“Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize we cannot eat money.” Cree Indian Proverb

The table I have under my laptop while writing this article, the materials used for my laptop, the cover case for my phone, the pen I have by my phone, the package for the mail I have received, the dividers I have in my notebook, the hair dryer I have for drying my samples before performing FT-IR on my samples, the FT-IR machine itself … They are all made up of plastics. I could go on and on, giving examples of what I observe in my immediate environment made of plastics. It would not be exaggerated to say that after the Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age, we are now living in the “Plastic Age” given the fact that the production of plastics has increased from 1.5 million tons per year in the 1950’s to 260 million tons per year in 2007.1 The majority of plastics we use in our daily life are petroleum-based plastics. What that means is, the starting materials of these plastics are chemicals derived from crude oil. There are some major concerns related with these petroleum based plastics – the Earth may run out of oil one day, or the questionable durability of how these plastics biologically degrade. Further environmental concerns exist, such as the toxic additives these plastics contain, including plasticizers like adipates and phthalate. Burning these plastics can release billions of tons of toxic pollutants every year; moreover, most plastic production reactions are done in toxic solvents, so the disposal of these solvents becomes a problem.2 Reflecting on it, it’s an incredible mercy that we have been able to get away with all the waste we have produced up to this point. But the question is: how much longer can we get away with such wasteful behavior?

One of Paulo Coelho’s passages from his book The Winner Stands Alone exactly describes my attitude and desire to “go green.” My heart pounds as I read the sentences that so touched me:

It seems now that-despite wars, famine in Africa, terrorism, the violation of human rights, and the arrogant attitude of certain developed countries-our main preoccupation is saving poor planet Earth from the many threats created by human society. “Ecology. Save the planet. How ridiculous.”

Hamid knows, however, that there’s no point in fighting the collective unconscious. The colors, the accessories, the fabrics, the so-called charity events attended by the Superclass, the books being published, the music being played on the radio, the documentaries made by ex-politicians, the new films, the material used to make shoes, the new bio-fuels, the petitions handed in to members of parliament and congressmen, the bonds being sold by the largest of the world banks, everything appears to focus on one thing: saving the planet. Fortunes are made overnight; large multinationals are given space in the press because of some completely irrelevant action they are taking; unscrupulous NGOs place advertisements on the major TV channels and receive hundreds of millions of dollars in donations because everyone seems obsessed with the fate of the Earth. Whenever he reads articles in newspapers or magazines written by politicians using global warming or the destruction of the environment as a platform for their electoral campaigns, he thinks:

“How can we be so arrogant? The planet is, was, and always will be stronger than us. We can’t destroy it; if we overstep the mark, the planet will simply erase us from its surface and carry on existing. Why don’t they start talking about not letting the planet destroy us? Because ‘saving the planet’ gives a sense of power, action, and nobility. Whereas ‘not letting the planet destroy us’ might lead to feelings of despair and impotence, and to a realization of just how very limited our capabilities are.” 3

On that note I would like to share some amazing facts I found while searching articles written on bacterial biopolymers, but first of all I would like to introduce some definitions on the concepts I will be writing about.

Plastics have many definitions, but usually, in a daily conversation, plastics mean “anything that can be molded or shaped.” Scientifically, a plastic is a sub category of a polymer. Poly- meaning “more than one” and -mer meaning “member of a particular group.”[4] Basically, a polymer is a naturally occurring or synthetic compound made of many relatively simple repeating units that are linked together in the same fashion, forming a carbon rich backbone in most cases. For example, PVC is a well known synthetic polymer, in which the monomer (the repeating unit) as seen in Figure 1 is repeated several times. A well known natural polymer is cellulose, in which the monomer as seen in Figure 2 is repeated several times.

Here it is important to note the difference between a polymer and a plastic. All plastics are polymers, as in the example of PVC, whereas not all polymers are plastics, as in the example of cellulose. The combination of the chemicals, and the type of bonds these chemicals are linked to each other by, determines the properties and applications of the polymers. The molecular weight of the polymer depends on how many times the monomer repeats itself. The molecular weight of polymers can be controlled during production with chemical techniques. One significant difference between natural vs. synthetic polymers is the molecular weight distribution. When the polymer is synthesized in the lab, the polymer product is a combination of different molecular weight chains. In other words, when a polymerization reaction takes place, lots of polymer chains are produced and one chain is never the same length or weight as another. Instead, there is a molecular weight distribution as seen in Figure 3, where most of the polymer chains in the solution have a molecular weight close to the value of Mw. So in the solution, we will have polymer chains that have molecular weights close to each other, and some extreme short or long polymer chains. It is impossible to synthesize a polymeric solution where all the polymer chains are of identical length and weight; therefore, we speak about the average molecular weight when the case is synthetic polymers. However, when we look at any polymer produced in nature, we see that the polymer chain length and molecular weight are the same every time the polymer is produced. So instead of a molecular weight distribution, natural polymers have a molecular weight value. This is important because the narrower the molecular weight distribution is, the better.

When talking about bio plastics, it is important to make the differentiation between bio-derived plastics and bio-based plastics. As Dr. R. Narayan explained in his talk at Johnson County Community College[5] , bio-derived plastics means that the plastic is isolated from a living organism, meaning that the living organism performs the polymerization reaction and then you extract the polymer from the organism.

On the other hand, bio-based plastics mean that the starting material of the plastic is derived from a living organism instead of a petroleum-based material, but it is polymerized into a plastic by humans. Therefore, not all bio-based plastics are biodegradable; however, the fact that the starting material is from a plant that can be replaced in a couple of years rather than a petroleum-based product which can only be replaced after a couple million years, drives motivation for their usage. There is the ethical concern that bio-based plastics are usually made from food sources, such as corn, however Dr. R. Narayan, who is one of the leaders in the field, argues that if the situation is handled appropriately, this should not be a problem. He argues that one up-side of the situation would be to increase values of crops and the prevention of mass migration to big cities. It’s your call to decide which side you favor more.

What is more interesting to me is the polymers being created in nature. A chemistry doctorate, Dr. Lon J. Mathias, writes that “We humans make nylons in tons per day in huge chemical plants where simple molecules are joined together in large quantities to give products that we need or want. Nature is much more careful and concise in how she does things. For a living organism to make an enzyme, another enzyme or active species must be involved. The synthesis always involves a template, or recording, of how the individual amino acids are to be joined together to give the final polymer. The enzyme adds a single amino acid, one at a time, as indicated by the mRNA. This is a slow and tedious process and takes a long time. Sometimes the enzyme gets frustrated, waiting for the right amino acid to come along, and slaps a wrong one on instead. To compensate for this, the enzyme is made to back up occasionally to check its work. If it has made a mistake, it has a process for clipping out the wrong amino acid and inserting the right one. We humans never do this. If we make a mistake, we simply grind it up and throw it away.”6

Dr. Mathias goes on, comparing the manufacturing conditions between nature’s form of polymerization and humanity’s. He says polypeptides in nature are synthesized in water, whereas we synthesize our polypeptides in toxic organic solvents. “This leads us to a problem: what do we do with the organic solvents when we’re through? Sometimes we burn them, but more commonly we try to recycle these materials, which not only are getting more expensive to buy in the first place (compared to cheap water, which is everywhere, or almost everywhere) but are also a responsibility for their recycling, purification, and final disposal. An example of how nature uses water in this way, and one which we still haven’t figured out, is the production of spider silk. Spiders spin their webs from solutions of polypeptides in water. These solutions are squeezed through the spider’s tiny spinneret and elongated quickly to form the spider webs which we’ve all seen and sometimes become tangled in. What’s really weird is that, once these spider webs form, they are no longer soluble in water. If we could just figure out how spiders first make spider silk in water and then spin their webs from it, we could make nylon the same way. This might save us a lot of waste disposal problems, and money.”6

Another spectacular creation in nature is polymers produced in bacteria which can be used as plastics once isolated from the bacteria. A wide range of biopolymers that are synthesized in bacteria serve diverse biological functions and have material properties suitable for numerous industrial and medical applications.7 Different carbon sources are efficiently converted into a diverse range of polymers with varying chemical and material properties.7 To be a little more specific, four major classes of polymers are produced by bacteria: polysaccharides, polyesters, polyamides and inorganic polyanhydrides (such as polyphosphates).7 These polymers serve various biological functions, for example, as reserve material or as part of a protective structure, and can provide a substantial advantage for bacteria under certain environmental conditions.7 Some of these biopolymers can be isolated from bacteria and can be used as plastic. Biopolymers are, by definition, biodegradable, and so their application as commodity products becomes increasingly attractive in view of the desire to avoid the use of recalcitrant oil based polymers that will accumulate in the environment.7 Biodegradable means that when exposed to the microbial flora present in a given environment (for example, in soil or water), biopolymers are fully degraded and mineralized to CO2 and H2O.5 The reason biopolymers are 100% degradable is, as they are produced in bacteria as storage material, they have sites where bacterial enzymes could attack to break them down when they search for nutrients. Whereas other polymers – even bio based polymers – will not have these enzymatic sites, so they are not always biodegradable.

