1.1 Introduction and History (The Microbial World) PDF

Preview

Summary

UNIT 1: THE MICROBIAL WORLDM I C R O B I O L O G Y S t u d y o f m i n u t e l i v i n g o r g a n i s m s ( o r w h a t w e c a l l as m i c r o o r g a n i s m s ).  M i c r o o r g a n i s m s o r m i c r o b e s a r e m i n u t e o r g a n i s m s t h at i n d i v i d u a l l y a r e u s u a l...

Description

UNIT 1: THE MICROBIAL WORLD M I C R O B I O L O GY 

St udy o f minute living o rga nis ms (o r wha t we c a ll a s mic ro o rga nis ms ). 

Mic ro o rgan is ms

or

microbes

a re

minute

o rga nis ms

that

individually

are

usua l l y to o s ma l l t o be s ee n wi t h t he una i de d e ye . He nc e, in order fo r us to visualize th em, we utiliz e microscope. 

M i c r o o r g a n i s m s a r e u b i q u i t o u s ( w e c a n fi n d t h e s e m i c r o o r g a n i s m s n e a r l y ev erywhe re ).

In

eve rywhe re

or

anything

that

we

touch

or

use,

most

pro ba bly the re is th e pre s enc e of mi c ro o rga ni s ms ex c ept for s t e ril e a re a s whe re in a subs t a nc e is s t e rile – it is c o mple t e ly fre e

o f mic roo rga nis ms o r

any living o rga nis ms 

Major

gro up

of

mic ro o rga nis ms

include

ba c t eri a ,

fungi,

pro to z o a ,

micros copic algae, and viruses. PA R A S I T O L O G Y 

Study of pa ras i t e s , the i r ho s ts , and the rel a t i o nshi p be t we e n the m. M a jo ri t y o f the pa ra s it e s ca n be s e e n wit h t he una ided e ye .



Don’t

need

mic ro s c o pe

to

see

but

if

gusto

tignan

yung

mga

structure

then

gumamit ng microscope  

Eg. H e l m i nt hs (w o rm s ) Ta k e n o t e : w o r m s / p a r a s i t i c w o r m s a r e n o t r e a l l y t h a t p a r t o f m i c r o b e s b e c a u s e o f t h e d i ff e r e n c e s i n v i s u a l i z a t i o n

PHA RM A CEUT ICA L M ICROB IOLOGY 

Encompass

the

subjects

of

sterilization

a nd

pre s e rva t io n

against

microbial

s po ila ge , a nd wit h t he re spo ns ibilit y fo r the s a fe , hygie nic ma nufa ct ure a nd us e of me dic ine s . 

Ta k e n o t e : w h e n w e m a n u f a c t u r e o r c r e a t e d r u g s , i t i s i d e a l t h a t t h e y a r e fre e o f mi c ro bi a l c o nt a mi na ti o n. The y sho ul d be fre e fro m mi c ro o rga ni s ms in orde r

to

p r e v e n t s p o i l a g e a n d t o p r e s e r v e t h e s a f e t y a n d e ffi c a c y o f

yo ur pre pa re d me dic a t io ns 

It a l s o i nc l ude d t he s t udy a nd kno wl e dge o f t he manufa c t ure , qua l i t y c o nt ro l , t he mechanism of

a nt ibio t ic s , a nd c o nc e rns a bo ut the de ve lo pment of res is t a nc e of

microorganisms and antibiotic use.

A br i e f h i st o r y o f mi c rob i o l o gy 1.

ROBERT HOOKE 

Fi r s t p e r s o n t o i d e n t i f y c e l l s



obs erve d t hin s l ic e o f c o rk unde r a c rude mic ro s c ope (s e l f ma de mi c ro s c o pe )



named the smallest structural units as little boxes/ c ells



thro ugh hi s c o mpound mi c ro s c o pe , he s a w i ndi v idua l c e l l s



T hro ugh t ha t , he wa s a bl e t o de ve l o p t he :



CEL L T HEORY → a ll living t hings a re c o mpo s ed o f c e lls .

2.

Anto n va n le e uwe nho e k 

o bs e rv e d l i v e m ic r o or g a n isms through the ma gni fyi ng l ens he co ns truc t e d (s i ngl e - l e ns m ic r os co pe ).





c a lle d t he live mic ro o rgan is ms a s animalcu le s .

Difference between discovery of Robert Hooke and Anton Van Leeuwenhoek 

Robert Hooke was not able to visualize living organisms or live microorganisms. It is Anton Van Leeuwenhoek who discover that.

spontaneous generation theory 

A ka A BI OGE N E SI S T H E ORY



f o r m s o f l i f e a r i s i n g f r o m n o n - l i v i n g m a t t e r.



