| doesn’t that bacteria strain need to colonize your mouth somehow? how would that happen if we are constantly exposing our mouths to various foods, liquids, and dental products? citing the discovery from 1987? synthesis of the strain in 2002, and then moving onto the product recommendation without going into the mechanisms that allow such a bacteria to persist after just one magical application feels very snake oil to me. we can use metagenomics to test the rna and dna of our oral microbiome. (testing is somewhere around $200-400 a swab currently) show me the data even with a low N value of test subjects that give a oral microbiome analysis weeks, months, and years out after just 1 application and you’ll have my curiosity, maybe my money. also give recommendations about if and what habits and behaviors would wreck this expensive bacterium’s viability in our mouths. *
this is coming from a father whose tested their child’s poop with inhale every 4 weeks or so several times to debug a believed to be rare (but science doesn’t truly know) staphylococcus aureus & eczema issue i’m skeptical but i’ll stay open minded found this explanation on why they went the probiotic route rather than seek FDA approval.
from their subreddit that
https://x.com/yishan/status/1780131552615420189 > 1. Move forward with manufacturing and distributing this as a probiotic supplement
> 2. Once a critical mass of biohackers and early adopters take this treatment, other third-party research can get involved https://www.reddit.com/r/lanternbioworks/s/01haEdviDz |
>BCS3-L1 has four main genetic modifications:
It produces a weak antibiotic, mutacin-1140, which kills competing oral bacteria.
It’s immune to mutacin-1140, so it doesn’t kill itself.
It metabolizes sugar through a different chemical pathway that ends in alcohol instead of lactic acid.
It lacks a peptide that its species usually uses to arrange gene transfers with other bacteria.