One popular class of polymers produced by bacteria which can be used as plastics is called polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA’s). PHA’s are a class of polymers produced in nature by the bacterial fermentation of sugar or lipids. They are produced by bacteria to store carbon and energy when there is a nutrient lacking from the environment. Many kinds of bacteria are able to produce PHA’s, such as soil inhabiting bacteria, and many bacteria in activated sludge, high seas, or extreme environments. 8 As we store fats in our bodies, the bacterium store PHA’s. In an environment that contains all of the necessary nutrients, bacteria grow and reproduce – in other words they produce biomass. However, when subjected to specific nutrient depletion (nutrients such as nitrogen or phosphorus) and excess amount of carbon resources, the bacterium starts storing PHA granules (Picture 3). The moment the missing nutrient is introduced back into the environment, the bacterium starts degrading the PHA granules and continues to produce biomass. Therefore, by manipulating the nutrient resources in the environment and providing optimum conditions, bacterium can be pushed to produce PHA’s.[9]

There are metabolic pathways involving various enzymes for the conversion of carbon sources to polymers. Scientists have been trying to genetically engineer bacteria for the increased production of these polymers. In some cases it is possible to over-express the key enzymes in the pathways to achieve increased production of PHA. However, this kind of research takes a lot of time and effort because altering biological activity is a very complicated process and in most cases, cells give unpredictable responses to alterations. By feeding the bacterium with different carbon sources at different conditions, it is also possible to alter the composition of the polymers. Moreover, different strains of bacterium produce different types of polymers; therefore, the range of biopolymer research is very wide. With over 150 different PHA monomers (the repeating unit of polymers) being reported, PHA with flexible thermal and mechanical properties have been developed. 7 Such diversity has allowed the development of various applications.

During his speech at the “2nd International PLASTiCE Conference Trends in Bioplastics” in Slovenia, 9 Dr. Martin Koller explained that there are two types of PHA’s that a microorganism produces. The first type are short length PHA’s (3-5 carbons in the backbone) and the second type are medium chain length PA’s (6-12 carbons in the backbone). While the medium chain length PHA’s can be used for biodiesel production, the short chain length PHA’s can be used as thermoplastics (plastics that can melt with heat, and can therefore be processed with the help of heat). These thermoplastics can be isolated from the organisms they are produced in by solvent extraction, mechanical disruption, or by using hypotonic media (having the lower osmotic pressure of two fluids) for cells that have high intracellular osmotic pressure.9 In the last case, the cells will explode due to the pressure difference and release the PHA’s; deionized water can be used as the hypotonic media. However, only specific strains can be treated with this method. At the moment, the most common technique used for extraction is solvent extraction. These solvents – such as chloroform or dichloromethane – are generally toxic, therefore creating a contradiction with the point of producing biopolymers.

Although not mainstream, some of these bacterial plastics are produced in the industrial world.8 The simplest and widest application for bacterial plastics is for packaging purposes. They can also be used in therapeutic applications, as they are generally biocompatible. Drugs can be incorporated into them, therefore as they biodegrade, they release the drug in a controlled time frame.9 For example, Dr. Martin Koller and his group have just finalized a project called “BRIC – BioResorbable Implants for Children,” funded by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG).10 Their purpose was to isolate a biocompatible polymer produced from bacterium which could be degraded and removed from the body within a certain time. The point of this project is based on the fact that in contrast to the traditional implants that need to be removed from the body after a certain amount of time, such as plates, screws or pins, the newly developed implants could be degraded and removed from the body naturally, preventing the need for a second surgery. This is a great advantage, especially for children, who would suffer greatly from additional surgeries.

Bacterial bioplastics have many other applications; however the biggest obstacle for their usage is the cost of production. During his speech, Dr. Keller stated the production of bacterial bioplastics is around five times more costly than petroleum based plastics. Most of the cost is related with the bioreactors needed to grow the bacterium and the solvents used to extract the polymers. The scientists are hoping to develop new techniques to reduce the cost of the polymers.

It is breathtaking that these creatures we cannot even see with the naked eye have been synthesizing polymers as well as we do, if not even better, and for a lot longer than us. The polymers they synthesize are completely biodegradable, have a constant molecular weight, and do not require toxic chemicals for their production, unlike the synthetic polymers we produce in the lab. They don’t harm nature as we do. And THAT is powerful.

References

1- Simon, Tristan (2007). “Experience Curves in the World Polymer Industry” Utrecht University, Netherlands.

2- Lei Pei, Markus Schmidt and Wei Wei (2011). “Conversion of Biomass into Bioplastics and Their Potential Environmental Impacts, Biotechnology of Biopolymers.” InTech.

3- Coelho Paulo(2008), “The Winner Stands Alone.” pg: 139.

4- http://dictionary.reference.com/

5- Narayan, Ramani (2013)”Bioplastics and Reducing Carbon Footprint.” JCCC Video. Johnson County Community College, USA.

6- Mathias, Lon J. (2005).”Natural Polymers.” Polymer Science Learning Center. The University of Southern Mississippi, USA.

7- Rehm, Bernd H.A.(2010). “Bacterial polymers: biosynthesis, modifications and applications” Nature Reviews Microbiology. Massey University, New Zealand.

8- Chen, Guo-Qiang (2010). “Plastics Completely Synthesized by Bacteria: Polyhydroxyalkanoates”. Plastics from Bacteria: Natural Functions and Applications, Microbiology Monographs, Springer. Tsinghua University, China.

9- Koller, Martin (2012). “Polyhydroxyalkanoates: Biodegradable polymeric materials from renewable resources” Plastice Project Video. 2nd International PLASTiCE Conference Trends in Bioplastics, Slovenia.

10- No name (2013).”Plastics from Renewable Raw Materials:Body automatically breaks down implants” Graz University of Technology, Austria.

11- Nishiyama, Yoshiharu; Langan, Paul; Chanzy, Henri (2002). “Crystal Structure and Hydrogen-Bonding System in Cellulose Iβ from Synchrotron X-ray and Neutron Fiber Diffraction”. J. Am. Chem.The University of Tokyo, Japan.

12- Ritter, Stephen(2005). “Green Success.” Science and Technology. pg: 40-43.

13- Waters Co. (2013). “GPC-Gel Permeation Chromatography”. Web.

We know that bacteria can make us unwell at times (causing diseases such as cholera, tuberculosis, pneumonia, leprosy, diphtheria, tetanus, ulcers, etc.), but they usually are considered rather exotic living entities either living in the sewer or somewhere in the thermal vents of the ocean – hence being envisioned as distant organisms. To most, they are the simplest life forms which are merely trying to make ends meet, struggling to survive and having little, if any, effect on the rest of life on earth.

