Power of Ten

by Elio & Stan­ley

How of­ten have you heard it said, or seen it stated in writ­ing, that we carry ten times more mi­cro­bial cells than cells of our own? We don't dis­pute this fig­ure, at least not as a ball­park es­ti­mate. But we were cu­ri­ous to find out where it came from. The pa­per that seems to be quoted most of­ten in this re­gard is Mi­cro­bial Ecol­ogy of the Gas­troin­testi­nal Tract by Dwayne Sav­age in the An­nual Re­view of Mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy, 1977, 31:107–33. Sav­age was an em­i­nent in­testi­nal mi­cro­bi­ol­o­gist and those of us who knew him be­lieve that he was a stick­ler for de­tails. So he should have known. He stated: The var­i­ous body sur­faces and the gas­troin­testi­nal canals of hu­mans may be col­o­nized by as many as 1014 in­dige­nous prokary­otic and eu­kary­otic mi­cro­bial cells (70).

Ten­fold Power. A go­rilla can lift 10 times its own weight, it is said. It can also sit wher­ever it wants. Source

So now let's go to ref­er­ence # 70. It is to a pa­per by T.D. Luckey in the Amer­i­can Jour­nal of Clin­i­cal Nu­tri­tion. 1970, (11) 1430–1432. Now we're get­ting some­where. Luckey writes: As­sume one vi­able mi­cro­bial mu­ta­tion each 108 cells, a mi­cro­bial count of 1011/g in­testi­nal con­tents and 103 g in­testi­nal con­tents, then at a given time each of us har­bors about 1 mil­lion newly mu­tated mi­crobes (1011 x 103/108 = 106).

Just how au­thor­i­ta­tive is that? Ref­er­ences to ex­per­i­men­tal work? None are given. Surely, the num­ber of bac­te­ria in fe­ces must have been de­ter­mined count­less times through the years. A search of older lit­er­a­ture is called for (but who's got the time!). More­over, is the num­ber of hu­man cells based on more solid ground? We have no idea.

Nowa­days, a quan­ti­ta­tive PCR us­ing uni­ver­sal bac­te­r­ial primers should give a rea­son­able es­ti­mate of the to­tal in­testi­nal bac­te­r­ial DNA, a fig­ure that can be con­verted with some as­sur­ance to the num­ber of bac­te­ria present. For good mea­sure, add a few per­cent to ac­count for eu­kary­otic mi­crobes. Note, how­ever, that we take leave from a good por­tion of our in­testi­nal mi­cro­biome every day, the lucky among us with sat­is­fy­ing reg­u­lar­ity. So, the ra­tio fluc­tu­ates daily. No big deal, but let's qual­ify the ten-to-one mantra by say­ing "es­ti­mated." To say the least.

 

Stan­ley Maloy is Dean of Sci­ences and As­so­ciate Di­rec­tor of the Cen­ter for Mi­cro­bial Sci­ences at San Diego State Uni­ver­sity.

 

Other Posts

7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
16 years ago

Not to men­tion we are not fac­tor­ing in the en­slaved prokary­otes we call "mi­to­chon­dria." Hon­estly, we are mostly prokary­otic, even though many folks no longer like that term. We are "an­thol­ogy or­gan­isms," made up of many part­ners.
Again, hats off to Elio and Merry (and Stan Maloy, who turns out to be from my home­town!), for giv­ing ed­u­ca­tors like my­self some "dis­cus­sion points" for our mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy courses. There is a ped­a­gog­i­cal bal­ance tee­ter­ing in the class­room nowa­days: in­for­ma­tion we need to im­part to stu­dents, ver­sus the abil­ity to an­a­lyze and crit­i­cally re­view that in­for­ma­tion. This par­tic­u­lar "pa­per chase" to find out where the com­mon quote orig­i­nated (and it's re­li­a­bil­ity) is use­ful. "Con­ven­tional wis­dom" is nei­ther, some­times.
Text­books can't do this kind of thing, be­cause of the pub­li­ca­tion de­lay. Blogs like this one can, with the thoughts of well known au­thor­i­ties in mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy so clearly stated.

road
16 years ago

I think the bac­te­r­ial count is prob­a­bly pretty ac­cu­rate, and can be cal­cu­lated with­out much dif­fi­culty. How­ever, I've never seen a con­vinc­ing de­riva­tion for es­ti­mates of the num­ber of hu­man cells in the hu­man body... any­one?

