Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

lanternbioworks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 312 posts

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#231

Post by corethree »

lolinder wrote: post #178
corethree wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mutations trend towards stable states. Stable states further trend towards states where fast mutation becomes disabled because it's in a "good" stable zone. Symbiosis is the ultimate stable state. You can get stable states in intermediate zones like hiv infections, but these zones are not as good as symbiosis. They have potential to kill off a weak population, additionally humans are actively combatting the virus. In…

As I understand it you left off the key reason why symbiosis is a stable state for a parasite/symbiote: because other states tend to destroy the host, causing the mutated strain to (usually) have a harder time propagating. That's all well and good when you're looking at evolutionary theory writ large, it's less appealing when you're talking about sticking a new bacteria in a specific person's mouth.

>because other states tend to destroy the host

No untrue. That is the most extreme case. A parasite can make a host less healthy and less likely to reproduce. This all lives on a gradient where parasitic relationship move the likelihood of reproduction down a little while symbiosis is the most extreme state where reproductive success is only positively effected.

>it's less appealing when you're talking about sticking a new bacteria in a specific person's mouth.

What does appeal have to do with anything? Much of our medical treatments were unappealing at one point in time. Colonoscopy? Sticking a camera up your ass to prevent cancer. Surgery? Cutting you open to fix something. None of it appealing but all of it necessary and worth it in the end.

Also keep in mind we live in times where much of the food we eat is bioengineered to live in symbiosis with us. The difference is instead of directly manipulating the gene, we indirectly manipulate it through artificial offspring selection. All domesticated animals and plants have been manipulated this way at a macro level for eons. The difference here is that the manipulation is happening on the molecular level rather then the macro level.

Your aversion to it is just instinctive and habitual but it's no different to much of the things we already do.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#232

Post by fnordpiglet »

EarthLaunch wrote: post #147
jozvolskyef wrote: post #109

A conversation with my friend who was a dentistry student, ~2013. > [The friend, let's call her L, trying to dissuade me from drinking some fizzy drink] > J: But I won't get a cavity if the liquid doesn't touch my teeth. > L: Cavities are caused by the ensuing low ph environment, not by contact with teeth > J: Does that mean I can drink as much of it as I want as long as I rinse my mouth with water afterwards? > L, w…

> I have yet to find interdental toothbrushes whose use doesn't lead to ingesting nylon. Isn't that all toothbrushes, or are interdentals unique? (I haven't used them.) I always assumed that toothbrushes would shed microplastics during brushing. Also, avoid flossers, as they usually have PFAS. I use a water flosser instead.

The research that found this didn’t identify PFAs in any dental floss but instead found a correlation in blood levels in the (small number of) participants.

They detected fluorine in the floss and assumed that meant PFAs (Perfluoroalkoxy). This is a really bizarre leap because the floss is made of PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylene), which has fluorine, but is unrelated to PFAs even if you squint, despite both being fluropolymers.

PTFE is safe unless heated to over 300C, which doesn’t happen in your mouth. At one point in history the manufacturing process used PFOA, which is not an awesome chemical, but has not been used since 2013.

However it carries a reputational stigma from that time to this day. It’s otherwise chemically stable and non reactive. It’s also important to note that the study that everyone is basing these conclusions on was in the range of time that PFOA was used to produce PTFE, possibly explaining the PFOA detected in higher amounts.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0109-y

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#233

Post by kelnos »

themagician wrote: post #115
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they can charge $40-$80 (or more) for a fluoride treatment. It's actually how they make money on cleanings This is nonsense. Many dentists, mine included, don’t apply fluoride. (They trust you to use toothpaste.)

It's not nonsense. Perhaps many don't, but most ask (at least where I am). They literally ask you when you go in for a cleaning if you want fluoride and then charge you. My current dentist charges $40. My last dentist (Orange County) charged $80, which was a total scam place I only went to once.

Hell, my dentist doesn't ask: they just assume I want it ($80, SF bay area) unless I tell them otherwise.

I'm honestly kinda meh on my dentist, but getting me to go to the dentist at all is a slog (and I very much appreciate that they make me a new appointment for next time while I'm still there); the idea of expending the effort to find a new dentist feels paralyzing.

I end up just letting them do it. My teeth aren't exactly in the best shape. Unclear if the fluoride treatment actually does all that much, but it certainly doesn't hurt, and I don't want to look back when I'm older and regret not spending $160/yr for better teeth. I'd much rather look back and regret (but in reality not particularly care) that I wasted $160/yr.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#234

Post by kelnos »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #203
themagician wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not nonsense. Perhaps many don't, but most ask (at least where I am). They literally ask you when you go in for a cleaning if you want fluoride and then charge you. My current dentist charges $40. My last dentist (Orange County) charged $80, which was a total scam place I only went to once.

