Gonorrhea acquires a piece of human DNA

Northwestern University ^ | February 13, 2011 | Unknown

[adorno]

I'm not a DNA researcher, and I'm not even a researcher about the human defense mechanisms, but, I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. ;)

Introducing DNA changes to the pathogens that prey upon you is an ineffective method, because you cannot ‘get’ them all at once, and the more detrimental the disadvantage, the more those unaffected will dominate subsequent generations.

You don't have to "get them all at once"; just the ones that constitute the original invasion or infection. Infections start out with a few "invaders" and the number of them get larger with time. So, if the body is able to attack the few before they become the "many", then there is no need to "get them all".

[Pollster1]

Every year an estimated 700,000 people in the United States . . . acquire gonorrhea.

I can't help thinking about what this means for those who fool around. The odds for those who are young and not sexually active, for those in a monogamous relationship, and for those who abstain from sex are all excellent. As for those who engage in casual sex or who patronize prostitutes, the odds are not pretty.

[allmendream]

Yes there is. Bacteria are not only adept at gaining foreign DNA, they are ‘experts’ at getting rid of any DNA that isn’t ‘worth its salt’.

If any at all present in your body didn’t get the DNA your immune system (by some unknown mechanism) was introducing, then those that didn’t get the DNA would dominate subsequent generations. Those that gained it would experience selective pressure to rid themselves of it, and any mutation that rendered it inoperable would be favored.

It would be, first of all an amazing unknown mechanism, and secondly - an attempt to beat a bacteria at its own game.

You don’t win that way, it is an outlandish strategy presupposing unknown mechanisms that, even if true, wouldn’t be effective.

Reality is, by most accounts, weird enough. Our immune system introducing DNA into bacteria is weird, but not weird enough - because it wouldn’t work.

[1010RD]

Excellent and astute series of replies. Thanks for sharing.

[allmendream]

No problem.

They refer to the human sequence the bacteria has acquired as an “element”. This usually denotes a sequence of DNA that is bound by a specific 3-D protein, usually a transcription activator or repressor.

For example, the difference between lactose tolerance as an adult and lactose intolerance is a mutation in a transcription repressor ‘element’ near the lactose gene. In almost all mammals this repressor turns off the gene in adulthood, in Northern European populations and some African cattle herding populations this DNA ‘element’ is mutated, so that the lactose gene is expressed as an adult.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, this DNA is doing, and what advantage (if any) it confers upon those bacteria with it.

[adorno]

Sounds like you've done the research already to come up with your conclusions.

Reality is, by most accounts, weird enough. Our immune system introducing DNA into bacteria is weird, but not weird enough - because it wouldn’t work.

So, according to your research or understanding, DNA introduced by a host into an invader is doomed to fail in changing the characteristics of the invader because the invader is "too smart" or has it's own defensive mechanism. But, genetic material that "invades" an intruder might be "intended" as a defense mechanism by the host as an attempt to render the invader "harmless" by changing the dangerous characteristics of that invader. According to you, DNA exchange is a one way street, where the Gonorrhea bacteria are the ones "taking" from the host, and it's not the host attempting to defend itself by "introducing" it's own DNA into the invader.

The way I see it, most of how a body's defense mechanism works is still to be discovered, and we don't know the entire picture yet.

[allmendream]

Wow, does reality intrude much into your world, do you actually read my responses, or just read what you want to read in them?

I never said a bacteria was “too smart”. That is your own misconception.

Evolution would work against your proposed mechanism, there is no “smart” required.

A change in the dangerous characteristics of an invading pathogen through introduction of new DNA into its genome would not work for the three reasons I already outlined, and there was no “smart” required from the bacteria in either....

1) unknown mechanism completely removed from anything observed in how the immune system works. This is obviously the weakest objection because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But it presupposes a rather complex and bizarre mechanism that has never been observed, Occum’s razor precludes taking this assumption seriously without any evidence. This MIGHT be evidence of what you suggest, but first we will have to see what the human DNA element is doing in the bacteria and if having it is advantageous or disadvantageous for the bacteria.

2) Even if the mechanism existed and was highly effective at introducing human DNA into the bacteria, natural selection would favor any that were not affected until they dominated each subsequent generation.

