Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Qing Wang, Professor of Marketing and Innovation, Director, Marketing Innovation and The Chinese and Emerging Economies (MICEE) Network, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick

For more than a decade, China has been one of the most important growth engines for western luxury brands. From fashion and watches to fine wines and spirits, rising incomes and global exposure have fuelled an extraordinary appetite for premium products.

Scotch whisky has been a major beneficiary. Between 2019 and 2023, exports to China surged in value from under £90 million to more than £235 million. But sales have fallen for three consecutive years, while inflation, rising costs and trade tensions have squeezed margins. Now, exports may benefit once again after China halved tariffs on scotch from 10% to 5%.

The sales slowdown reflects a maturing market in which Chinese consumers are becoming more selective, more knowledgeable and more demanding. This is leading to a shift from volume to value, from older to younger consumers, and from conspicuous to considered consumption. These trends help explain both the recent downturn and the sector’s longer-term resilience.

After the height of the COVID pandemic, when economic confidence weakened in China, luxury consumption adjusted, with consumers buying fewer items but investing more carefully.

This pattern is clearly visible in whisky. While overall volumes have fallen, it continues to benefit from “premiumisation” – sustained interest in aged single malts, limited editions and iconic distilleries.

A young, educated whisky culture

Unlike western markets, where whisky has traditionally been associated with older drinkers, China’s core whisky consumers are young. The typical whisky drinker is gen Z: urban, affluent, well-educated and often well-travelled internationally.

A new generation has reframed whisky as a form of cultural capital, with tasting, collecting and investing in casks becoming increasingly common. Single-malt brands such as Glenfiddich and The Macallan have thrived in this environment, with data showing that their market share has tripled since 2019.

China is the ninth largest market for UK whisky exports. In 2024, the UK accounted for 85.6% of China’s whisky imports by value – most of this is scotch. For Chinese consumers, luxury has long been tied to authenticity and provenance. In premium spirits, this logic is particularly powerful.

In China, the value of most western luxury brands is underpinned by their history, heritage, craftsmanship and distinctive cultural narratives. Here, “country of origin” functions as a powerful source of authenticity and uniqueness.

This is especially pronounced in scotch whisky, where the product category is intimately associated with Scotland’s landscape, climate and production traditions. A stringent regulatory system legally defines where, how and under what conditions scotch can be produced, matured and bottled. For Chinese consumers seeking symbolic reassurance of quality and legitimacy, “Scottishness” itself operates as a brand asset.

Even as international firms invest in distilleries inside China, Chinese whisky has not displaced demand for imported scotch. Instead, it has sharpened distinctions between “original” and “localised” products. In business and social contexts, prestigious scotch still functions as a form of social currency, signalling trust, respect and global sophistication.

China’s wider luxury market has softened since 2023, with sales falling by up to 20% in some categories. Economic uncertainty exacerbated by geopolitics, a downturn in house prices and subdued consumer confidence have reshaped spending priorities for Chinese consumers.

At the same time, values are changing. Younger consumers are moving away from overt displays of wealth towards more subtle expressions of taste, focusing on experiences and cultural capital. In whisky, this is reflected in a “drink less, drink better” mindset. Consumers are trading down from ultra-premium bottles towards high-quality but more accessible options, mirroring broader shifts in China’s luxury landscape.

Whisky diplomacy

This recalibration of consumption is unfolding alongside renewed trade diplomacy. The deal to halve tariffs came during the UK prime minister Keir Starmer’s state visit to Beijing following nearly eight years of strained relations between the countries.

In premium alcohol markets, tariff changes like these are highly significant, directly affecting overall costs, distributor incentives and the price paid by the consumer.

But the visit mattered for more than economic reasons. For many Chinese consumers of British heritage brands, there is a strong emotional and cognitive appreciation of the country’s traditions, aesthetics and lifestyle – an expression of the UK’s soft power. However, political mistrust between the UK and China could chip away such “soft power” in the minds of Chinese consumers if it remains unresolved.

In this context, Starmer’s visit came to symbolise renewed mutual interest and long-term commitment. Such diplomatic signals can shape consumer sentiment, reinforcing perceptions of openness, legitimacy and stability. For British luxury brands, this symbolic reassurance may be almost as important as tariff reductions in sustaining the trust and loyalty of Chinese consumers.

