BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
randy oliver <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 8 Nov 2013 19:09:41 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
>He does not link it with a particular practice. The resistance could have
come from other bacteria through Lateral Gene Transfer.

Not a question of where the gene (or allele) came from--as I understand it,
oxytetracycline is a natural product of *Streptococcus rimosus*, so there
likely have always been resistant bacteria.  The question is selection
pressure.  So long as TM was applied only once or twice a season, and due
to the fact that it rapidly degrades in the hive, natural selection would
have favored nonresistant bacteria if there was a fitness cost to carrying
the genes for resistance during times of lack of exposure.

Only when an antibiotic is present continually would there be a major
fitness advantage to resistant bacteria.  The 24/365 application of
extender patties by some would have created such conditions.  I doubt that
it is mere coincidence that resistant AFB appeared shortly after that
practice became common.

-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2