Couples share 30% of their gut bacteria. Here’s how that may affect health

Conor Meehan, Nottingham Trent University and Janelle Mwerinde, Nottingham Trent University

When living with a partner, you might be sharing more than just the same home, lifestyle and interests. You might also share various microscopic organisms residing on and in you.

This community of microorganisms, which consists of mainly bacteria, viruses and fungi, is known collectively as the human microbiome. The various microbiomes found throughout the body all play an important role in health.

From birth, the human microbiome is shaped by our interactions with our mother, who introduces diverse microorganisms that build our immune and digestive systems. As we get older, social interactions with our close community continue influencing this delicate ecosystem.

The people we live with have huge influence on what microbes we have in our microbiome. In fact, it’s thought that partners share around 30% of their resident microbes in the gut alone.

But it isn’t just the microbes in your gut that may be similar to your partner. The microbes in many other parts of the body may also be shared with your loved one – and this could potentially affect your health.

Gut microbiome

Diet and lifestyle are thought to have the greatest influence on the gut microbiome’s make-up. But studies on couples have found that living with your partner can also influence the microbiome.

Couples living together may share 13% to 30% of their gut bacteria. This was true even when diet (which many couples share) was factored out. Research also shows that couples who live together have greater microbial diversity compared to people who live alone.

This is good news for couples who co-habitate, as a more diverse gut microbiome is correlated with lower risk of irritable bowel syndrome, cardiovascular diseases and potentially high blood sugar.

But it might not all be good news. Research shows that some of the bacterial species couples share can have varying effects on health.

Take the bacteria from the Ruminococcus family. While some species of Ruminoccocus benefit health, others have been linked to negative health outcomes, including diabetes and irritable bowel syndrome.

So these bacteria may not always offer the same benefits in different demographics. This highlights the complexity of resident gut bacteria and their health impacts.

Oral microbiome

Sharing an oral microbiome with our partners might seem obvious considering we regularly exchange saliva when we kiss. A ten-second kiss alone can exchange up to 80 million bacteria. The more kisses a couple shares, the more shared salivary bacteria they will have.

Although most of these bacteria will quickly pass through our mouth and into our gut when we swallow saliva, research show that couples actually share many of the same longer-term tongue microbes that form the foundation of the oral microbiome. Research even suggests that 38% of the oral microbiome is shared in couples living together – compared to only 3% in couples who don’t live together.

Sharing this proportion of your oral microbiome could have many potential health effects.

A healthy oral microbiome is important for protecting against tooth decay and it has anti-inflammatory properties. Some researchers also suggest the oral microbiome’s health effects may extend as far as the gut and nervous system.

But some of the bacteria that couples tend to share may also have potentially harmful health effects.

Couples are more likely to have similar numbers of the bacteria Neisseria in their gut compared to single people. Neisseria can reside in the mouth for long periods of without causing disease.

Some Neisseria bacteria can be harmful and may cause meningitis. Yet some Neisseria bacteria actually fight against these meningitis-causing species, stopping them from overgrowing and causing harm.

So while you may want to avoid kissing someone when they’re poorly for obvious reasons, it turns out that a kiss even when you’re healthy can transfer all sorts of bacteria between the two of you.

More research is needed to really understand what overall effect sharing these bacteria with your partner has on health.

Skin microbiome

The skin microbiome is the most unique and personalised microbiome, tailored to each person. It’s even sometimes referred to as our microbial fingerprint.

Being the most exposed microbiome, the skin microbiome has evolved to be adaptable to external factors such as the climate and cosmetic products. No matter what, these bacteria work hard to remain at an equilibrium.

Close contact with our partners – and even pets – has a huge influence on what bacteria live on our skin. After comparing the gut and oral microbiome, researchers found the skin microbiome to be the most similar among couples.

It isn’t just the bacteria on your arms or hands that are shared, either. Research shows that couples shared 35% of the bacteria living on their feet, and around 17.5% of the bacteria on their eyelids.

You may not even need to touch your partner to have the same skin bacteria as them. Factors such as sleeping in the same bed and walking on similar surfaces are thought to explain why such a large proportion of our skin microbiome is similar.

This is because humans naturally shed bacteria in a similar way as dogs shed fur. We leave traces of our bacteria on everything we touch – and we also easily pick up bacteria from our environments.

The shared effect of living together on the skin microbiome is so great that researchers were able to use computer models to accurately predict 86% of cohabiting couples based off of their individual bacterial samples alone.

But while it’s clear that couples share much of the same skin microbiome, the health effect that this has is not currently known.

