Sapi - Antibiotic susceptibility different forms of Bb

Topics with information and discussion about published studies related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
Camp Other
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed 2 Mar 2011 4:32
Contact:

Re: Sapi - Antibiotic susceptibility different forms of Bb

Post by Camp Other » Wed 11 May 2011 9:12

rlstanley:

Given your experience and perspective, perhaps you can help me with some questions about education and providing examples...

How would you go about introducing people to the kind of work you've done when they have no familiarity with it, yet you'd like them to understand it?

What would your approach be if you were to do it online?

It's one thing to build curriculum based on a class that is given in a linear manner with an audience that remains constant and another to build curriculum based on a non-linear approach with an audience that is intermittent and demographically similar on only a few points.

Ideas?

rlstanley
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2007 2:53

Re: Sapi - Antibiotic susceptibility different forms of Bb

Post by rlstanley » Wed 11 May 2011 16:08

CO:
[on Sapi]...are you with her earlier research, pre-Lyme disease research?
No
CO:
I do read RR on occasion, but it's difficult for me to read it at times because he is pretty scathing in his commentary about Lyme disease patients and paints them all with the same brush of crazy.

It's gotten old. I don't see why he can't just state his opinion without having to insult people all the time.
There is a lot of interesting information on his blog. His insults? Well, he is being sarcastic perhaps in response to those in LymeLand who constantly deride IDSA, promote terrible 'doctoring' along with stupidity & awful 'research' AND that being cheered & promoted by LL leaders. Actually, RR's disdain is greatly overwhelmed by the nasty players in non-IDSA LymeLand. Nasty vs nasty. Does it add anything? Meh, it is what it is.

I am willing to learn and work around ALL the nastiness/sarcasm in LymeLand; I can figure things out even in a firefight. I desire input from all sides to draw my own conclusions, coupled with my experiences. I appreciate less emotional outbursts but know that is impossible with such controversy & the profiteering off of desperate patients. Things are more polarized--and IMO encouraged to be so in LymeLand--than ever.

Can't learn how to grow a thick skin, but it sure helps. Been in the game so long, that nasty/sarcasm is just old news to me.
CO:
I didn't give it the analysis RR did, and he decided to shred it. That's his idea - he's good at shredding.
Well, academics should be trained to 'shred' articles. With that I mean go for all weaknesses starting with where the work is published through every sentence to any conclusions and references. As a young researcher in training, my colleagues & I were given papers to 'shred' or critically evaluate if you will. We were trained to go for the throat.

Finding the "fatal flaw" was always in our sights. The paper was nullified with that one. It is the author who must defend his paper, must explain everything. It is the academic's job to find what is wrong with it.

There is no nice about it. Academics fight. It ain't Carl Sagan time.
Camp Other wrote:How would you go about introducing people to the kind of work you've done when they have no familiarity with it, yet you'd like them to understand it?
Perhaps a simple tutorial. Keep it simple, concise. Or start with basic questions and answers with URLs to reputable sites for further reading.
What would your approach be if you were to do it online?
I'm not sure what you want to convey. I sure wouldn't use sensationalism, long passages, colored BIG words clutter with pictures and other stuff. Serious subjects are treated seriously but with small amounts of interjected humor or an ongoing joke that keeps people tuned in.

I don't know. It depends on who the audience is and what you want to teach.

Respect the reader; don't talk down to him. People want to be entertained anymore and that is sad. However, a little humor here and there is fine. Never be one-sided. Always explore the other side. Avoid sensationalistic words like evil, references to any religion, sports analogies, whatever. But don't pamper the readers or treat them like fragil children who need gentle guidance.

My old grad advisor always told me always to teach to the top students, never the middle or the bottom. The bottom will always do the least no matter what is given, and they might even pick up more if you offer it. The middle will follow the same rule as well. But the ones at the top, those are the ones that hunger for what you give them and will be the ones who will benefit most.

You'll lose some, but that's the way it goes. Aim for the ones who will BENEFIT from what you convey. Who might actually do something with the knowledge.

Never enable stupid questions. Yes, there are stupid distracting questions. Stay on track.

KISS: Keep it simple sugar . Always. Simple is not dumbed down.

Concise. Structured. Links to further explore items in depth if the reader wants.

That's stuff off the top of my head. But you probably know these things already.
.

Martian
Posts: 1944
Joined: Thu 26 Jul 2007 18:29
Location: Friesland, the Netherlands

Re: Sapi - Antibiotic susceptibility different forms of Bb

Post by Martian » Fri 15 May 2015 14:07

FYI:

Recently, on this board and elsewhere, I have seen people advocating against the use of doxycycline, because the Sapi study showed this result: (see abstract in first post)
Doxycycline reduced spirochetal structures ~90% but increased the number of round body forms about twofold.

X-member
Posts: 3879
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: Sapi - Antibiotic susceptibility different forms of Bb

Post by X-member » Fri 15 May 2015 17:31

I am not sure that I understand what Sapi say correct. But let us say that there are 100 spirochetes and 20 round bodies from the beginning, and after Doxy has been added, she find 10 spirochetes and 40 round bodies?

User avatar
ChronicLyme19
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon 11 Aug 2014 17:42
Location: NY, USA

Re: Sapi - Antibiotic susceptibility different forms of Bb

Post by ChronicLyme19 » Sun 17 May 2015 2:22

This study showed that doxycycline seemed to increase the number of round bodies over the control. Instead of killing the spirochetes, the doxy seemed to encourage the formation of the round bodies instead. they could potentially revert to spirochetes after antibiotic therapy has stopped. Suggesting that perhaps if this happens in people, this is why some of us relapse after 3 weeks of doxy instead of being cured. And hence, why some people are recommending against doxy for Lyme. Although I think they use doxy over amoxicilin now because the doxy does a better job at killing the co infections.