All these are blatant misconceptions. Globally, 30% of the yearly oxygen on earth is produced by a certain “breed” of bacteria (footnote 1a). There are 1,000 different species of bacteria in and on a single human body, resulting in 10 times more bacterial cells than human cells (footnote 2). Correspondingly, there are a total of 1,000 times more bacterial genes in our body (footnote 3). Nevertheless, these bodily bacteria are not necessarily parasites, but are mostly beneficial. Primarily, they inhabit our digestive track and help us digest food that would otherwise go non-utilized, or produce various vitamins that we are unable to make ourselves (reference 1). The type and relative abundance of such intestinal bacteria is known to be linked to obesity. Last but not least, bacteria help our immune system to mature, thus helping us in being protected against their harmful kin (reference 4). Bacteria are not always random drifters: some can swim towards a food source (footnote 1b), while others (footnote 1c) can navigate their way towards the bottom of the ocean by sensing earth’s magnetic field (reference 5), where they can live better for they do not survive in atmospheric oxygen levels.

In this article, I will try to further convince you that bacteria are more than “bags of enzymes” by elaborating on a mechanism that enables bacteria to carry out a “population census.” As we will see, this simplest social interaction helps an oceanic squid camouflage itself to hide from predators, as well as enabling pathogenic bacteria to evade the immune system before getting numerous enough to wage an effective war against the host.

A day in the life of an oceanic squid

The bobtail squid, which lives in the shallow coastal waters of the Pacific Ocean, is a nocturnal animal. That is, it buries itself under the sand in the daylight to sleep, and comes out at night to hunt and eat. In this habitat, a threat to life comes perhaps from a most unexpected source: The moonlight can penetrate the shallow waters, casting the squid’s shadow on the ocean floor to alert predators swimming above. Similarly, a predator swimming beneath can easily recognize the squid’s dark silhouette above the moonlit background.

But fear not, because the squid is safe and sound thanks to an organ it harbors. Essentially, this organ produces light to counter-illuminate the shade on the seafloor (and similarly, when viewed from below, to match the amount of light coming from above) to make it invisible, like the stealth aircraft which can fly undetected amongst the radars. Furthermore, using a curtain-like structure that covers this light-producing organ, it can modulate the level of light it produces according to the intensity of the ambient moonlight which is detected by the receptors on the squid’s back.

This is undoubtedly one of the most amazing camouflage patterns, but how on earth does this little creature access light in the middle of nowhere to unfurl this “invisibility cloak”?

This is where bacteria come into play.

Bacteria’s way of conducting population census: Quorum sensing

A particular kind of bacteria (footnote 1f) inhabits the squid’s light organ. This is a much better place to live, as nutrients are more abundant compared to the otherwise planktonic life of the ocean. Within the body of the squid, the bacteria reach densities they can never be achieved in open waters.

The bacteria release small chemicals known as auto-inducers. As the name suggests, the auto-inducers can normally be detected by the very same bacteria, and consequently induce a series of biological events. However, when the bacteria are low in numbers, the auto-inducers float away after release without being detected. As the bacteria multiply in the squid’s light organ, reaching greater numbers, the external concentration of auto-inducers also increases as a function of the cell density. After a certain threshold concentration is reached, the auto-inducer is detected by (all) bacteria. This is how bacteria sense when the population has reached a quorum (footnote 4), hence “quorum sensing.”

When a quorum is reached in this fashion, a set of chemical reactions are triggered in each and every bacterium. Such biochemical reactions essentially resemble those which make fireflies glow. This process of light production by living organisms is known as “bioluminescence”. Therefore, after reaching a certain number in the squid’s light organ, the population of bacteria starts glowing, providing the squid with the light it needs to hide its silhouette from predators.

From an individual bacterium’s point of view, this is a very clever strategy if considered in terms of cost-benefit: Such light production through chemical means consumes a great deal of energy, hence is a costly transaction. Notwithstanding, a single bacterium will produce undetectable light levels alone. To this end, it is a “smart” move (footnote 5) for the bacteria to wait until the population reaches a “quorum” when a single bacterium will start making a difference. Then, the bacterium’s efforts to produce light will not go unnoticed.

As a matter of fact, the light organ of the squid is not just a nesting place for bacteria, but is also equipped with light-sensing capabilities. It was recently discovered that the squid can identify and then reject a (cheater) all-time non-luminous mutant strain of bacteria from its light organ (reference 8) via such a detection capability.

The mutual benefit between the bacteria and the squid occurs in cycles that overlap within a 24-hour routine. In the daytime, as the squid hides itself for sleeping (hence cannot feed the high population of bacteria anymore), it releases 95% of the bacteria into the open waters. The cycle is thus reset: The diluted bacteria starts growing from low numbers in the non-glowing state. By approximately the time the bacteria has multiplied enough to reach a glowing density, the squid wakes up and comes out to feed.

Quorum sensing as a social trait

The phenomenon of quorum sensing, discovered by Bonnie Bassler, currently a professor at Princeton University, is not specific to the bacteria of the bobtail squid, but is a ubiquitous feature that enables almost all kinds of bacteria to carry out feats of multi-cellular life. Collectively, they can accomplish what they cannot when they are alone. Analogous to different languages, different bacteria have different auto-inducers that they use to communicate with each other (intra-species communication). On the other hand, different bacterial species can also communicate with one another (inter-species communication) via a common auto-inducer; which is essentially the “Esperanto” of bacterial communication.

One opportunistic type of bacteria (footnote 1g) which can cause diseases in animals and humans uses quorum sensing, but not to help others. These bacteria grow and multiply in the host without harming it until they reach to a certain concentration. It is only when they become numerous enough, which is once again determined via quorum sensing, to overcome the immune system of the host that they release the virulence factors that lead to disease (reference 6).

On the other side of the coin, medical researchers are looking for ways to disrupt the quorum-sensing mechanisms of pathogenic bacteria to render them ineffective by making them “mute and deaf.” While synthetic therapeutic molecules are currently being investigated, recent findings indicate that garlic locks quorum-sensing in the aforementioned bacteria (reference 9) providing promise for clinical applications.

Conclusion

“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
Albert Einstein

Although most living systems currently appear to be very complex, it is neither the “complexity” nor the “mysteries” of life, but rather our (ever-deepening) knowledge that should make one believe in the Sustainer of all life. The flaws in “God of gaps” fallacy were outlined in the recent The Fountain article “Natural is Nothing Less than Miraculous,” based on an interview (reference 10) with Dr. Denis Alexander of Cambridge University, UK:

“I think the idea of the God of the gaps is a very unfortunate idea; that has a very long history. Actually, it goes back many centuries. I’m not quite sure when the idea first began. But I think it’s always been tempting as science got going, especially in the nineteenth century when science was less developed than it was now. It was a temptation for people to try and locate their God within the present gaps of the scientific knowledge. So obviously, as the gaps are closed, so one’s understanding of God will shrink. God is then located in smaller and smaller mysteries.

“So whether we have current gaps in our knowledge now has no theological significance as far as I’m concerned. It doesn’t matter. It’s of no particular interest, so theology has no hidden investments in gaps in our knowledge. It really doesn’t matter. It simply says we’re ignorant about many things.”

As simple as they may seem, bacteria execute daunting tasks: They may be friendly inhabitants as well as harmful foes. Despite being envisioned mostly as “loners,” bacteria can exhibit the basic features of social interactions and collective behavior. More intriguingly, all such tasks are carried out with a limited number of genes within a minuscule body.

How do we define life? What attributes are entitled with the process of “living”? What is the minimum number of genes that can constitute a living organism? What aspects discriminate bacteria from being a simple “bag of enzymes”? Although we simply do not yet know the answers, it seems as if scientists will continue to eavesdrop on bacteria; the revelation of many amazing mysteries is just around the corner.

After all, bacteria are no small matter.

Bill Sayoran is a freelance writer who lives in Boston and can be reached at: billsayoran@gmail.com

Notes

1) The following are technical terms for further reference: (a) cyanobacteria (b) chemotaxis (c) magnetotactic bacteria (d) Bacteroidetes (e) Firmicute (f) Vibrio fisheri (g) Pseudomonas aeruginosa

2) At first glimpse therefore it sounds like we are a ‘super-organism’ that consists of multiple species, but since the volume of bacteria is 1/1000 of our own cells, we are still 99% human in mass.