While sharing bacteria with your partner may sound alarming, there’s often no cause for concern. Bacteria teach our bodies how to fight infections, they help us digest foods and even produce key nutrients. The bacteria we share with our partners are often harmless and sometimes benefit our health rather than hindering it.The Conversation

Conor Meehan, Associate Professor of Microbial Bioinformatics, Nottingham Trent University and Janelle Mwerinde, PhD Candidate, Skin Microbiology, Nottingham Trent University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........

Bug drugs: bacteria-based cancer therapies are finally overcoming barriers

Imagine a world where bacteria, typically feared for causing disease, are turned into powerful weapons against cancer. That’s exactly what some scientists are working on. And they are beginning to unravel the mechanisms for doing so, using genetically engineered bacteria to target and destroy cancer cells.

Using bacteria to fight cancer dates back to the 1860s when William B. Coley, often called the father of immunotherapy, injected bacteria called streptococci into a young patient with inoperable bone cancer. Surprisingly, this unconventional approach led to the tumour shrinking, marking one of the first examples of immunotherapy.

Over the next few decades, as head of the Bone Tumour Service at Memorial Hospital in New York, Coley injected over 1,000 cancer patients with bacteria or bacterial products. These products became known as Coley’s toxins.

Despite this early promise, progress in bacteria-based cancer therapies has been slow. The development of radiation therapy and chemotherapy overshadowed Coley’s work, and his approach faced scepticism from the medical community.

However, modern immunology has vindicated many of Coley’s principles, showing that some cancers are indeed very sensitive to an enhanced immune system, an approach we can often capture to treat patients.

How bacteria-based cancer therapies work

These therapies take advantage of the unique ability of certain bacteria to proliferate inside tumours. The low oxygen, acidic and dead tissue in the area around the cancer – the tumour “microenvironment” (an area I am especially interested in) – create an ideal niche for some bacteria to thrive. Once there, bacteria can, in theory, directly kill tumour cells or activate the body’s immune responses against the cancer. However, several difficulties have hindered the widespread adoption of this approach.

Safety concerns are paramount because introducing live bacteria into a patient’s body can cause harm. Researchers have had to carefully attenuate (weaken) bacterial strains to ensure they don’t damage healthy tissue. Additionally, controlling the bacteria’s behaviour within the tumour and preventing them from spreading to other parts of the body has been difficult.

Bacteria live inside us, known as the microbiome, and treatments, disease and, of course, new bacteria that are introduced can interfere with this natural environment. Another significant hurdle has been our incomplete understanding of how bacteria interact with the complex tumour microenvironment and the immune system.

Questions remain about how to optimise bacterial strains for maximum anti-tumour effects while minimising side-effects. We’re also not sure of the dose – and some approaches give one bacteria and others entire colonies and multiple bug species together.

Recent advances

Despite these challenges, recent advances in scientific fields, such as synthetic biology and genetic engineering, have breathed new life into the field. Scientists can now program bacteria with sophisticated functions, such as producing and delivering specific anti-cancer agents directly within tumours.

This targeted approach could overcome some limitations of traditional cancer treatments, including side-effects and the inability to reach deeper tumour tissues.

Emerging research suggests that bacteria-based therapies could be particularly promising for certain types of cancer. Solid tumours, especially those that have a poor blood supply and are resistant to conventional therapies, might benefit most from this approach.

Colon cancer, ovarian cancer and metastatic breast cancer are among the high-mortality cancers that researchers are targeting with these innovative therapies. One area we have the best evidence for is that “bug drugs” may help the body fight cancer by interacting with routinely used immunotherapy drugs.

Recent studies have shown encouraging results. For instance, researchers have engineered strains of E coli bacteria to deliver small tumour protein fragments to immune cells, effectively training them to recognise and attack cancer cells. In lab animals, this approach has led to tumour shrinkage and, sometimes, complete elimination.

By exploiting these mechanisms, bacterial therapies can selectively colonise tumours while largely sparing healthy tissues, potentially overcoming limitations of conventional cancer treatments.

Ultimately, we need human trials to give us the answer about whether this works, by controlling or eradicating cancer and, of course, if there are side-effects, its toxicity.

In one study I worked on, we showed that part of a bacterial cell wall, when injected into patients, could safely help control melanoma – the most deadly form of skin cancer.

While we’re still in the early stages, the potential of bacteria-based cancer therapies is becoming increasingly clear. As our understanding of tumour biology and bacterial engineering improves, we may be on the cusp of a new era in cancer treatment.

Bacterial-based cancer therapies take advantage of several unique mechanisms to specifically target tumour cells. As a result, these therapies could offer a powerful new tool in our arsenal against cancer, working in synergy with existing treatments like immunotherapy and chemotherapy. And, as we look to the future, bacteria-based cancer therapies represent a fascinating convergence of historical insight and groundbreaking science.

While challenges remain, the progress in this field offers hope for more effective, targeted treatments that could significantly improve outcomes for cancer patients.The Conversation

Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........