Some years ago, maybe 25, no dentists in the USA applied fluoride. Yet somehow they stayed in business.

I don't think it's inconceivable that the economics of running a dental practice have changed over that time period.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#235

Post by kelnos »

dehrmann wrote: post #113
themagician wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they can charge $40-$80 (or more) for a fluoride treatment. It's actually how they make money on cleanings. If you don't opt for the fluoride treatment it's a wash.

My old dentist would give me a pump of it and have me swish for a minute. Billed insurance $20. Insurance always said "$5," then they "forgave" the rest, probably because I'd be asking some questions about how that costs them $20.

I think that's something else, just a fluoridated mouthwash? At my dentist it's something they "paint" on my teeth with a q-tip, and then tell me not to eat or drink for a few hours.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#236

Post by skwb »

upon_drumhead wrote: post #83
Mistletoe wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems hard to believe the ethanol producing bacterial strain would dominate your oral microbione for life from one application. But I’m willing to have an open mind and see some data. They need to get the data off of the Google drive and presented in a better way. I don’t click unknown Google drive links if I can avoid it.

Brushing your teeth and using mouthwash wipes out the majority of the micro biome. Application of the new strain shortly after could totally replace it wholesale. That said, I can’t imagine there’s not other side effects that just aren’t known yet. The sample size and reporting (as far as we know) is just too small and meaningless.

In one of their articles they claim that the microbiome is stable over 15 years, but this is categorized as "unpublished work" which leaves me with a large sense of doubt. I don't mind research that is in preliminary stages (as in conference abstracts, technical papers, etc), but the fact they are very naïve in how they approach scientific evidence makes me highly doubtful.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#237

Post by jokethrowaway »

dgrin91 wrote: post #56

The question I always have with this type of stuff is: why is it not _already_ huge. Cavities were a big thing already in 1985. If this was a miracle cure in 1985 then I do not believe that this study would have ended in 'ok that was fun, back to normal life'. This has huge commercial potential if true, so the apparently implications is that there is something blocking that commercial application. Was it FDA? Was it…

A one time cure for cavities is just bad for business!

Same with RISUG, a cheap semi-permanent reversible male contraceptive made with a tiny piece of plastic (which would destroy condoms and female hormonal pill - never got to the western world) or ocumetics, the bionic eyes promising 20/20 for everyone with a simple cataract surgery (which seems to be stuck in a endless cycle of getting bought, and doing trials).

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#238

Post by jokethrowaway »

Karellen wrote: post #150
dehrmann wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't want to get too conspiratorial, but dentists make their money on cavities, not cleanings.

US dentists make their money on cavities. Some other countries have healthcare systems where the primary goal is the patient outcome, and lowering the need for treatment is considered a win. If this were a thing, you'd expect that it might have been picked up and trialled in one of those places.

I don't know any place in the world where that's the case.

I can tell you publicly funded eu hospitals all want more treatments so they can justify bigger budgets. Rinse and repeat.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#239

Post by jozvolskyef »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #232
EarthLaunch wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have yet to find interdental toothbrushes whose use doesn't lead to ingesting nylon. Isn't that all toothbrushes, or are interdentals unique? (I haven't used them.) I always assumed that toothbrushes would shed microplastics during brushing. Also, avoid flossers, as they usually have PFAS. I use a water flosser instead.

The research that found this didn’t identify PFAs in any dental floss but instead found a correlation in blood levels in the (small number of) participants. They detected fluorine in the floss and assumed that meant PFAs (Perfluoroalkoxy). This is a really bizarre leap because the floss is made of PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylene), which has fluorine, but is unrelated to PFAs even if you squint, despite both being fluro…

I mean these: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Interdental-Original-0-4-1-5mm-effe... The problem is that when they encounter a sharp edge, they get torn or cut off. I doubt there has been any research on the ingestion of nylon cuttings, which is why I would prefer to find something as effective but known to be safe.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#240

Post by jokethrowaway »

jonny_eh wrote: post #103
themagician wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they can charge $40-$80 (or more) for a fluoride treatment. It's actually how they make money on cleanings. If you don't opt for the fluoride treatment it's a wash.

And fluoride treatments likely don't do much. The main benefit of fluoride is from ingestion by children, while their teeth are forming.

It's the exact opposite

There are no benefits from ingestion - it's actually harmful and linked to a series of terrible stuff (cognitive development issues and neurological problems in primis). The only benefits are from topical application.

Source: my parents fed me fluoride pills for my entire childhood

Post reply on HN