3) Selective pressure would work towards elimination or mutation of the foreign DNA sequence if it conferred a disadvantage.

It might be easier to deal with the arguments I didn't make, but it isn't exactly logical discourse at that point, is it? Can you deal with the arguments I actually DID make?

[adorno]

Look, I don't have the time right now, nor the desire to drag on this discussion, but, I'll just point out your statement to prompted me to draw the "smart" analogy from your argument...

they are ‘experts’ at getting rid of any DNA that isn’t ‘worth its salt’.

That word "expert" connotes a sort of "intelligence" or "smarts", and that's where I drew the smart analogy which has you all twisted out of shape.

Perhaps you should have used some other word or phrase, like "trait" or "characteristic" or "property" or "defense mechanism of the bacteria".

BTW, "natural selection"?

Do you not believe that there could be some very smart design in all living organisms, including even the bacteria in question?

Yeah, that's a whole other question, and perhaps we don't need to go there now.

[allmendream]

Maybe you didn't notice the marks around the work ‘expert’ noting that I was using the phrase euphemistically.

They are “experts” in that bacteria routinely gain and rid themselves of foreign DNA. It is a trait, a characteristic, an intrinsic property.

Yes, natural selection.

If 10% of the bacterial population has the human DNA and it is advantageous there will eventually be 11% of the bacterial population that will have that trait.

It is a mathematical inevitability.

If it is disadvantageous then eventually only 9% of the population will have that trait.

That is why a fantastical mechanism whereby the immune system would add DNA to a bacteria would be idiotic, because the more detrimental the trait it passed on - the quicker it would be selected against and eliminated from the population.

The immune system is in the business of identifying foreign 3D structures and KILLING THEM, not messing with their DNA in the hopes that it will make them act nicer.

I mean what sense does that make? But I sense where you are coming from, and it doesn't seem so strange now that you prefer fantastical illogical magical mechanisms to actual science.

[adorno]

I see where you like to call those that have a disagreement with you "idiots". Resorting to insults is the ultimate refuge of those that can't even stand to be challenged.

I mean what sense does that make? But I sense where you are coming from, and it doesn't seem so strange now that you prefer fantastical illogical magical mechanisms to actual science.

I mentioned "smart design" as opposed to your "natural selection". What proof do you have that says that it can't be "intelligent design" rather than "natural selection" for the way that the human defense mechanism works?

I myself came from the camp that believed that "natural selection" was the true answer to how life evolved and how "magical" it was in the "progression" of all species, from the simple to the highly complex. But, as I lived longer and became wiser and learned a lot more about how "inconceivable" it was to just believe that "natural forces" made the most complex of species, including humans.

The answers are not there yet to how life "evolved" and not even on how the human defense mechanism works. That research is itself evolving.

YOu don't have the answers and neither do the actual researches, at least, not yet.

[allmendream]

You really have a problem reading and understanding English.

I said the mechanism you proposed was idiotic because it wouldn't work. I didn't call you an idiot. If you actually understood the subject and still insisted it would work, I might, but you obviously don't.

Intelligent design isn't a buzz word that makes natural selection go away. The formulator of the philosophy accepts natural selection, micro-evolution, even the common descent of species. He just argues it had to have a guiding hand. Do you accept natural selection but think it needs a guiding hand, or do you reject it?

Nothing in evolution requires “progression” of species from simple to complex. That is another misconception you have. Nice that you rejected something that you never really understood.

So if the DNA supposedly added to the bacteria was a detriment to its continued survival and pathogenicity in the human environment and 10% of the population had it, it is a mathematical inevitability that eventually LESS THAN 10% will have it.

Can you understand that point? If so we can move on. If not I can perhaps explain it to you in greater detail.

[colorado tanker]

[decimon]

I had no idea this brawl thread was still going.

"Protect your daughters," eh? Probably every perv there is bought that video.

[colorado tanker]

You betcha. Along with its better known companion:

[adorno]

“Guilty by association”. Ever hear of that?

Look, you can’t just call an idea “idiotic” while divorcing the idea from the source. Thus, logically speaking, if you deem an idea to be idiotic, the source of the idea is, by association, also being called “idiotic”. Nice try in trying to spin your way around that. Ideas don’t materialize from nowhere.

