• Quilotoa@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

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

    • dgdft@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      How are you distinguishing those ideas?

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

      • Quilotoa@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

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

        • dgdft@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

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

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

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