Based on observation, they can say that: 

fl i e s e m e r g i n g f r o m m a n u r e



maggo t s a ris e fro m dec a ying c o rps e

FRA N CESCO REDI  

disproved the spontaneous generation theory he

was

able

to

a nt a go nize d/dis pro ve d

the

s po nt a ne o us

generation

theory

by

pre s e nting t his expe rime nt 

i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t , w h a t h a p p e n e d w a s h e fi l l e d 2 j a r s w i t h d e c a y i n g m e a t , a n d t h e fi r s t j a r w a s l e f t u n s e a l e d a n d t h e s e c o n d j a r w a s p l a c e d w i t h c o v e r. H e w a s the n abl e t o s e e tha t o n t he uns e a l e d j a r, t he re wa s a de v e l o pment o f e ggs , a nd the e ggs de v e lo pe d i nt o l arv a e. On t he s e a le d j a r, no ma ggo t s a ppe a re d.



On t hi s experi me nt ma de by Re di , he sa i d tha t l i ving o rga ni s ms wo ul d no t ari s e fro m no n li vi ng ma t t e r, be c a us e i t i s e vi denc e d by t he s e c o nd j a r whe re i n the ja r is s e al e d a nd no ma ggo t s a ppe a re d .



Ho w ev e r, t he pro pone nt s / s uppo rte rs o f the s po nt an eo us ge ne ra t io n the o ry

tried

to a s s ert t ha t Redi did no t s uppo rt life be c a us e it wa s s ea le d. And t he y s a id t ha t fres h a ir i s ne e ded for s po nt a neo us ge ne ra t io n.



So

in

order

to

a

ment

–

instead

of

c o m p l e t e l y s e a l i n g t h e j a r c o n t a i n i n g m e a t ; w h a t h e p l a c e n o w i s a fi n e n e t – i n s u c h a w a y t h a t fl i e s c a n n o t e n t e r i n t o t h e j a r , a n d n o m a g g o t s a p p e a r e d .

JOHN NEED HAM 

pro pone nt o f t he s pont a ne o us gene ra t i o n t he o ry – me a ni ng he i s a s uppo rte r



he s trongly c la ims t hat living orga nis ms a ris e fro m non living ma t t er



wha t

is

the

experiment

he

conducted

to

support

the

spontaneous

generation

theory? 

In

a

fl a s k ,

he

heated

nutrient

fl u i d

(chicken

bro t h

and

c o rn

bro t h).

He

boi l e d the brot h. He bo i l e d the brot h c o ld a nd a ft er s o me ti me the re is a d e v e l o p m e n t o f m i c r o b e s f r o m t h e fl u i d s . H e w a s a b l e t o n o t i c e t h a t t h e r e are l iv ing o rga ni s ms t ha t ha s a ri s e fro m the bro th.

L A Z A R R O S PA L L A N Z A N I 

as serted

that

mic ro o rga nis ms

fro m

the

air

pro ba bly

had

entered

Ne e dha m’s

solutions that’s why it contaminated the broth  

He t ri e d t o c ri ti c i z e Jo hn N e e dha m’s e xpe ri me nt Did

the

same

experiment.

Placed

the

nutrient

fl u i d ,

sealed,

and

heated

→

no

development of microbes. 

N ee dha m res po nded by cl a imi ng tha t t he v i t a l forc e ne ce s s a ry fo r s pont a ne o us gene ra t io n had bee n de s t ro ye d by t he he a t .



Mo s t re s e a rc he rs a nd sc i e nt i s t s be l i e v e d thi s as s e rt i o n by Ne e dha m whe n A N TON L A UREN T L AVOISIER s ho we d the i mpo rt a nc e o f ox y ge n t o l ife .



Marami

nang

naniwala

na

talagang

kailangan

yung

vital

fo rc e

pa ra

magk a ro o n ng l i vi ng o rga nis m fro m no n l i vi ng ma tt e r be c a us e t a ke not e tha t oxyge n is ne ede d in o rde r fo r living o rga nis ms to s urvive

D uri ng

t hat t i me , t he di sput e be t we e n th is the o ry is no t ye t s o lve d unt i l we ha ve

B I O G E N E S I S T H E O RY

B I O G E N E S I S T H E O RY I s a c o n c e p t p r o p o s e d b y: RUD OL F V IRCH OW 

Concept of Biogenesis 

li vi ng c e l l s c a n a ri s e o nl y fro m pre - exi s t i ng l i vi ng c e ll s .

