Jump to content

Photo

ACNE is not associated with P.acnes?


3 replies to this topic

#1 Madworld

Madworld

    How the end always is.

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 703
    Likes: 1
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Joined: 02-October 04

Posted 08 November 2008 - 02:22 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm....Pubmed_RVDocSum

Acne is not associated with yet-uncultured bacteria.
Bek-Thomsen M, Lomholt HB, Kilian M.


Institute of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, The Bartholin Building, Wilhelm Meyer's Allé 1240, Aarhus University, Aarhus C DK-8000, Denmark.

Current clinical and microbiological information on acne fails to demonstrate a clear association between particular species, including Propionibacterium acnes, and disease, and the disease continues to be a considerable problem. To test if acne is associated with hitherto uncultured bacteria residing in diseased skin follicles, sequencing and phylogenetic analysis of approximately 5,700 amplified and cloned 16S rRNA genes were used to determine the microbial diversity in follicles from acne patients and healthy individuals and from the superficial skin of acne patients. Follicles from healthy skin were exclusively colonized by P. acnes, whereas the follicular microbiota of acne patients included, in addition, Staphylococcus epidermidis and minor proportions of other species. In comparison, samples from superficial skin showed a complex microbiota represented by 12 to 16 bacterial species. The findings of the study exclude the possibility that acne is associated with yet-uncultured bacteria and shows that healthy skin follicles constitute a remarkably exclusive habitat allowing colonization only by P. acnes.

#2 joris

joris

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 1,292
    Likes: 1
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the Netherlands
  • Joined: 21-September 09

Posted 25 February 2010 - 02:50 PM

Why didnt anyone reply on this?

#3 Sweetsleep

Sweetsleep

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 87
    Likes: 1
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA
  • Joined: 02-January 10

Posted 25 February 2010 - 03:47 PM

QUOTE (joris @ Feb 25 2010, 03:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why didnt anyone reply on this?



Well this is interesting information and a good start to identifying what bacteria grow on the skin of people with and without acne. It does NOT say that P. acnes doesn't cause acne (as you can see from the title of the paper).
It's possible that P. acnes DOES cause acne but that environmental conditions of the skin of people with acne allow for the overgrowth of P. acnes and the formation of breakouts. They they are saying is that other bacteria are also found on acne skin and these might be responsible for the acne as well. It's also possible that different types of bacteria are responsible for different types of acne (inflamed, not inflamed, whiteheads, etc).

A couple of things to note about the paper:
1. they only use a small sample size from a certain area of the world, which introduces bias
2. their rarefaction curve isn't saturated, which means that there are many unidentified species yet to be found so the title of the paper should not be "... as yet-uncultured bacteria" because obviously they haven't found them all thus they can't be sure.



#4 Reti

Reti

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 96
    Likes: 2
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA
  • Joined: 11-March 11

Posted 10 April 2011 - 12:46 AM

They concluded it is NOT previously uncultured bacteria that's contributing to the break outs, since the extreme minority populations of as-yet-uncultured bacteria (which you can see in their curve), while highly diverse, are not large enough to be likely causing any problems. So there's a massive diversity of bacteria on the upper surface of the skin on everyone. Some of it has never been identified in studies of acne. There are lots of different ones present, but the mystery bacteria are not plentiful enough to be the cause. They did not isolate all of them.

***But inside healthy pores, P.acne has a monopoly. Not so with "acne" pores.

P.acne bacteria seem then to have the exclusive symbiotic relationship with healthy human pores. In healthy pores, we should expect only P.acne to be there. In "acne prone individuals" (the first word there might turn out to be a misnomer), for whatever reason Staphylococcus epidermidis, which is usually present elsewhere around the pores, is getting in there. This does not appear to be the result of contamination during extraction.

Now... Is it just because the pre-existing inflammation is allowing Staph to move in? Or is the Staph what's causing the inflammation? Or is Staph and P.acne somehow working together (and/or with something else contributing [me: like allergies or known environmental inflammatory contaminants, maybe?]) to perpetuate this inflammation, change in the bacterial population of the pore, and thus continue the status-quo of the infected & inflamed pore?

This is very significant what they found, regardless of the sample size in terms of people. The amount of skin samples extracted was quite large. No prior studies have ever been conducted that had the necessary fidelity to rule out contamination of the samples extracted from inside the pores with bacteria around them. They did something new, better, and got totally unprecedented results. I hope someone follows up on it with a repeat.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users