3) In total, there are approximately 20 million different bacterial genes in the body of a single human, outnumbering the 20 thousand-some genes within the human genome by a factor of 1,000.

4) According to “thefreedictionary.com,” the literal definition of the word quorum is: “The minimal number of officers and members of a committee or organization, usually a majority, who must be present for valid transaction of business.”

5) Similar language is used throughout the text merely as a figure of speech. The bacteria is not even close to being ‘intelligent’ enough to plot any strategy whatsoever, but rather have been equipped with capabilities to develop such means by the Creator of all things. Furthermore, establishing explicit links as such is purposefully refrained from in the article so as not to constrain thinking or limit the imagination of the reader.

References

1. “It’s me, Peter, your intestine!” Irfan Yilmaz, The Fountain Magazine, 2008

2. i) “An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest.”. Turnbaugh and others, Nature, 2006. ii) “Microbial ecology: Human gut microbes associated with obesity.”, Ley and others, Nature, 2006

3. http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/10/human_gut_bacteria_linked_to_obesity.php

4. “Recognition of peptidoglycan from the microbiota by Nod1 enhances systemic innate immunity.”, Clarke and others, Nature Medicine, 2010

5. “The Tiniest Captains of the Ocean.”, Ahmet Uysal, The Fountain Magazine, March-April 2010

6. “Shedding Light on an Invisible World.” Bonnie Bassler, HHMI, Holiday Lectures on Science, 2009

7. i)http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3401/images/04-bact-05-l.jpg ii) http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/84/8449sci2.html

8. “Bioluminescence in the Ocean: Origins of Biological, Chemical and Ecological Diversity.”, E. Widder, Science, 2010

9. “Garlic blocks quorum sensing and promotes rapid clearing of pulmonary rudomonas aeruginosa infections.”, Bjarnsholt and others, Microbiology, 2005

10. “Natural is Nothing less than Miraculous.” Interview with Denis Alexander by Mustafa Tabanli, The Fountain Magazine, May-June 2010.

Original Article: Lewis, G.D. et al., Science Translational Medicine 2, 33 (2010).

Visits to biochemistry labs are frequent in our lives. Often we give blood to know levels of different metabolites, such as glucose or cholesterol. Instead of looking at a handful of metabolites, a group of scientists from Harvard Medical School has screened more than 200 metabolites before and after exercise. Interestingly, the levels of 21 of these metabolites changed significantly following exercise. The study also showed significant differences between physically more fit and less fit individuals after exercise. Following exercise, more fit people had greater increases in the biological markers of fat-burning and had decreased oxidative stress -a state where the balance between oxidants and antioxidants shift towards damaging oxidant side. Hence, fit people can get better results following exercise by efficiently removing waste materials. Moreover, exercise increased the levels of “niacinamide”, a compound which modulates insulin sensitivity. This increase was more prominent in leaner individuals and was maximized in fast marathon runners after exercise. It has been long known that obese and less-active individuals had greater tendencies to develop Type II diabetes where insulin action is impaired due to decreased sensitivity of the body to this molecule. Understanding the biochemistry behind the exercise may lead to identification of small molecules mediating its beneficial effects. These molecules may then be used to boost up metabolism or treat diseases. Until then, it is best to exercise and stay fit.

2- Our scents make us targets

Original Article: Carey, A.F. et al., Nature 464, 66 (2010).

Are you avoiding spending time outdoors in summer evenings because most of your time has to be spent chasing away the unwelcomed attention of mosquitoes? If so, then you must be one of those “lucky” people whose perspiration contains a key chemical that makes you irresistible to the six-legged bug. Scientists at Yale University have identified a key chemical compound that is detected by one of the mosquitoes’ 27 smell-receptors in their antenna. These smell-receptors are tuned to detect the key chemicals from hundreds of meters away which make people who secrete large amounts of these key chemicals in their sweat vulnerable to frequent mosquito attacks. Depending on the species, usually only the female mosquitoes bite humans, mainly on their feet or lower legs. More importantly, mosquitoes carry several deadly diseases such as Malaria and West-Nile dengue fever. In fact, Malaria is one of the deadliest and the most neglected diseases, affecting more than 500 million people and killing more than 3 million every year, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. Sadly, the majority of deaths occur among children. Therefore, these types of studies, far from being trivial, may in fact lead to a better understanding of those mosquito-borne diseases, and hopefully may lead to the production of more effective drugs both for the prevention and the cure of diseases as well as better mosquito repellents and traps.

3- We are not alone in our body: Genomes of microbes living with us

Original Articles: Qin, J. et al., Nature 464, 59 (2010) & The Human Microbiome Jumpstart Reference Strains Consortium, Science 328, 994 (2010).

New advancements in DNA sequencing technology allow scientists to sequence genomes of microorganism living in their natural habitat. Human body contains roughly ten times as many microbes as human cells. As part of Human Microbiome Project, scientists are decoding the DNA sequences of all microbes living in several parts of our body such as skin, mouth, gut, respiratory tract and urogenital tract. Two independent teams from US and Europe have produced the first results of DNA sequences of microbes living with us. The projects have initially focused on bacterial genomes but intent to sequence viral and fungal genomes as well. The US team has generated a set of 178 bacterial reference genomes and is aiming to generate many more. In the second project funded by European Union, scientists sequenced the entire microbial DNA in the gut instead of sequencing them individually. They have sequenced more than 3 million bacterial genes, nearly 150 times more than our own (humans have only ~20 thousand genes). Importantly they have found that bacterial species are different in healthy individuals compared to the individuals with inflammatory bowel disease. Throughout these projects, scientists are trying to reveal significant information about the role of different microbial species in health and disease states.

4- Seeing with the sound

Original Article: Yovel Y et al., Science 327, 701 (2010).

Bats, dolphins, shrews and swiftlets use sound waves for navigation and hunting. They emit short sonar pulses and listen to the echoes reflecting back from solid objects. Microsecond differences in the arrival times of echoes are coded by detector neurons and used as a main cue for positioning objects in an environment. This phenomenon is known as biosonar. A recent study published in Science reveals one unknown part of this perfect sound processing strategy. The study shows that bats do not center the sonar beam on the target. Instead, they aim to match the maximum slope of the beam to the target in order to increase the signal-to- noise ratio. Around the sharp edge, small variations of the target position can be detected as a clear signal change in reflected sound intensity. Furthermore, the researchers showed that if the environment is very noisy, bats could bias this critical point to increase amplitude of the echoes. As it turns, this powerful technique has already been employed by humans in engineering and used in various technological tools such as atomic force microcopy. Whether this strategy is used in general by other echolocating animals remains to be answered.

When Alexander Fleming first discovered penicillin in 1929, it was touted as a miracle drug, and at the time it was. After antibiotics became common, once-fatal infections became only minor inconveniences. But now it appears that bacteria, the target of antibiotics, are fighting back by developing resistance to the drugs that once killed them. In order to grasp how this has occurred, we need to understand a little more about both antibiotics and bacteria.

Antibiotics and Bacteria

Antibiotic literally means against life. Antibiotics are natural substances, compounds made by living organisms, which either kill or inhibit the growth or production of bacteria. The antibiotics we take when we are ill are manufactured. They have been altered or synthesized in order to enhance their potency or increase the range of the species they affect. Some antibiotics, such as tetracycline, interfere with the production of new bacteria by binding to ribosomes and thereby preventing them from manufacturing proteins. Others, among them penicillin, obstruct the synthesis of cell walls. Whatever their mode of operation, antibiotics hinder the proliferation of bacteria and allow the human immune system to overcome any remaining organisms.

Bacteria are complex one-celled organisms. Contrary to popular belief, most bacteria are necessary and beneficial. Beneficial bacteria aid digestion, decompose dead organisms, and often protect us from an invasion of harmful bacteria.