More broadly, the agreement highlights why a constructive UK–China relationship matters for the scotch industry. Whisky supports distilling, agriculture, packaging, logistics, tourism and rural employment in the UK. Maintaining access to China’s premium segment is vital for sustaining investment and skills.

Following the boom years, China’s relationship with western luxury brands is entering a more stable and disciplined phase. For scotch whisky, rarity, provenance and authenticity remain powerful assets. As long as producers adapt to China’s more discerning consumers – and are supported by constructive trade relations – the long-term outlook looks positive. In a world of oversupply and shrinking margins, China’s cautious connoisseurs may yet prove to be among scotch’s most valuable allies.

Qing Wang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Heritage, desire and diplomacy: why China still values scotch whisky – https://theconversation.com/heritage-desire-and-diplomacy-why-china-still-values-scotch-whisky-275971

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Bassindale, Head of School, Biosciences and Chemistry, Sheffield Hallam University

A drug designed to help cancer patients rebuild wasting muscles has become one of the most contentious substances in elite sport – and the scientist who discovered it now spends more time trying to stop people using it than encouraging its medical use.

James Dalton, who developed ostarine in the early 2000s, recently told the New York Times: “I spend more time now trying to stop people from using it than trying to get people to use it.” His frustration highlights a growing crisis in anti-doping, where even innocent athletes are testing positive for a drug that can be transferred through sweat or contaminated supplements.

Ostarine belongs to a class of drugs called selective androgen receptor modulators, or Sarms. Dalton and his team created these compounds as a safer alternative to traditional steroids for treating muscle wasting, osteoporosis, frailty and other conditions linked to ageing. Unlike steroids, which must be injected, Sarms can be taken as tablets or capsules, making them far easier to use.

The appeal was obvious. Traditional anabolic steroids do build muscle – the anabolic effect – but they also trigger unwanted male sexual characteristics. These include body hair growth, aggression, male pattern baldness, acne and breast tissue development in men. Women who abuse steroids can experience voice deepening and menstrual changes.

Sarms were meant to deliver only the muscle-building benefits without these side-effects. Ostarine, also known as enobosarm, showed particular promise for lung cancer patients losing muscle mass. More recently, researchers have investigated whether it could prevent muscle loss in people taking weight-loss drugs like Wegovy, where significant muscle is often lost alongside fat.

Despite this potential, no Sarm has passed the clinical trials needed for medical approval. There are concerns the drugs may cause liver damage, as reported in some users. Ostarine remains unapproved for human use more than two decades after Dalton’s initial research was published.

This hasn’t stopped it reaching athletes. When Dalton’s team published their work, the chemical structure became public knowledge. Black market manufacturers seized the opportunity, packaging ostarine as a sports supplement. Because selling Sarms as supplements is illegal, they’re often labelled “for research purposes” or “not for human consumption” – a transparent attempt to skirt regulations.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) recognised the abuse potential early, adding Sarms to its prohibited list in 2008. On the 2026 Wada prohibited list, ostarine appears under “S1.2 Other Anabolic Agents”, banned at all times in all sports.

Complicated and unfair

The problem has escalated dramatically. Over the past two years, ostarine has become the most commonly detected Sarm in Wada laboratories, appearing in 114 athlete samples. But here’s where things get complicated – and deeply unfair – for many athletes.

Sport operates under strict liability. Athletes are responsible for any banned substance found in their samples, regardless of how it got there. Even unintentional contamination can result in a ban.

The quality control of many supplements is poor, meaning products can contain traces of ostarine without declaring it on the label. The US Anti-Doping Agency maintains a list of high-risk supplements, with ostarine appearing undeclared in 19 products.

Athletes hoping to challenge a positive test must have kept the supplement and pay for independent testing – an expensive process with no guarantee of success. Sports authorities strongly recommend athletes only use supplements batch-tested by Informed Sport or NSF Certified for Sport – organisations that verify products are free from contamination.

Ostarine can also transfer between people. Athletes have successfully argued their positive tests resulted from sharing equipment. In one recent case, an athlete proved ostarine could transfer through a sweaty neoprene support shared with another athlete. Officials accepted the transfer explanation and dropped the charges.

Other cases have shown the drug can pass through bodily fluids like saliva.

This creates a profound dilemma for anti-doping authorities. Modern laboratory equipment is extraordinarily sensitive, capable of detecting minute quantities of drugs. But a urine test cannot distinguish between someone who deliberately took a large dose, someone who unknowingly consumed a contaminated supplement, or someone who absorbed traces through contact with another person’s sweat.

