http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/sp-su98/saponins.html
A system that disrupts cholesterol dependant systems can be a very potent antimicrobial. The fact that (most) bacteria aren’t cholesterol dependant themselves would probably favour the adoption of such a defence, since the originator is effectively rendered immune from it’s own weapon. The original magic bullet.
Hey Blake:
I concede that my example was less than convincing. As C. botulinum, C. tetani, and C. perfringens cause botulism, tetanus, and gas gangrene, respectively, very few researches are interested with the effects on fungi or protozoans. For what it’s worth, C. perfringens possesses a quorum sensing mechanism the positively regulates the production of several toxins. Such mechanisms ensure that toxin production only occurs when the bacteria have reached a certain threshold concentration. These concentrations are thought to only occur under special circumstances, i.e. when the bug is growing in an especially rich environment, e.g. “the inside of your leg.”
I think we are arguing over nothing here. I obviously agree with you when you say “The point is that there are huge numbers of opportunistic pathogens out their that will attack animals.” This was, indeed, your main point and was directly related to the OP. However, I merely disagree when you state that the bugs don’t “know” where they are.
In other news:
It is absolutely in no way related to arguing that a tuba is more complex than a dry stone wall. Read this sentence again:
Note that we are not talking about nucleotides and amino acids. We are talking about nucleic acids and proteins.
To everyone: I apologize for my usual habit of going off on a tangent.
-Apoptosis
That’s exactly what I am talking about. Nucelotides are more complex than amino acids. That makes anything composed of nucleotides more complex than anything composed of amino acids. A tuba reed and a cast brass pipe are more complex than a rock. That makes anything composed of a tuba reed and a cast brass pipe more complex than anything made entirely of rocks.
It doesn’t matter that we can construct 6 billion variants on the same dry stone wall but can only make one tuba out of the parts avialable. The tuba remains a more complex entity and requires more complex technology to create. It does’t matter if we can construct 6 billion conformational variants of the protein molecule but only 4 of nucleic acids.
I’ll ask you this. I have a microscope. It has various parts. I can only assemble those parts in one way that is functional. There is only one conformation. I also have a hammock. It is made of over 200 different ropes. I can assmble those ropes in any number of functiona ways to produce a hammock. Which of these items would you consider to be more complex? We’re not talking about the parts here mind you, we are talking about the whole product. The hammock clearly has more ‘conformations’ than the microscope.
Which is pretty much the same as “the virulence genes were also activated in response to any stress in high nutrient environents.” Before I woul dbelieve "These concentrations are thought to only occur … when the bug is growing in… “the inside of your leg” I’d have to see some actual counts for the bacterium in natural nutrient rich environments. I cna’t see why they would be more concentrated in an infcted leg than in a dead crocodile.
Hey Blake:
Your analogy fails again. Think of the subunits of a microscope: little bits of plastic, glass, rubber, metal etc. Think of the subunits of a hammock: rope fibres. How can you try to compare these to nucleotides (of which there are 4 types) and amino acids (of which there are over 20)?
You seriously believe that two brass pipes glued together is more complex than this (minus the windows of course)? I suppose this means we have different definitions of the word “complex.”
One other thing: when did we start talking about dead crocodiles?
-Apoptosis
Let me ask you this, Blake: why is a nucleotide structurally more complex than an amino acid?
-Apoptosis