Genomic or chromosomal DNA in bacteria is in the form of a continuous strand. This circular DNA is located in a nucleoid.¹ A plasmid, another form of DNA, is an extra-chromosomal self-replicating structure found in bacteria cells. Plasmids, which carry genes for a variety of functions not essential for cell growth and normal survival, can be thought of as mini-chromosomes.

Compared with genomic DNA, which may contain 4 million base pairs, plasmids are small -they contain only 1,000 to 25,000 base pairs. A bacterial cell may contain one plasmid, many copies of the same plasmid, several different kinds of plasmids, or no plasmids. It is generally believed that DNA in plasmids helps bacterial cells to overcome the various stresses in their environment. One such survival mechanism is a gene or several genes for antibiotic resistance. Plasmids also may carry genes for virulence. For example, the severe food-borne disease caused by a strain of E. coli is a plasmid-based illness.

Reproducing and Exchanging Genetic Material

As bacteria usually reproduce through binary fission, or splitting to form two identical daughter cells, there is no recombination of DNA. However, many bacteria do exchange and then recombine genetic information through transformation, transduction, or conjugation. All three techniques have been exploited by specialists involved in the genetic engineering revolution.

When a bacterium (donor) dies, the cell ruptures (lyses) and thereby sets the cellular material free in the environment. Fragments of this naked DNA are then absorbed by recipient (host) bacteria, which incorporate and recombine it with their own. This process, known as transformation, has been exploited to produce such transgenic organisms as cows or plants that contain functional human genes.

The second method of recombination is transduction, or the exchange of genetic material by a viral carrier. Viruses that invade bacteria are called bacteriophages, or just phages by most scientists. When a phage infects a bacterium, it injects its own DNA, which then takes over the host’s metabolism and turns it into a small factory capable of assembling more phages. After it has produced a sufficient number of viruses, the cell lyses and the new phages are released and begin to infect more bacteria. If some of the host DNA is incorporated into a phage during the assembly process, an extremely rare occurrence, the defective phage still can bind to and inject its DNA into a host cell. However, it does not carry the virus’ genetic material and so cannot infect the cell. Thus it is no more than a mode of transport for DNA from one bacterium into another. As in transformation, the new DNA can be recombined with that of the host.

In the 1950s, scientists observed a third form of recombination: conjugation. This form of exchange features bacteria that are connected to each other through a tube or bridge. Donor cells carry fertility (or sex) plasmids, which allow the cell to synthesize long, thin hollow tubes called pili. The “sticky” pili bond to the cell walls of the recipient cell, and the two cells become united. A special enzyme then cuts a strand of the donor DNA, which is then transferred. Sometimes an entire chromosome is transferred and then recombined in the recipient cell. Bacteria also exchange plasmids through the conjugation bridge. This exchange is rapid and efficient. Not only do exchanges take place among bacteria of the same species, but they also cross species lines and even occur between bacteria and eukaryotic (plant and animal) cells.

Resistant Genes and Antibiotic Abuse

Resistant genes work in several ways. Certain genes prevent destruction by producing enzymes that either degrade antibiotics or alter them chemically so that they become ineffective. Another gene helps the bacteria replace the receptor site for the antibiotic, thereby preventing it from binding to the bacteria. And yet a third gene can be used to manufacture a pump that removes the antibiotic from the cell.

When antibiotics are taken, the bacterial cells that are susceptible to the drug die. But some cells may survive. Those cells then reproduce and pass on that resistance to the daughter cells. This often happens when too little of a drug is used or if it is not taken over a long-enough period. If patients do not take enough of their prescribed medication or stop taking it after a few days, they are promoting resistance. Another problem is that non-life-threatening illnesses, such as acne and chronic ear infections, often are treated with low doses of antibiotics over a long period of time. This practice also aids the development of resistant genes.

Many patients view antibiotics as a quick cure, and unfortunately doctors succumb to demands to prescribe them even if they are not necessary. Although antibiotics do not kill viruses, they are prescribed for patients who do not want to be told just to go home, rest, and drink plenty of fluid. Unless a culture is done to identify the infection, a doctor can only guess which anti-biotic to use. Increasingly stronger or broader-spectrum antibiotics are employed in cases involving unidentified infections, which can be analogous to killing a fly with a machine gun. Most minor illnesses will succumb to the body’s immune system. Furthermore, we need to remember that the symptoms being treated are the body’s reaction to invasions by pathogens.

In many developing countries, antibiotics are available without prescription and are taken inappropriately. Some pharmaceutical companies offer doctors bonuses and gifts for every prescription they write, and so antibiotics are overprescribed.

The United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) reports that over 40 percent of all antibiotics produced in the U.S. are given to animals. Low doses of antibiotics are routinely fed over the lifetime of meat-producing animals to promote growth and improve feed conversion. This practice creates a perfect environment for the development of resistant genes. One example, which already has produced dire consequences, is the emergence of a strain of salmonella that is resistant to several antibiotics commonly used to treat it.

Antibiotics are routinely sprayed on crops to treat and prevent disease. Although bacteria that invade plants are not harmful to people, many are related to those which cause such food-borne illnesses as E. coli, salmonella, and shigella.² If plant bacteria develop resistance, they could pass it on to bacteria that infect humans. There also appears to be evidence that we acquire resistant bacteria from our food. One researcher, Denis E. Corpet of the National Institute of Agricultural Research, has discovered that the amount of resistant bacteria humans obtain from food is quite significant. When his volunteers went on a diet of bacteria-free food, the quantity of resistant bacteria in their feces diminished by 1,000-fold.

Merri Moken, a student in Morristown, NJ, found that bacteria quickly developed resistance to common household disinfectants. The consequences of the proliferation of new anti-bacterial soaps, steering wheels, sponges, toys, and toothbrushes that we have seen in the past few years could be quite serious if it is causing an increase in resistance.

Solutions and Conclusions

The first step in combating resistance should be to reduce the number of antibiotics used for treating illness. When possible, doctors should identify the pathogen before prescribing antibiotics. Patients should complete the full course of antibiotic treatment by taking all of their medication instead of saving some for later. They also should not demand these drugs for colds or minor infections. Second, developing countries should enact legislation to control sales of antibiotics without prescriptions.

Another important step is a drastic reduction in the use of antibiotics in agriculture. Routine feeding of antibiotics to meat-producing animals needs to be prohibited. Some European countries, Sweden for example, have banned the use of these drugs for growth promotion. Consumers should demand antibiotic-free meat. The practice of spraying fruit and vegetable crops, even though they are not infected, also needs to stop, and consumers should be encouraged to wash all produce thoroughly in order to remove bacteria and antibiotic residues.

Consumers need to consider the consequences of overusing disinfectants and anti-bacterial products. Generally, washing your hands with ordinary soap is all that is necessary if we have been exposed bacteria in public places. Perhaps more education on the necessity of bacteria is another solution.

Finally, new antibiotic drugs need to be developed so that we will continue to have a last line of defense against resistance genes. Other research designed to improve our understanding of all of the mechanisms of resistance could perhaps result in a new family of drugs. In our ever-shrinking world, it has become essential for us to consider the significance of our impact on other organisms, including bacteria. Bacteria were created with a purpose and are indispensable. So let’s stop waging war on all of them. We need the susceptible bacteria as our allies against those which are resistant

Footnotes

1. Plasmoid: The part of a bacterium or virus that contains nucleic acid and is analogous in function to the nucleus of a eukaryotic cell.
2. E. coli: A bacillus (Escherichia coli) normally found in the human gastrointestinal tract and existing as numerous strains, some of which are responsible for diarrheal diseases; Salmonella: Any of various rod-shaped bacteria of the genus salmonella, many of which are pathogenic, causing food poisoning, typhoid, and paratyphoid fever in humans and other infectious diseases in domestic animals; Shigella: Any of various nonmotile, rod-shaped bacteria of the genus shigella, which includes some species that cause dysentery.