Nathan Myers
16 years ago

By Mark's stan­dard, we're all prokary­otic, in the same sense that birds are di­nosaurs and we and di­nosaurs are both fish. At some point in the past we en­gulfed some­thing bet­ter at man­ag­ing its DNA than we were — or, de­pend­ing on what you iden­tify with, were en­gulfed by some­thing that wasn't — and went eu­kary­otic. Af­ter that every­thing is just de­tails.

Benoît Kammerer
16 years ago

Mac­far­lane & Mac­far­lane
Bac­te­r­ial di­ver­sity in the hu­man gut
Adv. Appl. Mi­cro­biol. 54 261–289 (2004)
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2164(04)54010–8%5D
« Bac­te­ria com­prise 40–45% of fe­cal ma­te­r­ial on a dry weight ba­sis (Stephen and Cum­mings, 1980), which equates to about 18 grams of bac­te­r­ial dry mat­ter, or a to­tal bac­te­r­ial mass in the colon of about 90 grams (Mac­far­lane and Cum­mings, 1991). The large bowel is the main area of per­ma­nent mi­cro­bial col­o­niza­tion of the hu­man gas­troin­testi­nal tract, and sev­eral hun­dred bac­te­r­ial strains and species have been iso­lated from this com­plex ecosys­tem, where vi­able counts in fe­ces typ­i­cally reach 10^11–10^12 per gram (Fine­gold et al., 1983; Moore and Holde­man, 1974)... »
Stephen & Cum­mings
The mi­cro­bial con­tri­bu­tion to hu­man fae­cal mass
J. Med. Mi­cro­biol. 13 45–56 (1980)
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1099/00222615–13‑1–45%5D
Mac­far­lane, G. T., and Cum­mings, J. H. (1991). The colonic flora, fer­men­ta­tion and large bowel di­ges­tive func­tion. In ''The Large In­tes­tine: Phys­i­ol­ogy, Patho­phys­i­ol­ogy, and dis­ease'' (S. F. Phillips, J. H. Pem­ber­ton, and R. R. Shorter, eds.), pp. 51–92. Raven Press, New York.
Fine­gold, S. M., Sut­ter, V. L., and Mathisen, G. E. (1983). Nor­mal in­dige­nous in­testi­nal flora. In ''Hu­man In­testi­nal Mi­croflora in Health and Dis­ease'' (D. J. Hent­ges, ed.), pp. 3–31. Aca­d­e­mic Press, New York.
Moore, W. E. C., and Holde­man, L. V. (1974). Hu­man fe­cal flora: The nor­mal flora of 20 Japan­ese-Hawai­ians. Appl. Mi­cro­biol. 27, 961–979.
[http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/5/961%5D

16 years ago

I agree, Nathan, with re­gard to mi­to­chon­dria: they have been win­nowed down to a shell of their for­mer prokary­otic glory (grin). But when re­mains in­ter­est­ing to me is the con­tin­u­ing role that mi­crobes play, in­ter­ac­tively, with the eu­kary­otic-only por­tion of our selves. Pretty much every week, I learn more about how mi­crobes are not sim­ply "lis­ten­ing" to our eu­kary­otic com­po­nents, but "telling" those com­po­nents things as well.
But as al­ways, the dead hand of Dar­win is upon us all.

mschaech@sunstroke.sdsu.edu
16 years ago

Elio com­ments:
Road makes the key point that the num­ber of hu­man cells is not easy to es­ti­mate. We should have make this point more force­fully.
Many thanks, Benoit, for the most use­ful ref­er­ences. Yes, there are a lot of data about the mi­cro­bial con­tent of fe­ces, but less so about what's in the gut, which is of course harder to an­a­lyze.

Steve Hamm
15 years ago

An homage to the Pow­ers of Ten by IBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyvmA4mI8zU