Also, natural selection might be part of the evolutionary process, which might all be part of an “intelligent” design. But, from observations in nature, ever since humans can recall, there hasn’t been any observed “evolution” and most of what has actually been observed is “adaptation” by a species in order to survive or thrive. But, those characteristic for adaptation were already part of the “design”. Can you point to any “adaptation”, or trigger, which essentially caused a jump from one kind of species to another, even if the change is very subtle? I mean, genetically speaking, has there ever been a “mutation” that has been observed? They might have happened, but, they haven’t been proven.

Now, going back to the bacteria...

So, why is it so preposterous that DNA from a species could be “introduced” as a defense mechanism? You’re the type that, if you had been around 100 years ago, and heard about how human blood goes around with its “tiny soldiers” destroying invading “enemies”, you would’ve scoffed at the idea. Too fantastic, you would say, and too much science fiction. So, why not a defense mechanism that “renders” an invader “neutral” while not necessarily killing that invader?

And, like I said before, the best time to destroy an enemy or to neutralize it, is in the initial stages, when the invaders are low in number, and not as hard to fight or destroy as it would be after they’ve had a chance to multiply. At that point, when they’re still low in numbers, the neutralization or destruction could be at 100% rather than your 10% (where you then hypothesize that, the rest would still be available to carry out their damage).

[allmendream]

Yes, guilt by association is a logical fallacy. Ever heard of that?

Even a genius can come up with an idiotic idea or two, sometimes three or four! ;)

Adaptation is evolution. Semantics. Darwin's theory becomes “Adaptation through natural selection of genetic variation”, but the mechanism is exactly the same.

Yes, mutations happen every generation. DNA cannot be perfectly replicated, as such every time it is copied errors are introduced by DNA polymerase.

Bacteria in fact have a gene for an error prone DNA polymerase that is expressed instead of the high fidelity DNA polymerase when the bacteria experiences stress.

In other words part of the bacterial stress response is to induce mutations.

I repeat, the immune system is interested in identifying a foreign 3-D structure and KILLING it, not identifying a foreign 3-D structure and introducing new DNA into it in the hopes that now it will behave itself.

“He also showed that this human sequence is present in about 11 percent of the screened gonorrhea isolates.”

I said 10%, please excuse the rounding error.

If the human sequence is present in 11% of the bacteria and it is advantageous in the human environment - then eventually 12% of the bacteria will have the trait. If it is disadvantageous in the human environment - then eventually less than 10% will have it.

It is a mathematical inevitability.

Now why don't you try to tell me how the immune system would hope to eliminated a pathogen by introducing detrimental DNA to some 11% of the population - when that addition is just going to “wash out” in subsequent generations through less reproductive viability, loss of plasmid DNA, or mutation - because it is detrimental.

How is it going to go from 11% of the population to 100% when any fraction not affected is going to compete better than those affected, and any that ARE affected are going to be under selective pressure towards losing the DNA through mutation or plasmid removal?

[adorno]

Yes, guilt by association is a logical fallacy. Ever heard of that?

Even a genius can come up with an idiotic idea or two, sometimes three or four! ;)

Nope! Not a logical fallacy at all.

What is fallacious is your attempt to spin your way around the argument. You can't logically divorce the source from a statement that you call "idiotic". It doesn't work. And, yeah, otherwise highly intelligent people can do or say stupid/idiotic things, but, in any case, they are the ones that the "stupid" or "idiotic" statements or deeds came from, and therefore, LOGICALLY speaking, they are being called "idiots", even if on one particular instance, and even if indirectly.

Adaptation is evolution.

You may want to call it that, but, adaptation is a characteristic, already built into the DNA of a species. Therefore, it's not evolution in the sense that the DNA has evolved to give a species the power to adapt to an environment. If it's the same exact DNA, it's not evolution; it's strictly the adaptive abilities of a species being put into effect.

Semantics. Darwin's theory becomes “Adaptation through natural selection of genetic variation”, but the mechanism is exactly the same.

Again, adaptation is not evolution. They are separate mechanisms, and what is happening with your defenses is that, you're the one using "adaptation" in order to make the mechanism of evolution sound true. You're the one adapting your argument in order to try to win the argument.

Yes, mutations happen every generation.