The burden of proof falls entirely on the athlete. They must explain why a banned substance is in their system, often at considerable personal expense. This same problem affects all Sarms, not just ostarine.

Dalton himself is now trying to solve the mess his discovery helped create. As co-chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Partnership for Clean Competition, he’s funding research into sports drug testing. The group’s priority is finding ways to differentiate between contamination and deliberate doping.

The hope is to identify marker compounds in urine that could definitively show whether a positive test resulted from intentional use or inadvertent contamination. Such a breakthrough would spare innocent athletes the ordeal of proving their innocence while still catching genuine cheaters.

Until then, a drug designed to help the sick continues to threaten the careers of athletes who may never have chosen to take it – and the scientist who created it remains caught in the middle, fighting against the unintended consequences of his own research.

Tom Bassindale does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Ostarine: the performance-enhancing drug giving anti-doping agencies a headache – https://theconversation.com/ostarine-the-performance-enhancing-drug-giving-anti-doping-agencies-a-headache-275353

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mark Grabowski, Senior Lecturer of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University

Why don’t humans have tails anymore?

Olivia, 12 , the Netherlands.

Great question, and it gets to the heart of what we are as humans.

Think about your own family – do you have cousins? If so, you and your cousins share grandparents and these are your common ancestors.

Now imagine going back further in time. You and your more distantly related relatives also share common ancestors from longer ago, which you can see on your family tree. And when you look around the world, all living things also share a single common ancestor, which lived between 3 and 4 billion years ago.

Curious Kids is a series by The Conversation that gives children the chance to have their questions about the world answered by experts. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.com and make sure you include the asker’s first name, age and town or city. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we’ll do our very best.

Life on Earth is a really big family tree. That means dogs and cats are related, but also you and squirrels, you and fish, and you and the dinosaurs. Everything alive today and that ever was alive is descended from that same original ancestor.

Four billion years is not something we can really visualise in our heads. To give an idea of how long ago this was, a billion golf balls would fill a large train station. So think of four of these – that is a lot of golf balls, and a long time ago.

Zooming in to more recent times, we are apes. We share common ancestors with the other living apes – chimpanzees and gorillas, orangutans and gibbons. And while chimpanzees and gorillas have many features in common, chimpanzees and humans are sister species. This means we are more closely related to each other than any other living species.

This also means a lot has happened (evolution) in the human lineage since we shared this common ancestor. Our anatomy has changed substantially, allowing us to walk upright, use tools, speak, and other features that make us the successful species we are.

However, all apes including us are united by several features. All apes have large brains, for example, though ours is the largest. And all apes have a body plan that allows us to take an upright posture – our chests are much more vertical than a dog’s or even a monkey’s.

We also have a particular pattern of grooves in our lower molar teeth – the five bumps you can feel there are arranged in a Y-shape (known as Y-5 pattern). This is only found in apes.

Finally, all apes climb trees and suspend themselves from branches. We still have features of our arms and shoulders that allow us to do this safely.

We have these because we descended from a single common ape ancestor, probably around between 20 and 30 million years ago. Using
our golf ball image, a million golf balls would fit into a large bedroom, so imagine 30 large bedrooms of golf balls and you get some idea of how long ago that was.

Our current best evidence of what this common ancestor of apes looked like is based on fossils – the remains of once-living creatures that have been transformed into rock.

When we look at this current best evidence – such as in the extinct species Ekembo heseloni from Africa – we see a species that is actually fairly monkey-like. It climbed trees but may not have swung below branches – instead walking on top of them. This is quite surprising, as all living apes share features that allow us to swing from branches.

However, we know it was an ape because of two main features. First, it has that distinctive Y-5 pattern in its lower molars, just like you do. Second, it lacks a tail. Lacking a tail is a distinctive feature of all apes.

Why do all apes lack a tail?

We only have hypotheses (informed guesses) as to why our common ancestor didn’t possess a tail. This is because most other primate groups, both living and extinct, do have a tail.

One suggestion is that when the earliest apes shifted to more upright postures and other changes in the way they moved around in trees, their tail became less helpful. So perhaps evolution caused the muscles that had previously been used for tail attachments to instead become part of the pelvic floor.