LOUIS PAST EUR  

on e pro po ne nt o f bi oge ne s i s t he o ry he has this boiled and

fi r s t e x p e r i m e n t w h e r e i n t h e r e w o u l d b e a b r o t h a n d t h e b r o t h i s wha t

ha ppe ne d i s t ha t a ft e r bo i l i ng t he c o nte nt s

– the

fi r s t j a r i s

sealed and the second jar is left opened. Ofcourse we expect that the sealed jar wo uld be fre e o f mic ro o rga nis ms , a nd t he ja r t ha t is le ft o pen ed a fte r bo il ing wo uld be c o me c ont a mina t e d wit h mic ro be s 

wha t Lo uis Pas t e ur hy po t hes iz e now

is t ha t mic ro bes a re pres e nt in t he air, a nd

the s e mic ro bes pre s e nt in th e ai r we re th e one s res po ns i bl e fo r co nt a mi na t ing the no n livin g ma t t e r 



So it is no t re a ll y tha t no n liv ing ma t t er s pont a ne o us ly c re a ting living ma t te rs

N umero us re s e a rc he rs o r s c i ent i s t s / pro po ne nt s of Abi o ge ne s i s The o ry wo ul d the n aga i n c ri t i c i z e Lo ui s Pa s t e ur’s wo rk . He nc e , we hav e thi s se c o nd ex pe ri me nt t ha t Lo ui s Pas t e ur c onduc t e d



So wha t he did wa s ; t he s a me e xpe rime nt – t he re ’s a bro t h s o lut io n a nd h ea t e d it i n a fl a s k w i t h a l o n g n e c k , w h a t h e d i d a f t e r w a r d s w a s h e b e n d e d t h e l o n g n e c k o f t h e fl a s k a n d m a d e i t i n t o a n S s h a p e fl a s k ( o f c o u r s e t h i s i s o p e n ) . A f t e r s ev e ra l da y s , t he re is no obs e rv e d mi c ro o rga ni s m t ha t de v e l op in to t he bro t h o f L o u i s P a s t e u r o n h i s e x p e r i m e n t d e s p i t e t h e fl a s k u n s e a l e d .



T hat t he n no w a l l o we d re s e a rc he rs t o be l i e ve t ha t i t i s no t pos s ibl e t ha t no n li ving

o rga nis ms

a re

res po ns ible

fo r

the

spontaneous

development

of

living

orga nis ms 

Anong mero n ba t hindi na gk a ro on ng mic ro o rga nis ms ins ide t he bro t h o f Lo uis Pas t e ur? Be c a us e

o f t h e u n i q u e c u r v e c r e a t e d b y L o u i s P a s t e u r o n t h e fl a s k ’ s

nec k – a ll o we d mi c ro o rgani s m to be t rappe d in t he curv e d pa rt o f t he nec k o f the fl a s k . 

T h i s e x p e r i m e n t b y L o u i s P a s t e u r i s s t i l l p r e s e n t i n a m u s e u m i n Fr a n c e a n d i t i s bel i e v e d t ha t afte r 100 y e a rs o f e xpe ri me nt – t he o ri gi na l

expe riment c re a t e d by

Lo ui s Pa s te ur i s no t y e t c ont a mi na t e d be c a us e o f the uni que c urva t ure c re a t e d by Pas t e ur



D uri ng

this

time,

the

abiogenesis

theory/spontaneous

generation

theory

has

al rea d y be e n s c ra pped/ di s pro v e d by t his e x peri me nt o f Pas t e ur

T he go lde n age o f mic ro bio lo gy 

Fr o m 1 8 5 7 - 1 9 1 4



Es ta bl i s hme nt o f Mi c ro bi o l o gy a s a sc i e n ce . Spe a rhe a de d by Pas t e ur a nd Ko c h.

Wh a t a r e th e impor t 1.

R OBI OLOGY?

Chemical activi 

Somehow

gis t s a re a ble t o

unde rs t a

c t iv i t i e s / ho w do

they feed etc. 2.

Impro ved t e c hnique s fo r pe rfo rming micro s c o py and c ulturing mic ro o rga nis ms .

 3.

A.

T hey a re no w a bl e t o i de nt i fy gra m po s it i v e a nd gram ne ga t i v e ba c t e ri a

D eve lo pe d va c cine s a nd s urgic a l t ec hnique s .

F E R M E N T A T I O N A N D PA S T E U R I Z A T I O N 

Lo ui s Pas t e ur



Ferme nt a t i o n i s t he pro c e s s by whi c h s u g a rs a r e c o n v e rt e d to a lcoh ol b y y e as ts in th e a b se nce of a ir .



Wine

and

beer

s o uri ng

→

caus ed

by

ba c t e ri a .

