild' bugs an advantage over the superbugs? The superbugs haven't necessarily lost anything the wild bugs have.

 

[untermensche]

Why did they not exist in numbers before the introduction of antibiotics if they have the same likelihood of survival without them?

So, wait. You want me to explain why bugs that developed a resistance to manmade antibiotics did not dominate the gene pool before they developed the resistance to an antibiotic they hadn't yet encountered....? S'rously?

Not explain it. Understand why.

Gene pools or gene strains will retain a trait that gives them an advantage.

Organisms will respond to their environment.

The traits that give them a survival advantage in their present environment will dominate.

Those that depended on traits that now do not give them a survival advantage will no longer dominate.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Organisms will respond to their environment.

And they did. And the survivors had some immunity.

The traits that give them a survival advantage in their present environment will dominate.

But the superbugs will still have all the traits the 'wild' bugs have. So if antibiotics stop, they will be on even footing with the 'wild' bugs, not at a disadvantage.

So there will be no need for the bugs to lose their resistance.

 

[untermensche]

And they did. And the survivors had some immunity.

The traits that give them a survival advantage in their present environment will dominate.

But the superbugs will still have all the traits the 'wild' bugs have. So if antibiotics stop, they will be on even footing with the 'wild' bugs, not at a disadvantage.

So there will be no need for the bugs to lose their resistance.

Bugs don't lose their resistance.

Genes that give a bacteria resistance do not revert to previous genes.

The issue is abundance of the mutation in a population.

When a bacteria becomes resistant it is because it has altered it's defense mechanisms.

If this alteration gave the bacteria an advantage after the elimination of antibiotics it would have given it an advantage before.

But since the mutation that dominated because of antibiotics didn't dominate before antibiotics it follows that these defense mechanisms are not superior to pre-mutation defense mechanisms.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But if that had anything at all to do with reality, then we'd only ever get infected by 'wild' bugs. The superbugs would be at a disadvantage if they ever left the host under a doctor's care and faced environments without antibiotics.

 

[bilby]

Superbugs will lose their antibiotic resistance for the same reason that humans no longer have an appendix, nasal sinuses, tonsils, a coccyx, wisdom teeth, auricular muscles, orbitalis muscles...

 

[fromderinside]

Wherever bilby posts there will be redwood based fertilizer not too far away.

Agree damn it!

 

[rjh01]

But if that had anything at all to do with reality, then we'd only ever get infected by 'wild' bugs. The superbugs would be at a disadvantage if they ever left the host under a doctor's care and faced environments without antibiotics.

This may actually be correct. If the super bugs have some sort of disadvantage, such as a poor breeding rate then the wild variety will take over. But if this assumption is not correct or one country in the world refuses to stop using that antibiotic then the super bugs will continue to exist.