Evolution was defined as the progression of life from one species into a different species, even if most of their DNA and characteristics are the same. That evolutionary jump has not been observed nor cataloged. If you do know of any one instance where the jump was indeed made, then, could you kindly point it out?

DNA cannot be perfectly replicated, as such every time it is copied errors are introduced by DNA polymerase.

Errors in nature are not the same as "evolution". Freaks in nature happen all the time, but, it's not a natural progression from one species into another. But, even where nature goes awry and errors result, which one of the "errors" can be said to then have become a "new species"? Point it out, please.

In other words part of the bacterial stress response is to induce mutations.

What you want to call mutations, others would call "adaptations", and though at first glance a "change" seems to have occurred, the DNA of the bacteria says differently. The acquired DNA sequence from a human did not change the bacteria into another species, but it did give the bacteria a temporary trait that could make it harmful (or more harmful) or neutralized.

I repeat, the immune system is interested in identifying a foreign 3-D structure and KILLING it,

That part is understood and there is no argument there.

not identifying a foreign 3-D structure and introducing new DNA into it in the hopes that now it will behave itself.

That's the part which is not fully understood yet. So, why is it a one way street where a bacteria can acquire DNA, and the opposite can't be true, where the body's defenses attempt to change the characteristics of an invader through it's own "invasive" mechanism, namely trying to neutralize or damage or kill the invader by changing its composition?

Yeah, I know, you can try to explain away everything through the knowledge base that already exists, but that knowledge base keeps changing on a daily basis.

“He also showed that this human sequence is present in about 11 percent of the screened gonorrhea isolates.”

I said 10%, please excuse the rounding error. The 10% or 11% is irrelevant to the argument I made.

My argument is that, no matter what the percentage affected, the human DNA within the bacteria might have been an attempt from the human defense mechanism at neutralizing or killing the bacteria. Sure, it might have been the bacteria stealing for its own purposes, that portion of DNA from the human host, but, that's just a one-sided argument.

If the human sequence is present in 11% of the bacteria and it is advantageous in the human environment - then eventually 12% of the bacteria will have the trait. If it is disadvantageous in the human environment - then eventually less than 10% will have it.

Again, I'm not talking percentages or advantages/disadvantages.

I'm talking about the "possibility" that the DNA within the bacteria might have been the reverse of what the researchers postulated.

It is a mathematical inevitability.

So, mathematics proves your point? Not if your assumptions are wrong about the points that I was making. Your mathematics cannot enter into the real point that I was making.

Now why don't you try to tell me how the immune system would hope to eliminated a pathogen by introducing detrimental DNA to some 11% of the population - when that addition is just going to “wash out” in subsequent generations through less reproductive viability, loss of plasmid DNA, or mutation - because it is detrimental.

You made a lot of assumptions and wrong conclusions about what I was saying. Your mathematics don't enter into what I postulated. I could end up being 100% wrong (and I'm sure you're going to say that I am), but, I'm not the one using 10% or 11% to try to justify my hypothesis. I'm not a researcher, and I'm not a mathematician, but, I don't just accept at face value what so many in the scientific community would like for us to believe, especially when the science is still "evolving" and there is so much yet to be explained, no matter what the subject.

[allmendream]

Guilt by association IS a logical fallacy, one I did not engage in, but one you apparently embrace when it lends itself to you feeling unwarranted umbrage.

Adaptation is through a CHANGE in DNA. Change in DNA is mutation. “adaptation is a characteristic, already built into the DNA of a species” is only true if by “built into the DNA of a species” you mean that inevitable CHANGE is a feature “built into the DNA”. You come far closer to the truth when you say “What you want to call mutations, others would call “adaptations””. Adaptations are though changes in DNA. Changes in DNA are, by definition, mutations.

“If it's the same exact DNA” that is my point, it is not a change in how the DNA is expressed, it is a change in the DNA itself. Expression of error prone DNA polymerase during stress ensures that it is not “the same exact DNA”.

Evolution is neither “progression” and neither does it imply or necessitate a change into a different species.

Evolution is not progression, I have told you that before.

Evolution is not speciation, any more than gravity is planet formation. Planet formation is the RESULT of gravity, but gravity itself is not dependent upon a planet being formed.

An immune system “Catch and release” program would never be as effective as a “Catch and KILL” program. That is what makes your argument so facile.