A Dangerous Antibiotic-Resistant Gene Has Spread The World. We Now Know Where It

A Dangerous Antibiotic-Resistant Gene Has Spread The World. We Now Know Where It Started

We did this.

DAVID NIELD 31 MAR 2018

The mcr-1 gene, which helps bacteria resist colistin – one of the few remaining antibiotic drugs of last resort that still work – has now reached hospitals all across the world.

And thanks to new research, we now have more evidence of where it came from – pig farms in China.

While experts had previously thought the gene developed on Chinese pig farms, due to their extensive use of colistin on the animals, the latest study offers more evidence to back this idea up.

It pinpoints the start of the spread to sometime in 2005.

Although there's nothing good about the rise of mcr-1 and antibiotic resistance in general, the genetic analysis techniques used in this research could help scientists get a better handle on the spread of superbugs in the future.

"The speed at which mcr-1 spread globally is indeed shocking," says lead researcher Francois Balloux, from University College London (UCL) in the UK.

By sequencing the genomes of 110 bacterial strains and comparing them to existing genomic data, the team identified a large dataset of 457 mcr-1 positive genome sequences, taken from humans and farm animals spread across five continents.

That enabled them to show exactly where mcr-1 had emerged from, and how it spread globally – attaching itself to various bacterial pathogens by "hitchhiking" on different mobile genetic elements.

"By deciphering the genetic code of these bacteria we found it was possible to predict not only how and where but also when mcr-1 started to spread," says one of the researchers, Lucy van Dorp from UCL.

"This is so important as the presence of mcr-1 across the globe, in many different bacteria species, all within only a decade highlights the ease and speed with which these resistant genes can be disseminated."

Now we've been able to track how mcr-1 spreads, we might be able to better prepare ourselves for the next antimicrobial resistance gene (AMG) to emerge. That's going to take a worldwide effort and a lot of cooperation between countries, the researchers say.

Because of its potentially severe side effects, colistin is only used as an antibiotic of last resort for infections such as E. coli, but the spread of mcr-1 is rendering it ineffective.

The gene can hop between bacteria of different species, making it very difficult to stop.

As hospitals continue to struggle against the rise of the superbugs, and experts warn that the situation is gradually going to get worse, scientists are scrambling for ways to upgrade our medications to meet the challenge. DNA sequencing could be one way to do that.

"Given the dearth of new antibiotics in the pipeline, our best hope to avert the current public health crisis is to improve stewardship of existing drugs, by harnessing the potential of bacterial genome sequencing and translate it into improved surveillance and diagnostics tools," says Balloux.

The findings have been published in Nature Communications.

Links

• https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03205-z
• https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=FBALL82
• https://www.ucl.ac.uk/biosciences/departments/gee
• https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lifesciences-faculty/
• https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/headlines2/0318/260318-antibiotic-resistance-gene/

[Source: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0318/260318-antibiotic-resistance-gene]

MCR-1 has been a bit of a boogey man for the last couple years. Yes the fact that it allows spreadable (they found plasmids with it, no?) resistance to a last-effort drug is worrisome, but simple hygene and proper food safety is enough to prevent most bacterial infections. E coli is most commonly spread by fecal matter contamination if I remember right.

On a related subject:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-43571120



One of the most straightforward ways of preventing the rise of antibiotic resistance crossing over from animals is to first reduce the amount of antibiotics used in the growth stages when manufacturing animals, and when antibiotics are used, keep the ones used separate from the ones used to treat humans.

Additionally, get yourself checked and wear protection.

If your concerned about antibiotic resistance. Spend a little more and buy grass fed, organic meats from the store. Your worth it.

Sven One wrote: If your concerned about antibiotic resistance. Spend a little more and buy grass fed, organic meats from the store. Your[sic] worth it.

It's a sort of prisoner's dilemma there, because if anyone overuses antibiotics (especially ones deemed last line of defense), it just adds to the probability of resistance to them. How would being grass-fed help in this context?
Also Akkarin hit it on the head here:

Akkarin wrote: One of the most straightforward ways of preventing the rise of antibiotic resistance crossing over from animals is to first reduce the amount of antibiotics used in the growth stages when manufacturing animals, and when antibiotics are used, keep the ones used separate from the ones used to treat humans.

Additionally, get yourself checked and wear protection.

Because most meats a injected with Antibotics, steroids, and iodine and nitrates. When, consumption of these meats it makes Antibotics less or non effective. But, keep in mind I did read every last post.

Akkarin wrote: One of the most straightforward ways of preventing the rise of antibiotic resistance crossing over from animals is to first reduce the amount of antibiotics used in the growth stages when manufacturing animals, and when antibiotics are used, keep the ones used separate from the ones used to treat humans.

Additionally, get yourself checked and wear protection.

And... avoid Asia?

You can eat all the grass fed beef you like, but if the person next to you has a superbug... the superbug just doesn't screen your eating habits before deciding you'd be a good host.

Because most meats a injected with Antibotics, steroids, and iodine and nitrates. When, consumption of these meats it makes Antibotics less or non effective. But, keep in mind I did read every last post.

U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017, October 12). Steroid hormone implants used for growth in food-producing animals. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website: https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm055436.htm

Haspel, T. (2015, February 23). Is grass-fed beef really better for you, the animal and the planet? Retrieved from the Washington Post website: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-you-the-animal-and-the-planet/2015/02/23/92733524-b6d1-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html?utm_term=.3421dd2f8797

It is pretty sick that the animals that most eat endure the atrocious living conditions that require them to get routine antibiotics. I'll concede to that. Organic isn't necessarily better, nor safer, though.