The pelvic floor is made of the muscles at the base of the spine that help your internal organs resist gravity – keeping them inside your body rather than falling out. That is a pretty important function, as you can imagine.

Another suggestion is that tails disappeared from the earliest apes due to a genetic mistake. When a single short stretch of DNA found in humans and other apes, but not in other primates, was added to mice in a 2024 study, it caused the mice to develop only minimal or no tails.

So, despite how amazing having a tail would be to us now, our ancestors may have lost it due to them no longer needing it – or simply because of a chance mistake.

Mark Grabowski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Curious kids: why don’t humans have tails? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-dont-humans-have-tails-275716

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matt Jacobsen, Senior Lecturer in Film History in the School of Society and Environment, Queen Mary University of London

Horror cinema is enjoying a moment of mainstream recognition right now, with critically acclaimed films Sinners, Weapons and The Ugly Stepsister all receiving Oscar nominations from an academy that usually turns its nose up at the genre.

To my mind, the brilliant Sally Hawkins also deserved an Oscar nomination for her performance in the unmissable Bring Her Back, my personal favourite of an incredibly strong series of horror releases in 2025. Horror films generally come out around Halloween, but thanks to the current critical and public interest there’s a steady stream throughout 2026 – including Whistle.

A British-directed, Canadian-Irish co-production set in an American high school, Whistle is named for its focus on Aztec death whistles or ehecachichtli. Archaeologists believe these real objects were probably used in rituals to conjure the sound of the underworld. It is surprising that death whistles haven’t yet featured in a horror film, given their striking skull-shape designs and eerie shrieking sound.

Whistle is an example of the tried-and-tested sub-genre of horror films that has kids tinkering with supernatural artefacts they really should be leaving well alone. Think Talk to Me (2022), Ringu (1998) or Ouija: Origin of Evil (2016).

In this film, a group of American high school friends discover an Aztec death whistle and, for reasons best known to them, give it a blow at a party. This triggers the early deaths of those who hear the sound, killing them off in spectacular fashion. This is the main motivation for the film: the special effects team get to creatively imagine what it would look like for someone who, say, would have ultimately been hit by a train several years later suddenly and inexplicably exploding in a spray of gruesome injuries.

The bracing, disturbing Talk To Me used its story of high schoolers contacting the dead through a withered hand to engage meaningfully with themes of addiction and social media pressure. But Whistle shows little comparable interest in examining adolescence with nuance or empathy.

Whistle has no ambitions toward awards-season prestige or thematic complexity.
It is horror for its own sake, delivered with undeniable enthusiasm but lacking distinguishing qualities beyond imaginative CGI violence.

The central characters are likeable, led by rising star Dafne Keen, best known for playing Lyra in the BBC adaptation of Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials. Keen plays the new girl at school, who encounters the expected mix of jocks, geeks and misfits. She works hard to elevate a script that relies heavily on horror conventions.

Read more:
His Dark Materials: how the small-screen adaptation deals with the novel’s big ideas

Whistle’s British director Corin Hardy showed enormous promise in 2015 with his acclaimed first film The Hallow – an original, atmospheric story of deadly fairies in a deep, dark wood based on Irish folklore. The quality of this independent film led to a rapid move to the mainstream with a stint in Hollywood directing The Nun (2018), a bland and cliched spinoff of the popular The Conjuring series. After mixed reviews for his tenure as show-runner on the ultra-violent crime drama Gangs of London (2020), he returns here to a genre for which he has a clear passion.

There is obvious delight on the part of Hardy at the opportunity to make an American high school film in the manner of A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), Scream (1996) or Final Destination (2000). Fellow Brit Nick Frost puts in a serviceable impression of the grouchy high school teacher archetype, named Mr Craven after the celebrated director Wes.

A packet of cigarettes falls to the floor featuring the fictional brand Cronenberg’s after Canadian horror pioneer David. Moments like this tell the audience that Whistle is carved with the very best intentions to celebrate the genre and to entertain a core of genre enthusiasts.

The American director Nia Dacosta brought a nuanced outside perspective to the British landscape in the brilliant, visionary sequel 28 Days Later: The Bone Temple (2025), and here we have a British director working in a distinctly American setting, paying tribute to the films that shaped his youth.

It is not clear that Hardy has found a new perspective or approach to this kind of material however, and the film follows a disappointingly familiar and well-trodden path. While Whistle admirably centres around a lesbian romance, its characters remain broadly drawn, with little effort to subvert archetypes or complicate expectations.