In

the

pre s e nc e

of

air,

bac t e r i a c ha nge t he a l c o ho l i n t he be v er a ge i nt o v i ne gar (a c e t i c a c i d). -

D uri ng

that

time,

trade/deliver

one

their

pro ble m

pro duc t s

is

to

that

the

other

me rc ha nt s

countries,

whe n

the re

they

is

the

ev ide nc e / pro ble m o f wine a nd be e r s o uring 

Na-ispoil yung mga alak na pinupunta nila sa iba’t ibang lugar

L o u i s P a s t e u r s i n a s e a r c h t o fi n d a r e m e d y f o r s u c h a n d h e w a s a b l e t o addre s s t his t hro ugh pas t e uriza t io n



Pas t e uri z a ti o n: T he us e o f he a t → b oilin g th e solu tion (wi ne / be er); he a t ki lls the bacteria . -

Role

of

bacter ia

in

wine s / be e r:

the

alcohol

will

be

spoiled

when

bac t e ri a is pre s e nt i n the a l c o ho l . A nd t he ba c te ri a wo ul d c o nv e rt alcohol into vinegar (Acetic acid) -

So in the pro c e ss o f pa s t e uri z a ti o n – he a t i ng/bo i l i ng the a l co ho l i c bev e ra ge in a cert a i n amo unt of ti me wo ul d ki l l the ba c t e ri a he nc e the al c o ho l wil l no t be spo i le d and i t wo uld no t be c o nve rt e d into v i n e g a r.



T hes e are t he impo rta nt co nt ri but i ons o f Lui s Pas t eur – the di s c o v e ry of fe rme nt at i o n

a nd

the

pro c es s

of

pasteurization

in

o rde r

to

pre s e rve

p r o d u c t s . W e u t i l i z e p a s t e u r i z a t i o n i n c o m m e r c i a l s e t t i n g u p t o n o w. W e adopted

the process

of

pasteurization as

we

want to

pre s e rve

d i ff e r e n t

goo ds . We pa s t e uri z e t he mi l k , c a nne d go o ds i n o rde r fo r t he m no t to be spoiled.

B.

G E R M T H E O RY O F D I S E A S E 

Con ce pt o f mic ro o rga nis ms c a us ing dis ea s e .



PROPON EN T OF G ERM T HEORY

I G N A Z S E M M E LW E I S  

He is a physicia n Demonstrated

that

phy s i c ia ns ,

who

do

no t

disinfect

their

ha nds

ro ut ine l y t r a ns m i tt ed i nfe c t i o ns (pue r pe r a l fe ve r ). 

He

was

able

to

see

th is

one

in

ladies

who

a re

ha vi ng

ch ild

birth.

Whe rei n aft er manga na k nung nan ay , the re i s a pre s e nc e o f pue rpe ra l f e v e r.

Kasi

nga

hi ndi

na gka k aro o n

p h y s i c i a n s d o c h i l d d e l i v e r y.

ng

infection

process

whe n

your

JOSEPH LISTER 

Tr e a t e d

s urgic a l

wo unds

wit h

phenol

(carbolic

acid),

a

disinfectant.

The

prac t ic e re duc e d the inc ide nc e o f infe c t io ns and dea t h. R OBERT KOCH 

He

i s a ri v a l o f Pas t e ur i n o rde r t o i de nt i fy wha t c aus e s a nt hra x in c a t tl e

s hee ps k as i ma ra mi ng nama ma t a y na fa rm ani ma l s be c a us e o f t hi s dis e a s e  

D is co ve re d Ba c i l l us a nt hra c i s , t he c a us a t i ve age nt o f A nt hra x. D ra wn bl oo d fro m the s i c k a ni ma l → i nj e c t e d t o a he a l t hy one (de ve l o pe d the s a me di s e a s e and die d) → re pe a t ed nume ro us t i mes



Done

the

same

method

and

i d e n t i fi e d

Mycobacterium

tuberculosis,

the

c a u s a t i v e a g e n t o f Tu b e r c u l o s i s . ( m y c o b a c t e r i u m t u b e r c u l o s i s i s a l s o k n o w n a s Koc h’s ba c illus )

Koch ’s post u lat es

(D is e as e Ca us a tio n Pro c e ss )

1.

T he s a me pa tho ge n mus t be pre s e nt in e ve ry c as e of t he dis e a s e .

2.

The

pathogen

must

be

isolated

from

the

diseased

host

and

gro wn

in

pure

c ult ure. 3.

The

pa t ho ge n

fro m

the

pure

cult ure

must

cause

the

diseas e

whe n

it

is

ino c ul a t e d i nt o a he a l t hy, s us c e pt i bl e la bo ra t o ry a ni ma l . 4.

T he pa t hoge n mus t be iso la te d fro m the ino c ulat e d a nima l a nd mus t be s ho wn to be t he o rigina l o rga nis m.



A c c o r d i n g t o Ko

oing to isolate

the mic ro orga nis m fro m the de a d ani ma l , and i t is now be i ng grown in pure cu lt ure . -

T A K E N O T E : w h e n w e g r o w t h e m i n p u r e c u l t u r e , w e u t i l i z e a r t i fi c i a l media s . Whe re in we pla c e t he re t he mic ro o rga nis m and we grow the mic roo rga nis m the re .



Wha t wi l l ha ppe n no w i s tha t t he mi c ro o rga ni s ...