Talk:Mycobacterium vaccae

I changed a sentence that says "scientists say" to say "there is evidence to suggest" the former sounds as if there is universal support.Fireemblem555 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like better sources for "It has recently been hypothesized that exposure to Mycobacterium vaccae may result in an antidepressant effect... "
If, as the article currently states
 * "It has recently been hypothesized that exposure to Mycobacterium vaccae may result in an antidepressant effect, because it stimulates the generation of serotonin and norepinephrine in the brain.[4][5][6] More specifically, it induces the neurogenesis of neurons that produce those two compounds"

then there ought to be a paper in a good medical journal attesting to the fact.

The issue is that BBC News has been guilty of sensationalistic and "silly season" reporting too often to serve as a good source for an extraordinary claim such as this. The BBC article also quotes the same research team quoted in the other two references for this claim, so all we have at the end of the day is one source, Dr. Chris Lowry of Bristol University and his research team, for this claim. The two other research efforts cited by the author of the BBC News article do not specifically support any claim for mycobacterium vaccae's efficacy in treatment of depression, but only make general references to a link between immune response and serotonin levels. The article gives no inline citations for other speculative claims it makes under the heading "Mood and Immunity". This article would never survive critical editorial review here in wikipedia.

Moreover, the article "Getting Dirty May Lift Your Mood" appears in "Medical News Today", a venue of "churnalism", or the printing of institutional press releases with little or no editorial input by the source itself. Please see WP:CHURNALISM for several reasons why articles like this aren't appropriate sources to be cited in support of extraordinary claims in a wikipedia article. This cite is an exact duplicate of the press release "Getting Dirty May Lift Your Mood" by the University of Bristol (making my point about "churnalism"). Duplicating the same exact text from two different sources isn't good practice, either, so I'm deleting the reference to the "Medical News Today" article to resolve the WP:CHURNALISM issue now.

Instead of three different sources which say the same thing with respect to this extraordinary claim - two of them exact copies of the same press release by the university the person making the claim works for - we need papers by Dr. Lowry and his team offering scientific proof of the claim. If I don't see that pretty soon, I'm deleting "It has recently been hypothesized that exposure to Mycobacterium vaccae may result in an antidepressant effect, because it stimulates the generation of serotonin and norepinephrine in the brain.[4][5][6] More specifically, it induces the neurogenesis of neurons that produce those two compounds." under the WP:SENSATION guideline.

Wikipedia's not a Sunday supplement or other forum for reporting of unlikely and extraordinary claims. loupgarous (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Going through the article, Dr. Lowry's article "Identification of an immune-responsive mesolimbocortical serotonergic system: potential role in regulation of emotional behavior" is used to support the statement that Mycobacterium vaccae is nonpathogenic, when the paper actually has much wider implications. It states that Lowry's group found injection of Mycobacterium vaccae in mice activated a newly discovered group of serotonergic neurons in the interfascicular part of the dorsal raphe nucleus (DRI), and reduced stress-related immobility of mice during the forced swim test.  This doesn't support the statement made above, but that statement should probably be either replaced or augmented by a summary of Lowry's findings regarding both the discovery of how Mycobacterium vaccae activates a newly-discovered group of serotonergic neurons and the related observed reduction of anxiety-caused behavior in mice given Mycobacterium vaccae.  I'd say this was more significant, in any case.


 * If Lowry et al actually published on the antidepressant effect of Mycobacterium vaccae instead of issuing press releases to the popular press, and anyone reading this can furnish a cite, it'd save me a little work. Otherwise, I'll hold off on doing anything more until tomorrow. Thanks in advance, loupgarous (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of statement "Immunitor Inc. has reported two successful clinical trials with its oral formulations of M. vaccae...."
In reviewing the sources cited to support the statement:
 * "Immunitor Inc. has reported two successful clinical trials with its oral formulations of M. vaccae in treating all forms of tuberculosis, including drug resistant TB (MDR-TB)."

is not accurate. One of the trials cited was of An Hui Longcom's killed mycobacterium vaccae oral vaccine, the other, of Immunitor's killed mycobacterium vaccae oral vaccine. The researches report no affiliation with Immuunitor, but are affiliated with the Department of Phtysiatry (sic) & Pulmonology, Kharkiv National Medical University, Kharkiv, Ukraine.