So while Whistle brims with an infectious puppy dog enthusiasm for the (much better) films that it reverently evokes, this chaotic, unfocused film fails to inject sufficient vitality or originality into well-worn genre tropes.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Matt Jacobsen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Whistle: Aztec death whistle horror is good fun, but offers few surprises – https://theconversation.com/whistle-aztec-death-whistle-horror-is-good-fun-but-offers-few-surprises-275969

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katie Edwards, Commissioning Editor, Health + Medicine and Host of Strange Health podcast, The Conversation

You are not alone in your own skin. Millions of microscopic creatures live there too.

Our skin is home to entire ecosystems of microscopic life. Bacteria and fungi get most of the attention, but mites are there too. Among the most common are demodex mites, tiny eight-legged relatives of spiders that live inside hair follicles and pores, especially on the face. Almost all adults carry them.

Despite their reputation, they are not invaders. Scientists often describe them as symbionts, organisms that live alongside us as part of a shared biological system. They feed on skin oils and dead cells, spend most of their lives tucked inside pores and come out at night to move across the skin and mate before laying eggs.

Most people never notice them at all.

In the latest episode of the Strange Health podcast, we explore what these microscopic housemates are actually doing on our bodies and why the idea of them can feel so unsettling. If mites are normal, when do they become a problem?

To find out, we spoke to Alejandra Perotti, professor of invertebrate biology at the University of Reading, who studies the relationship between mites and humans.

As Perotti explains, the presence of mites is not a sign that something has gone wrong. Human skin is not a sterile barrier. It is a habitat. That balance can shift, though. In some people, demodex populations increase dramatically, particularly if the immune system is compromised or the skin barrier is disrupted. This has been linked to conditions such as rosacea and blepharitis, which can cause redness, irritation and inflamed eyelids. Even then, the mites themselves may not be the main driver. The immune response to them, or to the microbes associated with them, may be what produces symptoms.

Read more:
Invisible skin mites called Demodex almost certainly live on your face – but what about your mascara?

Other mites live alongside us in different ways. Dust mites, for example, inhabit bedding, clothing and carpets, feeding on fungi that grow on shed skin. They do not bite, but their waste products can trigger allergic reactions in some people, contributing to asthma, eczema and hay fever symptoms.

Then there are mites that cause disease. Scabies is caused by a species that burrows into the skin to lay eggs, triggering intense itching and inflammation. Cases have been rising in parts of the UK and Europe, particularly in places where people live in close contact such as care homes, schools and student accommodation.

Despite its reputation, scabies has nothing to do with cleanliness. It spreads through prolonged skin-to-skin contact and is treatable with prescribed creams and coordinated treatment of close contacts. The stigma attached to it often causes more distress than the condition itself.

Head lice are often grouped into the same conversation, but they are not mites at all. They are insects that spread through head-to-head contact and are common among children, regardless of hygiene.

So why does the idea of mites provoke such a visceral reaction? Partly because they trigger our disgust response, which evolved to help us avoid disease. But that instinct can blur the line between normal biology and genuine medical problems.

The reality is less dramatic. Humans are not solitary organisms but ecosystems. Most of the microscopic life on our skin is either harmless or beneficial. Only a small number of species cause disease, and when they do, the issue is medical rather than moral.

Listen to Strange Health to find out which mites are simply part of everyday biology, which ones cause real problems – and why understanding them matters more than fearing them.

Strange Health is hosted by Katie Edwards and Dan Baumgardt. The executive producer is Gemma Ware, with video and sound editing for this episode by Sikander Khan. Artwork by Alice Mason.

In this episode, Dan and Katie talk about a social media clip via TikTok from prettyspatricia.

Listen to Strange Health via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript is available via the Apple Podcasts or Spotify apps.

Katie Edwards is commissioning editor of health and medicine at The Conversation in the UK. Alejandra Perotti has received funding from BBSRC.

Dan Baumgardt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. You are covered in mites – and most of the time that’s completely normal – https://theconversation.com/you-are-covered-in-mites-and-most-of-the-time-thats-completely-normal-275865

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Holland, Postdoctoral Researcher, Medicinal Chemistry, University of Oxford

A team of Romanian scientists drilled a 25-metre ice core from the Scǎrișoara Cave in search of clues for developing new medicines. The 5,000-year-old ice yielded samples of ancient bacteria.

