• certified_expert@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    It comes from a Cave at the northwest of Romania. So it may as well be a bacteria that turns you into a vampire or something…

    • msage@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Don’t.

      There are two scenarios:

      1. he will spread it to his followers and it will kill millions
      2. the brain worms will just eat the bacteria, rendering this whole test pointless
        • derek@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Bears are notoriously scarce this time of year in places where most bears are. I suppose its also generally difficult for worms to find things. Ever asked a worm for help finding your keys? They’re terrible at that.

  • Quilotoa
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    It didn’t answer the most important question which is, Are they pathogenic?

    • dgdft@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 day ago

      It did.

      Psychrobacter SC65A.3 is a strain of the genus Psychrobacter, which are bacteria adapted to cold environments. Some species can cause infections in humans or animals.

      If it’s not immediately obvious: The intended takeaway is that this particular strain probably isn’t pathogenic itself, but it’s completely plausible that such resistance can spread via HGT to pathogenic species, within the genus or not.

      • Quilotoa
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        That didn’t answer whether these particular bacteria are pathogenic.

        • dgdft@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          It does to the target audience.

          What you’re missing is that Linnaean taxonomy breaks down when discussing bacteria, and the line between strain/species doesn’t really exist.

          Bacteria swap a lot of genetic material asexually, including across dramatically different species. Pathogenicity can also be dramatically modulated by presence of other species and environmental conditions.

          The idea of a particular strain or species of bacteria being inherently pathogenic in a binary yes/no way is a surprisingly flimsy and unhelpful one.

          • Quilotoa
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            I don’t want to know if these bacteria are potentially pathogenic. I want to know if they’re pathogenic.

            • dgdft@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 day ago

              How are you distinguishing those ideas?

              Are we talking about “has actually been found infecting human patients”?

              • Quilotoa
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                16 hours ago

                Yeah, I really didn’t think that through. I guess we can’t go testing them on random people.

                • dgdft@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  15 hours ago

                  Even if we ignore any ethical concerns, when you’re sampling from an extreme environment, the strains you’re finding will, with >99.9% certainty, have substantially diverged from a biologically identical ancestor that’s spent a fair number of generations infecting hosts.

                  So you also get a weird Ship-of-Theseus type question of “are these still really the same bacteria?”. And if you assume they are going to be different strains after adapting to different environments, then you can also safely assume that whatever strain you’re sampling in an extreme environment has a >99.9% probability of being in the potentially-harmful, contextually-harmful, or non-harmful bucket, by virtue of the fact you found it isolated in the wild rather than in living hosts.

                  To put it a little more simply: if you’re looking for something with a demonstrated ability to infect people, you’ll probably find that inside or nearby people, not in an icy, remote cave.