References

• Ambile-Cuevas, et.al. “Antibiotic Resistance.” American Scientist 83, no. 4 (Jul.-Aug. 1995).
• “Antimicrobial Resistance: An Ecological Perspective.” American Society for Microbiology. (1999). Online at: www.asmusa.org/acasrc/pdfs/Antimicrobial rpt.pdf.
• Center for Disease Control Antibiotic Resistance Page. Online at: www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/antibioticresistance/default.htm
• Center for Science in the Public Interest Antibiotic Resistance Project. Online at: www.cspinet.org/ar/index.html
• “Chemotherapy of Bacterial Infections.” Online at: www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bsci424/Chemotherapy/Chemotherapy.htm
• Copet, D. E. “Antibiotic Resistance from Food.” New England Journal of Medicine, 318 (1988): 1206-7.
• Davies, Julian. “Bacteria on the Rampage.” Nature (Sept. 1996): 219-20.
• Levy, Stuart. “The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance.” Scientific American (Mar. 1998): 46-54.
• “The Microbial World.” Univ. of Edinburgh. Online at: http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/microbes/penicill.htm
• European Commission Directorate B-Science and Health Opinions. “Opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance.” (1999). Online at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out50_en.pdf
• Seachrist, L. “Infections Making a Deadly Comeback.” Science News (20 Jan. 1996): 38. “Types of Antibiotics and Related Resistance Genes.” Online at: http://biosafety.ihe.be/AR/ ARmenu.html
• Washington State University Microbiology. Online at: www.wsu.edu:8080/~hurlbert/pages/Chap9.html

The first revolution began when scientists agreed that DNA is the genetic material. Study showed that a DNA molecule is made up of nucleotides, in turn made of deoxyribose sugar, a phosphate molecule and one of the four nitrogenous bases: adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine. Each DNA molecule has two strands that are twisted in a helical form, as discovered by Watson and Crick. The sequence of nitrogenous bases in the two strands determines the genetic information inherited.

The second revolution was the discovery in bacterial cells of special enzymes, the restriction enzymes, which have the property of being able to cut DNA at a specific point in the sequence.

Recombinant DNA technology was initially developed as a tool to allow scientists to obtain many copies of DNA segments so that it could be studied further biochemically. It actually began with the first studies of the genetics of bacteria and viruses that infect bacterial cells, bacteriophages. A bacterium can accept segments of new DNA and incorporate this foreign DNA into its own chromosome. To a genetic engineer this is a desirable property. The incorporated DNA is henceforth replicated and transcribed along with the cell’s original, native DNA.

Usually foreign DNA is not added directly into a bacterial genome, but into a plasmid, a small circular DNA molecule that exists outside the main DNA of the bacteria. Plasmids are cut by restriction enzymes that cleave the plasmid. In addition, foreign DNA is cleaved with the same restriction enzyme and then combined to the plasmid which is now called a vector. Such a combination is possible only if both DNA molecules are cut by the same restriction enzyme, because of the complementarity of the single strand sequence obtained after the cut. The vector is then injected to the bacterial cell. If this foreign DNA contains a gene, then the cell will acquire new characteristics and is said to be transformed, as a new product, not found in normal bacterial cells, has been produced.

Since the first day of its discovery, recombinant DNA technology caused dramatic changes not only in the field of genetics, but also in many other fields where it has useful applications. The most important of these are such medical applications as production of useful proteins on a commercial scale. In 1982, human insulin, produced by bacterial cells that contain human insulin gene transplant, reached the market. Insulin is a hormone needed daily by millions of people with diabetes. This insulin is also better for some patients who cannot tolerate the slight differences between human insulin and previously marketed insulin taken from pig and cattle livers. Another protein produced in this manner is human interferon, so called because it interferes with replication of viruses in the human body. Genetic engineers were also able to synthesize, by the method explained above, the enzyme urokinase. This enzyme is responsible for dissolving blood clots in blood vessels, the brain or lungs.

Secondly, genetic engineering offered a solution to a number of pollution problems. Scientists were able to transform some aquatic bacteria and introduce into them the characteristics of other bacterial cells found in oil wells. These transformed bacteria can consume oil spills present in water which contaminate the aquatic environment and endanger aquatic life.

There are many other applications of this new and fast-developing technology. Among them: safer vaccines made by engineering a weaker version of the disease-causing agent; enzymes for industry and pesticide accidents produced by engineering bacterial cells that have an enzyme to convert the waste to harmless substances; creating improved strains of crops and farm animals; and replacing defective genes in the human genome.

Not surprisingly, this scientific revolution has raised questions in many people’s minds about its possible negative effects. First, are the transgenic crops safe to eat? Since the new genes and the proteins they encode contain the same nucleotides and amino acids found in all our food, there seems to be little risk from most new genes. However, new crops must be checked to ensure that any new protein produced does not interact with the plant normal chemistry to produce toxic substances. In addition, any plant engineered to produce toxins that fend off insects or disease must be tested to see if the toxin content endangers human consumers. Several experiments are already under way in which genetically engineered plants have been tested outdoors. Researchers watch to see whether such plants are as good under field conditions as in the laboratory, whether they die out or become established and whether they stay put or spread beyond application sites. Genetically engineered crops are also being field-tested.

There has been considerable controversy about the safety of such experimental release of genetically engineered plants into the environment. People have also worried about the possibility of an accident in a genetic engineering laboratory. Suppose a strain of bacteria for a dangerous toxin were let loose on the world? Most workers feel that the chance of this happening is slight because safe-guards and safety procedures are already in place. The bacteria used in recombinant DNA technology experiments are usually E coli, a species universally found in the human intestine. Further, the genetic strains used in the laboratory have been developed so as to be unable to survive outside their test-tube homes. The danger is further reduced by the regulation of laboratories doing DNA recombination research.

However, the biggest anxiety was over the aspiration, expressed by some scientists, to clone human beings. Such a possibility, if ever realized, would undo one of the most important characteristics of our species, the non-existence of two absolutely identical human beings. Some people tried to justify investigation of this possibility by saying that it could ‘duplicate’ geniuses like Einstein!

But first, how is such cloning done? The removal, by special techniques, of the haploid nucleus of an unfertilized ovum; then the addition to this anucleated ovum of a diploid nucleus taken from any somatic cell. The new ovum then acts as a fertilized egg and starts to divide and develop in the uterus of the female to whom it is injected. Dr J. Gordon, from Stanford University, said that these experiments were done on frogs and two identical frogs were produced, albeit after a great many trials. And lastly, as everybody must have heard, the identical of a sheep was also produced in Scotland. However, scientists guess that they will be able to perform such experiments on humans in the not unforseeable future. An indication of this came when Dr Jerry Hall, of George Washington University, and his colleagues, were able to produce several identical embryos from only one fertilized egg. This experiment was done by replicating the genetic material of a fertilized egg and introducing it to another unfertilized anucleated ovum.

Another fearful dimension of genetic engineering lies in the possibility of adapting and amending certain characteristics, thus of producing a ‘superbreed.’ Dr Samia Timatmi, Professor of Human Genetics in the National Centre for Scientific Research in Egypt, has said that scientists have found that it is possible to change particular human characteristics, such as eye colour and height, even intelligence. However, she adds that the aim of scientists at this stage is to seek cures for different genetically carried defects and diseases. Dr Yahya Zakariya, of the same institution, is less sanguine about what is possible. He considers that changing human characteristics is not so easy for many reasons. First, the attempt to change one gene might lead to unknown consequences. Second, he points out that usually a single characteristic is not controlled by a single gene but by a complex set of genes. Because scientists do not yet know and cannot isolate these genes, it seems that the notion of producing a ‘superbreed’ still belongs to the realm of science fiction not fact.

The general public’s unease over genetic engineering experiments has not always stopped at the level of verbal protest. It turned into action when hundreds of people demonstrated near the laboratories of George Washington University against the work of Dr Jerry Hall and his colleagues. Demonstrators described this work as scientific chaos and called for the prohibition of such fearful experiments.

