Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2,July2015)Reviewarticle
IndexedinSIS(USA),ASI(Germany),I2OR(India)andSJIF(Morocco)databases
ImpactFactor:3.835(SJIF)
Abstract
The status of nanobacteria has been controversial, with some researchers suggesting they are a
new class of living organism and others attributing to them a simpler, abiotic nature. They appear
to be ubiquitous entities found in living and non-living substrates. Research has suggested that
nanobacteria could be the cause of a wide variety of diseases, from kidney stones to
atherosclerosis.
Introduction
Nanobacteria are the smallest cell-walled bacteria, discovered in human and cow blood and
commercial cell culture serum. These tiny particles have also been known by the names of
241
nanobes and calcifiying nanoparticles[1]. Nanobacteria have intrigued researchers in many ways
since their discovery 20 years ago, but perhaps the most controversial question they pose is
whether or not they are alive. It is debatable if nanobes are living entities [2,3]. Because of their
unique property of biomineralizaton, they have been related to health issues such as the
formation of kidney stones and arterial plaques[4]. Nanobacteria have also been found in
meteorite chipped from the surface of the Red Planet indicated life had once existed on Mars [5].
Geologic research shows they are from the very dawn of life could have shaped Earths early
terrain. They also have been discovered in sedimentary rocks and in hot-springs [1].
Controversy
In contrast, recently carried out study by Martel and Young shows that although nanobacterialike particles have a cellular appearance, but they are not alive [8]. Researchers at a workshop
hosted by the National Academy of Sciences for this specific reason concluded that the minimal
cellular size of life on Earth must exceed 200 nm in diameter in order to contain the cellular
machinery based on DNA replication. But nanobacteria can be as small as 80 nm so, unless
242
they contain some novel replicating mechanism, it seems unlikely that they constitute a form of
life.8 Moreover, Cisar et al showed that the putative nanobacterial 16SrDNA sequences could
originate from contaminant organism in fetal bovine serum [9].
can
be
explained
by
non-biological
means[8].
often used to clean up fluid specimens before culture for NB [12]. Replication can be measured
by particle counting and optical density at 650 nm. It has been also shown that growth of the NB
could be detected by specific methods, such as ELISA, turbidity and SDS-PAGE [1].
rich in phosphate (detected with Electron Energy Loss Spectroscopy) and the ability to form
colonies [16].Indirect evidence that CNP found in kidneys could be produced by the process
described by Aloisi et al comes from the claim that CNP isolated from kidney stones grow
better in the presence of other bacteria [17].
Antinanobacterial therapy
Growth could be prevented with tetracycline, high doses of aminoglycoside antibiotics, EDTA,
cytosine arabinoside, 5-FU and gamma-irradiation [1]. Nanobac TX (combination of EDTA and
tetracycline) is safely recommended in the treatment of heart disease [20]. Nanobac OTC
supplement is a proprietary blend of various substances, used in treatment of systemic diseases.
For oral diseases antinanobacterial mouthwashes and toothpastes containing biphosphonates are
recommended [21].
245
Conclusion
In the light of such mixed reports, the idea that nanobacteria are living organisms remains highly
controversial, in part because of their very small size and because their nucleic acid is not
sequenced yet. Thus, the focus has momentarily moved on to the calcifying properties of
nanobacteria, rather than on their living or non-living nature .
References
1. Kajander, E.O.; Ciftcioglu, N. (1998). Nanobacteria: An alternative mechanism for
pathogenic intra- and extracellular calcification and stone formation. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, 95(14), 8274-8279.
2. Mckay D N, Mathew G, Kajander E (2006). "Nanobacteria: Fact Or Fiction?
Characteristics, Detection, And Medical Importance Of Novel Self-Replicating,
Calcifying Nanoparticles". J Investig Med 54 (7): 38594
3. Hopkin M.Nanobacteria theory takes a hit.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080417/full/news.2008.762
4. Ciftcioglu, N.; Bjorklund, M.; Kuorikoski, K.; Kajander, E.O. (1999).Nanobacteria: an
infectious cause for kidney stone formation. Kidney Int., 56(5), 1893-1898
5. McKay, David S.; et al. (1996). "Search for Past Life on Mars: Possible Relic Biogenic
Activity in Martian Meteorite ALH84001". Science 273 (5277): 924930
6. Ciftcioglu, N., Kuronen, I., kerman, K., Hiltunen, E., Laukkanen, J. & Kajander. E.
O. (1997) in Vaccines 97, eds. Brown, F., Burton, D., Doherty, P., Mekalanos, J. &
Norrby, E. (Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY), pp. 99103.
7. Uwins P J, Webb RI, and Taylor AP.(1998) Novel nano-organisms from Australian
sandstones American Mineralogist, Volume 83, pages 15411550,
8. Martel J, Young JD; Young (April 2008). "Purported nanobacteria in human blood as
calcium carbonate nanoparticles". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105(14): 554954.
246
20. Maniscalco BS, Taylor KA. (2004) Calcification in coronary artery disease can
be reversed by EDTA-tetracycline long-term chemotherapy.
Pathophysiology 11:95-101.
21.Blaizot A, Vergnes JN, Nuwwareh S. (2009) Peri odontal diseases and
cardiovascular events:Meta analysis of observational studies.Int Dent J
59:197-209
Authors Column
SMU Medical Journal, Volume 2, No. 2 , July, 2015, PP. 241 248.
SMU Medical Journal