Science desk
< April 22	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 23[edit]

Basteria in diabetes control[edit]

Can high blood glucose level be controlled or reduced by introducing some non pathogenic strain of bacteria that is biotechnologically modified to not reproduce that will absorb glucose and decompose it.Is this possible.I am not a doctor but this idea occured to me.Please highlight and discuss.Has there been any research in this line.Ichgab (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's "basteria" -- bastard bacteria? ;-) Anyway, if you put bacteria (bastard or not, modified or not) into your bloodstream, you'll get some really nasty consequences. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the typing error but i mean that the bacteria if it is biotechnologically maodified with the presently available hitech processes or if that is developed in near future to avoid sepsis then cant it be good method to control blood glucose level.117.194.232.254 (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that doesn't sound any better than injecting insulin, to me, unless the bacteria could be programmed to only reduce blood sugar when it's over a certain level. I seem to recall that some animal, (was it the Komodo Dragon ?) has a form of insulin which does that, so genetically modifying bacteria or other organisms to create that would be a great thing for diabetics, as they would no longer have to worry about overdoses causing dangerous blood sugar drops. And, without that concern, they could take a lot more insulin, say with an insulin pump, and thus avoid blood sugar spikes, too. Another approach would be to modify the insulin pump, from the current stupid version that injects insulin at a constant rate, to a smart one that injects insulin as needed, by taking blood sugar readings continuously. Of course, such a device would have to work 100% of the time, as a malfunctioning one could easily kill the patient. StuRat (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification.117.194.238.140 (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I looked it up, and Exenatide is the generic name of meds created from lizards (they list the gila monster, but other lizards, like the Komodo dragon, also have it). I was off a bit on how it works, though. Rather than being an insulin itself, it's derived from lizard saliva, and stimulates production of the patient's own insulin, and the patient's pancreas then releases insulin based on blood sugar levels, unlike the current insulin pump. StuRat (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner asked about "introducing" the bacteria. Besides in the bloodstream, bacteria in the gut could break down sugar. An example of what that latter process might be like is when one eats a large amount of icecream or candy made with sweet-tasting sugars that are not metabolized by the human body, as found in various diabetic or diet foods. The bacteria can produce huge amounts of gas in the intestine when they digest the alternate sugar resulting in painful and thunderous flatulence. The injectable diabetes drug Byetta, (brand name of exenatide) made identical to Gila monster saliva, besides stimulating insulin release from the pancreas beta cells, has the additional effect of slowing the emptying of the stomach thereby reducing the sudden rise in blood sugar after a meal. Edison (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Introduced bacteria can run afoul of immune reactions, evolve to misbehave, etc. It just seems easier to grow islet beta-cells and put them into the patient - there are a wide range of ways in which this has been studied, such as pancreas transplants, islet transplants, encapsulated beta cells, stem cells, growth factors, etc. It seems like you'd have to start on a longer road from further behind than the current researchers. Wnt (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can (non-human) animals get sick because of their poo throwing habit?[edit]

Which animals besides chimps do that? Then they eat with those hands? Really? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any animal can become sick when exposed to feces which carry a disease. However, they are less likely to become sick from their own feces, as presumably they have already been exposed to anything in them. There could be exceptions, though, by reintroducing an organism which otherwise would have been cleared from their system. So, you could think of feces throwing as a form of biological warfare, where they attack the target with the organisms in their feces.

In fact, the potential for transmission of disease is the whole reason we have evolved an instinct to avoid feces. Not all animals have such an instinct, though, such as dogs, which seem to eat other animal's feces. Presumably there is some corresponding benefit to them which surpasses the risk, such as if they can extract some nutrition from them and avoid starvation. StuRat (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. --Jayron32 13:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be [1].--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't post this before as I was wondering if anyone with better refs would but since no one did, I think it's worth pointing out that there are likely cases when bacteria or other organisms which are not being cleared out carry some risk despite coming from an animals own feces. It's seems possible that organisms which coexist happily in the lower intestine or elsewhere would pose a danger when consumed. (There's also the more extreme cases like that highlighted by the respondent below when the organism enters the blood stream more directly or perhaps is inhaled.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the experience of a Mandrill (Mandrillus sphinx) contracting Tetanus from faeces, but it happened only because the animal (a big male) had overgrown canine teeth that had damaged the opposing gums making an open wound inside his mouth. Never any problems with other primates though. (The Mandrill survived, but it took some pretty intensive nursing to bring that about!) 122.108.177.30 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obligate Parasites[edit]

What's an obligate parasite, and what makes it different from other parasites? The article says it "cannot complete it's life cycle without exploiting a suitable host". I thought this was the case with all parasites. I'm confused. --Yashowardhani (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See facultative parasite for examples. I updated parasite#Types to list the two types, with links to the articles. StuRat (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thanks a lot, Stu. --Yashowardhani (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. I'll mark this Q resolved. StuRat (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Help with plant identification[edit]

Resolved

This plant has mysteriously appeared in one of our garden beds, and we can't figure out what it is. This is in Harlingen, Texas -- the Rio Grande Valley, right at the southern tip of Texas. I haven't seen anything like it in local yards, gardens, or the countryside. In case the picture doesn't make it clear, it is a shrub currently about two feet high, with a straight central stem covered with small stiff hairs, and opposed leaves. Does anybody recognize it? Looie496 (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

looks like Ragweed maybe Ambrosia trifida --Digrpat (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a bit like sassafras to me. However, Harlingen, Texas is a bit out of range for that one. --Jayron32 15:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a ficus (fig) of some sort. See [2]. --Jayron32 15:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at pictures on Google Images, I'm satisfied that Ragweed is the right answer -- and I've expeditiously obliterated the plant. Thanks everyone. Looie496 (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Pretty sure not a sassafras or ficus. Ficus have sclerotinous (i.e. hard, waxy cuticle) leaves, OP doesn't. Sassafras is an understory shrub, not a sun lover. It also would have obvious bark at that point, not a hairy stem. Looie, why do you call it a shrub? Is there any sign of woodiness at the base? From context, it seems much more likely to be a ruderal species of some annual plant. Ragweed seems like a good guess, but there are a lot of different varieties. Suffice it to say, it's most likely a weed. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I called it a shrub because my knowledge of plant terminology is near the moron level, basically. Looie496 (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Parthenocissus quinquefolia commonly called Virginia Creeper. hydnjo (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, also no. Virginia creeper has no hair on stems, stems are distinctly woody, and it couldn't get grow 2' straight up without extenuating circumstances. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a Sassafras. They develop single-lobed leaves as juveniles of the size pictured. When they reach flowering maturity they have mitten-shaped two-lobe leaves. As the reach maturity they also have three-lobed,but never four or five lobed leaves so far as I am aware. Certainly not when they are under 30 feet in height with six-inch trunk diameters. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of it or you may end up getting shot. [3]--Aspro (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's insane. Especially because it doesn't look very similar at all, not to mention all the botanical characteristics that are off. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's green, ain't it? —Tamfang (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ethylhexyl palmitrate/ethylhexyl salicylate[edit]

Is Ethylhexyl palmitrate and ethylhexyl salicylate the same or akin to each other? I have recently been allergic to octyl salicylate and trying to figure out which cosmetics I can use and wanted to know the relationship of these two chemicals. thank you. 173.187.108.228 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These compounds are both esters, which are composed of two structural units joined together. Ethylhexyl palmitate (note spelling) vs the salicylate are based on two different acid parts, but with the same 2-ethylhexanol attached. DMacks (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]