In view of such unease, it is only proper to ask how the Islamic religion considers such experiments and possibilities. How does it regard the positive aspects of genetic engineering? Do Muslims consider such experiments and research to be in conflict with Islamic beliefs and Qur’anic verses or permissible under the general Qur’an injunction to human beings to make observations and experiments, to study and reflect on nature?

Before trying to answer these questions, we should first note that research in this field is still very new. Most Islamic legal experts have therefore paid little attention to this field. They seem to regard the research as if it were only hypothetical and not something that is opening up practicable options and doing so very rapidly. For example, Dr A. Abu Farha, Head of the Qur’anic Sciences department in Al-Azhar, having said that Islam urges man to study and experiment so long as this is for the benefit of the human race, added that the Islamic attitude towards such research is caution. However, other jurists have realized the importance of recombinant DNA technology, and the need to regulate it to secure its benefits and to contain its dangers. As a result, they called for more attention to be given to this subject in particular and to the field in general. Dr Ahmed Sharaf-Eddine showed, in his paper submitted to the Conference on Reproduction in Islam, held in Kuwait in 1983, that the danger of such experiments lies in their consequences for unique, distinguishing human characteristics such as mind and self, which are highly esteemed in Islam. He argued that research in this field must, because its results are going to be applied to the human race, be governed by the basic rules of the Islamic religion.

A view widely held among Islamic scholars is that new concepts in science will never be contradictory with Islamic fundamentals because any new hypothesis will not become established fact or truth unless it falls in agreement with the Qur’an and Sunna. Even though neither the Qur’an nor the books recording the Sunna are scientific books, and though the decision for every single eventuality is not directly stated in them, they do contain general rules that can be applied to every eventuality and enable a rational decision to be taken. God says: Nothing have We omitted from the book (6.38). By using the different sources of legislation, scholars can work out appropriate decisions for different or new situations. However, no one individual scholar can give a detailed, specific decision concerning genetic engineering experiments, especially in these decades, where legal decisions concerning the new developments in science are taken in annual conferences where contemporary Islamic scholars assemble.

Some scholars have initiated the task of applying the general principles of Islamic Law to the recent advances, in order to facilitate a final ruling on both the positive and negative sides of genetic engineering. Dr Abdel Satar Abu Guda, in his paper submitted to the Conference on Reproduction in Islam, stated that, if the aim of such experiments is to cure and help the victims of genetically inherited diseases, then one can say that Islam encourages such technology or at least permits it, since such action falls under the general Islamic injunction to treat disease and bring benefits to the human race. According to the well-known saying of the Prophet, upon him be peace, that for every ailment (except old age) there is a remedy, the search for cures to inherited diseases must be legitimate. In addition, genetic engineering applications on plants are, according to Dr Abu Guda, permitted in Islam as they aim to increase the benefits to mankind from plants, which falls under the Qur’anic verse (31.20): Do you not see that God has subjected to your use all things in the heavens and on earth?

The general consensus of the scholars on the aspirations to change human nature by playing with the genetic make-up of human beings is negative. They are of the opinion that experiments so directed are but the response to the orders of the devil since they aspire to change the innate quality of the human race. God says (4.119): They call but upon Satan, the persistent rebel. God did curse him, but he said I will take of Thy servants a portion marked off. I will mislead them and I will create in them false desires; I will order them to slit the ears of cattle and to deface the fair nature created by-God. Whoever forsaking God, takes Satan for a friend has surely suffered a loss that is manifest. Because God has created humans in a perfect way (We have indeed created man in the best of moulds (95.4)), no human experiment

can create a better human being. Also God prohibited anything that can alter human consciousness transiently such as alcohol, drugs, and witchcraft, the effects of which can cause people to ruin themselves in body, mind and character, as well as financially. By analogy, scholars argue that the same general principle of preserving human character should apply to attempts to alter character by genetic intervention.

Shaikh Muhammad Al-Ghazali expressed a very clear opinion on the attempts to produce a ‘superman.’ He said: ‘If we consider human fancies and use medicine to realize them, what is likely to happen? We will damage this world.’ He added that we should master ‘ethical engineering’ rather than genetic engineering. Dr Muhammad Al-Mutajali considered that cloning human beings and seeking to produce a ‘superman’ are to be prohibited on the bases of the verse, No change there is in the work wrought by God (30.30), which proscribes such fundamental alterations. He added that such an action could led to the confusion of lineages and ancestry.

Broadly, the consensus seems to be that the use of science for the benefit of the human race is acceptable in Islam, but that fundamental changes in the fundamentals of human nature and (consequently) human relationships are not acceptable. Man should not think that because he has been able to modify the genetic content of plants, he is at liberty to do all that he desires to do in this life. God says (10.24): The likeness of the life of the present is as the rain which We send down from the skies: by its mingling arises the produce of earth which provides food for men and animals till the earth is clad with its golden ornaments and is decked out in beauty. The people to whom it belongs think they have all powers of disposal over it. There reaches it Our command by night or by day and We make it like a harvest clean-mown as if it had not flourished only the day before! Thus We explain the signs in detail for those who reflect.

Scientists at the end of the Conference on Reproduction in Islam recommended that it is legal to use recombinant DNA technology to produce chemicals and drugs needed for the benefit of society and for the elimination of harm. However, the recommendation is general. It is not restricted to human recombinant DNA technology, i.e. there is no detailed ruling on every specific aspect of these new experiments. (The decision may be contrasted, in this respect, to that taken in Makka a decade ago concerning in vitro fertilization.) What is clear from the recommendation is that human cloning is prohibited because it does not fall within the ambit of the general legal principle: ‘The removal of harm and the obtaining of benefits.’ Also, human cloning would result in many unanswerable questions. For example, How can we regulate the relation between the original person and his copies? A person could, in theory, be his or her own parent! What are the consequences for the laws of inheritance? Moreover, human cloning, if ever realized, would annul human relationships based on the family, as marriage would no longer be the way to get children, something that plainly ignores or even contradicts the law of God who says (30.21): And among His signs is this that he created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquillity with them and He has put love and mercy between your hearts. Verily in that are signs for those who reflect. How would humanity fare without love and mercy between the hearts of men and women? What would be the character of children reared in the absence of a family environment or one lacking in such qualities?

There is a further, also fearful, dimension to the problem. What are the likely consequences between nations if one nation is able, long before the others, to realize this dream of producing a ‘superbreed’? Or the likely consequences within even a single nation? Clearly, only the ‘best’ citizens with ‘perfect’ mental and physical health, will be cloned, or would it be only the richest and most powerful? In either case, discrimination is inevitable and will inevitably lead to conflict.

The hope of producing a ‘superbreed’ or cloning ‘supermen’ is based upon a wildly optimistic estimate of the capacity of human scientific knowledge and of human wisdom in the use of it. It cannot but lead to (if it does not already derive from) a denial of Divine authority and power.

The Qur’an states (76.1-3): Has there not been over man a long period of time when he was a nothing not even mentioned? Verily We created man from a drop of mingled sperm. In order to try him We gave him the gifts of learning and sight. We showed him the way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful.

In sum, not all genetic engineering applications are prohibited and not all are allowed. Those directed towards the benefit of the human race are allowed, but those used to fundamentally alter human nature and God’s work are prohibited. Science must be controlled by religion and ethics because a scientist with no restraints is but a devil.

References

• Al-Jundi, Ahmad, Conference on Reproduction in Islam. Ministry of Health, Kuwait, 1983.
• Beck, Liam et al., Life, 3rd edn. Harper Collins. New York. 1991. ‘Genetic Engineering’ Ahidati, 20 (52). p.15.
• Mashing, Abel Rahman, ‘Transplantation of identical human embryos’, Al Moslemoon, 12 Nov 1993, no 458, p.7.
• Verma, I. ‘Gene Therapy’. Scientific American, Nov 1990 V 263 No 5, pp.34-41.