Luthien wrote: Organic isn't necessarily better, nor safer, though.

In the EU, though I can't speak for the safety of the food, the rules for organic are far stricter than even those for free-range classifications, necessitating much higher animal welfare. Further it's my understanding that many of the health concerns with animal manufacture are due to the squalid conditions they live in which foster bacterial infection hence the need for antibiotics, conditions which aren't present in organic farming models.

Akkarin wrote: ... many of the health concerns with animal manufacture are due to the squalid conditions they live in which foster bacterial infection hence the need for antibiotics, conditions which aren't present in organic farming models.

Indeed, that is what I touched upon, there, when I said, "... animals that most eat endure the atrocious living conditions that require them to get routine antibiotics." When it comes to organic vegetables, it is more dangerous since pesticides are still used (the organic kind) and at higher amounts. The pesticides in conventional farming are much safer. The term, "organic," is much more a marketing tactic to get you to buy one item over one that doesn't use it. Same goes for "non-GMO."

All I can say is I've been eating organic beef, grass fed butter and beef and I've never felt better. Anyone who's seen food Inc. Or any doc. On our food industry would know the animals in our country are treated horrible and live in horrible conditions. It made me almost go vegan at one point. But, if someone has a super germ chances are they aren't gonna tell you or even know some of them. In US, our food has so much gmos, chemicals, antibiotics in them who knows if you could consider it "food" anymore.

Our bodies consume the antibiotics from stuff like meat and when we get sick really bad our bodies don't react to the prescription pills the doctors prescribe and it gets worst even to the extreme of death. Say what you want, but I've done a lot of research on this...espically the fda and their sponsors.

Say what I want? Mkay. Just because you don't understand the science behind something, it doesn't mean that it's dangerous or bad for your health. I side with the scientific majority, here. The ones who actually know what they're talking about. If chemicals are so bad, stop breathing and drinking anything because it's all chemical. GMO foods are food. I understand the phobia of not wanting to take in antibiotics unnecessarily. Antibiotics are not good for our microbiomes. That's why prescription antibiotics are only given for a course of a certain amount of days. They destroy good gut bacteria along with the bad and leave room for the ones not killed off to flourish and make us sick. But, the antibiotics in the meat people eat are at safe enough levels to not be so dangerous. Eating meat is a choice, I'll give you that. Eating anything is a choice. Moral or not, if you care about your survival, you will eat. Otherwise, just starve yourself.

That was a out right immature response Luthien. I don't know what I am talking about? Ok, if you wanna look at science go look up some of these chemicals that are in your food seriously. Who, ever said I don't eat meat? I do. Now, your making a case against vegans? Lol... look at the toxicology, in most red meats, the carcinogens which is in cigarettes. Eating is a choice? Yes sir it is indeed. I am overweight, I am making positive changes in my personal life that works. I wasn't attacking those who do eat gmos, or processed foods. But, I find it was that people know of these things and still don't do anything about it. You gotta take care of your temple.

I once knew a man who chose notNOT to take medications and see doctors , you know what he died of? As he said he ran out of Time. Diets and the word diet often are synonymous with trends unfortunately. Some have stances and beliefs and some have diftent - practices and faiths - they don’t just revolve solely around religion. Can we as modern day Jedi live in a world where other people’s views are as valid as ours and deserve the same value and freedom as our own? Not just in religion... but in all things ... can we believe in the inherit worth of all or step on their sandcastles if they don’t look and are like ours? Hmmm
I myself don’t take the flu shot anymore after I got back from my last tour of war. Do I get sick - off and on. Do I eat meat - mmmmm on the grill or bbq pit I eat rich lobster and everything I like - in balance. I encourage all to ha e a balance in as much in their life’s as possible - here too. My pops ( not my biological) drinks windex when he’s sick. Works for him. I don’t. Some people soak in mud- goat poop- cow poop- buffalo poop- hot water cold water - this world is full of remedies and practices I don’t try myself. I may some day! Not sure about the pooo but I may have a leach or two some day on me .

@Carlos, I always appreciate you input on subjects. Very well said and your right.

There was a news article about a 100+ year-old lady who says she's lived as long because she drinks Dr. Pepper. That's obviously not true, so take a liberal dash of salt with people who say that scientific consensus is either wrong or that it says something incredibly vague yet conveniently ideological.
Science isn't syncretic: there are things that are right and wrong. Scientific consensus is built off of tests surrounding specific conditions, creating a larger picture using inductive reasoning. Do a little research of your own from academic sources both from journals that agree with you and dissenting views. Try to understand the mechanisms of it before saying "eating grass fed meat will prevent all diseases" - sure it's probably healthier for you, but that doesn't make it disease resistant. Shutting yourself into an ideological echo chamber is suicide for your mind.
Luthien might've been a bit harsh, but makes valid points

Rex
Do you think

With science

There are things proven
And there are things yet to be proven ? Rather than using common words like
Right and wrong?

The future is unknown, so I live and act based on the present.
This thread is in the science forum, so there are rules to play by. I wouldn't go into the abrahamic forum and talk Buddhism. I stand by what I said, because scientific tests have an outcome. Even a flawed experiment exhibits certain truths because the physical world acts in a given way i.e. incorrect inputs will lead to flawed outputs.
According to the body of scientific work I have encountered, I believe something. If you wish to speak in a scientific context, anecdotal evidence isn't worth much. I play by the rules, and am willing to be challenged by others on that level field

Luthien wrote: When it comes to organic vegetables, it is more dangerous since pesticides are still used (the organic kind) and at higher amounts. The pesticides in conventional farming are much safer.

More dangerous!! Got links?? Curious minds are curious....