Laboratory analysis revealed something remarkable. These bacteria, undisturbed for thousands of years, were able to grow in a variety of harsh environments. They thrived in extreme cold and high salt levels; settings that would normally prevent bacterial growth.

The scientists also discovered that the ancient bacteria were resistant to ten modern antibiotics, including powerful broad-spectrum treatments such as ciprofloxacin – drugs designed to kill many types of bacteria. In other words, the antibiotics that would normally kill bacteria or halt their growth were largely ineffective against this strain.

How can bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics long before scientists have created them or doctors have prescribed them?

The answer to this apparent conundrum lies in the fact that all modern antibiotics trace their origins back to nature. For billions of years, bacteria have been engaged in an evolutionary struggle with each other. They have produced formidable chemical attack-and-defence mechanisms as a result.

A deeper understanding of these mechanisms has the potential to help scientists discover new antibiotics to treat dangerous infections. The natural environment is densely packed with bacteria and other microbes. There is strong competition for the limited space and nutrients it provides.

Many species produce chemical compounds that kill or suppress nearby rivals. This gives them an advantage in the struggle for these resources. But the defensive chemicals they generate drive adaptation. Bacteria must protect themselves from their own toxins. Meanwhile, competitors evolve ways to withstand them.

Over billions of years, this arms race has generated an enormous reservoir of resistance genes and antimicrobial compounds.

The number of biological processes inside bacteria that antibiotics can target is limited. Yet the diversity of this natural resistance is so great that some scientists argue genes capable of resisting all future antibiotics may already exist in the environment.

The samples recovered from the Romanian ice cave offer a powerful example of this idea. The bacteria had been sealed off from the outside world for 5,000 years. Yet they were still able to demonstrate resistance to several important modern medicines. This included those used to treat severe and potentially fatal infections like tuberculosis.

There is no evidence that the microbes from the cave are harmful to humans. But bacteria do not exist in isolation. They have a remarkable ability to share useful traits with one another by exchanging small pieces of DNA, even between unrelated bacterial species. This means that resistance genes preserved in environmental bacteria do not necessarily stay there. There is a risk that if these genes pass to disease-causing bacteria, existing drugs could become less effective.

Rising temperatures are accelerating the melting of global land ice. There is a danger that long-dormant microorganisms and their genetic material could be released into the soil and water systems.

If resistance genes that have been preserved for thousands of years re-enter modern microbial communities, they could contribute to the spread of global antibiotic resistance. This would make the treatment of both common and serious bacterial infections much more difficult.

Nature’s hidden pharmacy

However, the same evolutionary pressures that drive resistance also lead microbes to produce molecules capable of killing rival bacteria.

In laboratory tests, chemicals produced by the ice cave samples were able to kill or inhibit 14 different types of bacteria known to cause human disease. This included several that are on the World Health Organization list of high-priority pathogens.

These compounds could provide starting points for the development of new antibiotics. They could help overcome existing drug resistance in harmful bacteria.

Many of today’s antibiotics were originally discovered by studying natural microbes. Penicillin is one example.

Most bacteria preserved in ancient environments remain unstudied. They may represent an important and largely untapped source of new antimicrobial compounds.

The ice cave bacteria’s DNA also contains numerous genes with no clearly identified role. These unknown sequences may represent biochemical capabilities that have never been characterised.

They offer potential not only in medicines discovery, but also in areas as diverse as industrial biotechnology. For example, enzymes that enable the bacteria to function in extreme cold could be adapted for use in industrial processes that run at lower temperatures. This could improve energy efficiency and reduce costs.

The bacteria preserved in Romanian ice illustrate how deeply rooted antibiotic resistance is within the natural world. They also demonstrate how much of nature’s chemical diversity remains unexplored.

Ancient microbes may contain potentially harmful antibiotic resistance genes that warrant careful global monitoring. But they also contain a vast store of biochemical tools that could provide us with new medicines.

As antimicrobial resistance continues to rise worldwide, understanding these ancient microbial systems may prove increasingly important.

Matthew Holland receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the Ineos Oxford Institute.

– ref. Ancient bacteria from 5,000-year-old ice reveals clues to fighting superbugs – https://theconversation.com/ancient-bacteria-from-5-000-year-old-ice-reveals-clues-to-fighting-superbugs-275579