There is a natural healing power in honey of great benefit to man. This is affirmed in verses 68-9 of sura al-Nahl in the Qur’an: And your Lord inspired the bee: ‘Build your homes in the mountans and in the trees and in the (hives) made by mankihd’ Then (He taught the bee) to feed on every kind of fruit (of the earth) and to follow the ways of your Lord made smooth. There comes from inside their bellies a drink of diverse colours in which is healing for mankind. Surely in this is a sign for those people who reflect (al-Nahl, 16.68-9)

It is extraordinary that the curative properties of honey are documented in the world’s oldest medical literature. The Sumerians, and Egyptian physicians around 2000 BC, used honey to treat internal and external wounds, ulcers, diseases of the eyes, lungs, skin and, in particular, diseases of the stomach and intestines. The Chinese, the Indians, the Greeks and the Romans also recorded similar practices in their traditions. Hippocrates, the so-called ‘father’ of modern medicine (460-377 BC) also used honey to treat a variety of diseases. Honey was also highly regarded as a tonic to preserve youth and prolong healthy life–one Chinese Emperor used it as a drug to obtain immortality. The great Muslim physician, Ibn Sina (980-1037) wrote dozens of prescriptions containing honey in his world-famous medical textbook ‘The Canon of Medicine’. He is reported to have included among the benefits of honey that it makes you feel happy; that it refreshes you; that it assists digestion and gets rid of wind; that it helps when you have a cold; that it increases appetite; that it improves and sharpens memory; that it eases the tongue (the faculty of speech); and that it preserves youthfulness.

THE ANTIBACTERIAL ‘SYSTEM’ IN HONEY

In 1937 H. Dold et al. reported that honey has antibacterial activity and called the active agent an ‘inhibine’. Ever since, a number of scientist have tried in vain to discover the identity of this ‘inhibine’. In 1963 J.W. White et al. suggested that the ‘inbibine’ is the hydrogen peroxide produced by the honey’s glucose-oxidase system. However, results obtained by the author and by other scientists such as O.B.O’L. James et al. in 1972 and S.S. Radwan et al. in 1984 do not agree with the attribution of the ‘inhibine’ to the hydrogen peroxide produced. This author’s researches in the laboratory have shown that the antibacterial activity of honey is owed not to a single factor but to a complex ‘system’ of factors, of which there are at list three:

1- The high sugar concentration (76 g/1OO ml)

2- The acidity (pH=3.6-4.2)

3- The organic antibacterial compounds present in honey

It was observed that undiluted honey clearly exhibits antibacterial activity. The bacterial cells dry out because of the osmotic effect of the high sugar content in the solution and bacterial growth is retarded in the acidic environment which honey provides. In diluted form neither the sugar in the honey nor the acidity in it has an inhibitive effect on bacteria. Is it then the organic compounds which are responsible for inhibiting bacterial growth? It was also observed that most of the common pathogenic bacteria which infect human beings are killed in honey. Honey therefore acts as a bactericide. The researches established that the ‘inhibine’ is not a single agent but a subtle combination of intricately related factors quite unique in their antibacterial action. Further research is necessary, and is currently in progress, to identify the chemical nature of the organic antibacterial factors in honey.

THE BIOCHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF HONEY

The biochemical composition of honey is relevant to its curative properties. Beside the existence of the antibacterial ‘system’, honey is known to contain not less than 181 different compounds. These can be classified as follows:

– Simple and complex sugars

– Organic acids

– Minerals and trace elements (resembling blood composition)

– Vitamins (both water and fat soluble)

– Amino-acids (both essentials and non-essentials)

– Proteins (mainly enzymes)

– Lipids (simple, complex and wax)

– Plant flavours and colouring materials

– Hydrocarbons

– Hormones

– Pollens

– Microorganisms (yeast)

The list above shows just how complex the composition of honey is. It is then less of a wonder that honey contains some combination of elements which have proven so effective in the treatment of wounds and ulcers. Honey not only keeps ruptured cells sterile but also provides all the necessary micronutrients which are the building materials need to assist the cells’ full recovery. Although these micronutrients are present in only small quantities, they are available in the most easily assimilated, soluble forms. In addition, the high energy required for the healing processes to occur is provided by the simple sugars, fructose and glucose, in honey.

CLINICAL USE OF HONEY

To date the scientific and clinical evidences for the miracle of honey are numerous. Doctors and surgeons have used honey in their medical practice and even openly recommended its use. Among recent examples the use of honey for:

Treatment of serious gunshot wounds by Prof. S.A. Simirnov in 1948;

Treatment of breakdown surgical wounds by Dr. D. Cavanagh et al. in 1970;

Treatment of ulcers, surface wounds, cuts and abrasions by Dr. R. Blomfield in 1973;

Treatment of bacterial gastro enteritis (diarrhea) by Dr. I.E. Haffejee and Prof. A. Moosa in 1985;

Treatment of a wide range of serious long-standing wounds and ulcers by Dr. S.E.E. Efem in 1988;

Treatment of infected wounds in vulvectomy, infected perineum, infected abdominal wall wounds and breakdown of abdominal wall scar by Dr. R.J.F. Mclnerney in 1990.

In each of these cases honey was praised for its effectiveness as compared to ‘modern-conventional’ treatment. Honey was observed to kill bacteria at the site of wounds, to debride (clean up) wounds, rapidly replacing sloughs (dead cells) and so enabling granulation (scar) tissues to form. Honey also permitted epithelialization (i.e. growth of healthy cells) and the absorption of oedema (swellings) from around the ulcer margins. Honey reduced further infection, the risk of offensively smelly (seriously infected) wounds and so reduced need for skin graft treatments.

CONCLUSION

The verses of the Our’an which affirm the healing properties of honey affirm for us the mercy of Allah, Creator and Sustainer of the Worlds. It is also by this mercy that we study and research what He has created and made intelligible to us, including this miracle of honey. It is easy then to conclude our work, as Muslim scholars and scientists always used to begin their work, by praising Allah, and by saluting the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace, who left us this advice: Whoever licks honey three mornings in a month is saved from serious illnesses. 

REFERENCES

• IOYRICH, N. (1977) Bees and People, Mir Publishers. Moscow.
• CRANE, E. (1978) Honey: A Comprehensive Review Heinemann, London.
• WHITE. J.W., Mary. J.R.. Subers. H. and Schepartz, A. I. (1963) ‘The identification of inhibine, the antibacterial factor in honey as hydrogen peroxide and it s origin in a honey glucose-oxidase system’, Biochem. et Biophys. acta, 73. pp.57-70.
• JAMES. O.B. O’L, Segree. W and Ventura. A.K. (1972) ‘Some antibacterial properties of Jamaican honey’ West Indies Medical Journal, 21(7), pp.7-17.
• RADWAN. S.S.. El-Essawy, A. A. and Sarhan, M.M. (1984) ‘Experimental evidence for the occurrence in honey of specific substances active against micro-organisms’ Zbl. Mikrobiol.. 139. pp.249-55.
• KAMARUDDIN. M.Y., Sivanaesan,L and Hamid, A.H.A. (1989) ‘The existence of antibacterial factors in Malaysian Apis cerana honey’, Proceedings of the 14th. Malaysian Biochemical Society Conference pp.l8l-5
• JAVANAGH. D., Beazler, C. and Ostapowicz, F. (1970) ‘Radical operation for carcinoma of the vulva: a new approach for wound healing’ Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Commonwealth, 77, pp 1037-40.
• BLOMFIELD, R. (1973) ‘Honey for decubitus ulcers’ Journal of American Medical Association 224, p-905.
• HAFFEJII, I.E. and Moosa, A. (1985) ‘Honey in a treatment infantile gastroenferitis’ British Medical Journal, 290, pp.1866-7.
• EFEM. S.E. (1988) ‘Clinical observations on the wound healing properties of honey’ British Journal of Surgery, 75, pp.679-81.
• MACINERNEY. R.C.F. (1990) ‘Honey: a remedy rediscovered’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 83, p.127.
• KAMARUDDIN, M.Y (1987-91) ‘Biochemical and Pharmacological study on Malaysian Apis cerena honey’, Beekeeping: The Malaysian Beekeeping Research and Development Team – IDRC. 1987-91 Report.