Figure Caption:
Susceptibility of the spirochete and round body forms of strain B31 (top panels) and strain S297 (bottom panels) of B. burgdorferi to different concentrations (between calculated MIC and MBC) of five antibiotics after 72-hour treatment measured by dark-field microscopy.

Note: *P values <0.05 indicates statistical significance compared with control.
Attachments
1.jpg
1.jpg (130.3 KiB) Viewed 1260 times
Half of what you are taught is incorrect, but which half? What if there's another half missing?

X-member
Posts: 3879
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: Sapi - Antibiotic susceptibility different forms of Bb

Post by X-member » Sun 17 May 2015 8:51

Thank you ChronicLyme19!

Then I think it can not be cyst form. It must be smaller round bodies. Maybe granules and/or blebs?

Dr MacDonald has posted some information and some pictures in the thread/post below:

Metamorphosis of Borrelia burgdorferi organisms

http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/view ... =10#p29244

Edit to add:

Perhaps it can be some cyst forms too?

X-member
Posts: 3879
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: Sapi - Antibiotic susceptibility different forms of Bb

Post by X-member » Sun 17 May 2015 9:11

If someone is interested in how a spirochete transform from a straight form to separate pearls in 3 days (72 h) you can find some pictures from my own blood, taken be me on page 72 and 73 on the link below:

Flått og hjortelusflue – viktige sykdoms-vektorer under spredning i norsk natur

http://borrelia-tbe.se/filer/2011/04/Fl ... Biolog.pdf

The blood was taken when I was on treatment with Doxycycline (300 mg/day).

Edit to add:

So one spirochete (with or without Doxy) can produce many round bodies.

User avatar
ChronicLyme19
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon 11 Aug 2014 17:42
Location: NY, USA

Re: Sapi - Antibiotic susceptibility different forms of Bb

Post by ChronicLyme19 » Sun 17 May 2015 15:56

And here's a study with images of the transition from spirochete to round body form as well:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?ter ... phic+forms

Microbiology. 2015 Mar;161(Pt 3):516-27. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.000027. Epub 2015 Jan 6.
Morphological and biochemical features of Borrelia burgdorferi pleomorphic forms.
Meriläinen L1, Herranen A2, Schwarzbach A3, Gilbert L2.
Author information
1Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences and NanoScience Center, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland leena.m.merilainen@jyu.fi.
2Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences and NanoScience Center, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
3Borreliose Centrum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.

Thread on it here: http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/view ... f=5&t=5660
Half of what you are taught is incorrect, but which half? What if there's another half missing?

X-member
Posts: 3879
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: Sapi - Antibiotic susceptibility different forms of Bb

Post by X-member » Sun 17 May 2015 16:54

If it is the kind of cyst form/round bodies that they mean in the study posted in the post above, that Sapi talk about, then the spirochetes have to multiply rather fast. ;)

Martian
Posts: 1944
Joined: Thu 26 Jul 2007 18:29
Location: Friesland, the Netherlands

Re: Sapi - Antibiotic susceptibility different forms of Bb

Post by Martian » Fri 22 May 2015 17:13

ChronicLyme19 wrote:This study showed that doxycycline seemed to increase the number of round bodies over the control. Instead of killing the spirochetes, the doxy seemed to encourage the formation of the round bodies instead. they could potentially revert to spirochetes after antibiotic therapy has stopped.
The study is using percentages of spirochetes and round body forms compared to the control, but it's not clear to me what number of spirochetes and round body forms the control is containing.

Quotes from the full text of the study:
Low passage isolates of the B31 and S297 strains of B. burgdorferi were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, VA. B. burgdorferi was cultured in Barbour-Stoner-Kelly H (BSK-H) complete medium, with 6% rabbit serum (Sigma, St Louis, MO, #B8291). The cultures were incubated at 33°C with 5% CO2 and maintained in sterile 15 mL glass tubes without antibiotics. Homogeneous cultures having only one form (spirochete) of B. burgdorferi were obtained by maintaining the cultures in a shaking incubator at 33°C and 250 rpm. At 250 rpm, there is no biofilm formation, and the culture remains homogeneous (E Sapi, unpublished observation).
To further test the effect of antibiotics on spirochete and round body forms of B. burgdorferi, the antibiotics were added to a set of 2-mL polystyrene culture tubes containing spirochetes at a concentration of 1 × 10^6 cells/mL and incubated at 33°C with 5% CO2.
To evaluate in-vitro antibiotic sensitivity of spirochete and round body morphological forms, two strains of B. burgdorferi (B31 and S297) were incubated for 72 hours with different antibiotics at concentrations above the calculated MIC and MBC. Antibiotic sensitivity was evaluated using the direct cell counting and dark field morphological evaluation methods (Figure 1​). Treatment with these higher concentrations showed that doxycycline reduced spirochetal structures ∼90% but increased the number of cystic round body forms about twofold (Figure 1A).
From the above data I would assume that the culture tubes contained almost only spirochetes (multiple thousands) and a very small percentage of round body forms when they started adding antibiotics.

The doxycycline 2-mL reduced spirochetal structures ∼90%, which is a large reduction in the number of spirochetes. So it seems the doxycycline did an good job of killing the spirochetes.

But when the number of cystic round body forms increased about twofold (shouldn't that be threefold?), what does that mean in terms of numbers? Is it an increase from 10 to 30, or from 100 to 300?

If the numbers of cystic round body forms were very low to begin with, which I think is probable, then maybe the increase to 300% percent of the control isn't so dramatic as it would seem at first sight.

Post Reply