I'm altering the text to:
 * "Medical researchers at Kharkiv National Medical University, Kharkiv, Ukraine have reported two successful clinical trials with oral formulations of Immunitor Inc's killed M. vaccae oral vaccine and An Hui Longcom's killed M. vaccae oral vaccine in treating all forms of tuberculosis, including drug resistant TB (MDR-TB)."

to reflect the facts cited in the references. loupgarous (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced statement "M. vaccae may serve as one biological mechanism by which historical and Ayurvedic folk remedies such as Aqua omnium florum offer their benefit."
The article ends with the unsourced statement "M. vaccae may serve as one biological mechanism by which historical and Ayurvedic folk remedies such as Aqua omnium florum offer their benefit."

I'm deleting that, as any statement in a wikipedia article must be supported by a reliable source.

Please read the guidelines in WP:RS for what sources qualify as reliable for wikipedia, locate such a source which supports the statement in question, and cite it as a reference before restoring this statement. loupgarous (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Awkward/Wordy Phrasing of Section on Differential Immune Response to "Smooth" and "Rough" Variants of M. Vaccae
The section of this article:
 * "Varying results of clinical trials with M.vaccae products may be related to different forms of the bacterium ("smooth" and "rough"). There are two main variants of Mycobacterium vaccae according to their appearance in a culture dish. One is smooth and one is rough. Immunological response in mammals to the bacterium varies greatly according to which variant is used.[8] In one study, Mycobacterium vaccae was cultured on "tryptone soy agar medium, collected, and heat killed at 121°C for 15 min."

is awkward and doesn't communicate the vital part of the information - which is that mycobacterium vaccae changes spontaneously at 30 degrees Celsius from its "smooth" form to its "rough" form, and a compound on the outside of the "smooth" form was discovered by researchers that interferes with the production of Th1-cytokines which are important to immune response to mycopacterium vaccae.

I'm changing this text to:
 * "A team of researchers at the Genetics and Microbiology Department of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain discovered that mycobacterium vaccae changes from its "smooth" type to its "rough" type (referring to how colonies of this organism appear under a microscope) at thirty degrees Celsius. They discovered that the "smooth" type of mycobacterium vaccae has a substance on the outside of its cell wall which interferes with the production of Th-1 cytokines, which are responsible for some types of immune response.  The team also found that the spleen cells of mice inoculated with "rough" mycobacterium vaccae produced more Th-1 cytokines than those inoculated with "smooth" mycobacterium vaccae.  The researchers say this may explain why vaccines made from mycobacterium vaccae vary in their effectiveness during clinical trials."

This presents the vital information, attributes it correctly, and gives the reader cues as to why the "rough" and "smooth" varieties of "mycobacterium vaccae" provoke immune response differently. loupgarous (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsupported statement "More specifically, it induces the neurogenesis of neurons that produce those two compounds..."
The statements in this article:
 * "More specifically, it induces the neurogenesis of neurons that produce those two compounds.


 * Other neuronal research, as of 24 May 2010, has shown that when Mycobacterium vaccae was injected into mice, it stimulated some growth of neurons. It also increased levels of serotonin and decreased levels of anxiety. "We found that mice that were fed live M. vaccae navigated the maze twice as fast and with less demonstrated anxiety behaviors as control mice", says Dorothy Matthews of The Sage Colleges in Troy, New York, who conducted the research with her colleague Susan Jenks."

are unsupported in this text by an in-line cited reference.

I traced this information using Google to the article "Can bacteria make you smarter?" in the American Association for the Advancement of Science's "EurekAlert" blog. Ordinarily, I'd be inclined to give an AAAS publication more credence than your average blog that ran other people's press releases. AAAS themselves ran this disclaimer at the bottom of the article's page:
 * "Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system."

They're doing what ALL blogs and web sites ought to be doing when they reproduce a press release.

Given that, and that the source of the press release was the American Society for Microbiology, describing a presentation at one of their scientific meetings, I'm inclined to say this isn't churnalism, but a rare case in which a press release was reproduced with adequate care and due diligence to present useful information to readers (since AAAS was relying on another reputable scientific organization, the American Society for Microbiology, to be forthright with their readers).

Thus, I'm going to reorganize the statements into a single paragraph and cite the EurekAlert article as the reference for it. No other changes to the article seem to be necessary. loupgarous (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mycobacterium vaccae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071019051455/http://www.tbalert.org.uk/news_press/documents/XDRTBarticle.pdf to http://www.tbalert.org.uk/news_press/documents/XDRTBarticle.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)