« A Giant Among Giants | Main | An Inactive Mine Provides Active Opportunities »
by Ramy Aziz
Are any human-associated biofilms "useful" or "beneficial" to human health?
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
Your Information
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Sigh. Apparently I did not proofread my initial post as well as I should have, making a very ironic error. Allow me to repost:
Historically, people have focused on negative microbial interactions as they relate to humans; consider how far Pasteur and Koch took the field, initially, all in the laudable service of reducing human disease. And so it became with biofilms, as the paradigm persisted---though there is a lot of interest in nonpathogenic biofilms, there is a an obvious focus in learning how to "fight" biofilms responsible for disease.
Still, there is quite a bit of evidence of beneficial human-associated biofilms.
In terms of the treatment of disease:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20110388
Also, I consider the mucosal biofilms of the gut---associated with health issues, good and bad---to be another example. I'm sure that Jeff Gordon could describe this much more eloquently than I can! In addition, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that biofilm-associated microbes interact with our own immune system in positive and mutualistic ways.
Speaking of which, here is a meeting I *wish* I could attend, for exactly the reasoning behind this Talmudic Question!
http://www.asm.org/index.php/meetings/3rd-asm-conference-on-beneficial-microbes.html
Sigh. Just look at the preliminary schedule. I wish I could go!
Posted by: Mark O. Martin | July 29, 2010 at 07:01 PM