Hello. Can somebody confirm that I can hear you? Yes, sir. Thank you. where we begin. Let me uh inform you that I'm taking some medication for some medical procedures tomorrow and I'm not handling the medication too well. So, I may need to uh stop the meeting today and go use the bathroom. But uh hopefully it'll be very brief interruption if an eruption does occur. Are there any questions about that? Somebody's using chat. And let me remind you that when I'm sharing my screen, I cannot see your chat messages. So, I do not use chat. You need to um unmute your microphone and ask a question. If you want to ask me a Question. All right. Today is uh April 15th, text day, and uh we are supposed to be finishing chapter 1 and beginning chapter 2 today. I'm not sure we'll start chapter 2 today, but I'm going to try. We have a good lot in chapter one to finish. Let me remind you that you have a uh practice quiz quiz 000 uh this Wednesday. It'll cover chapter 1 uh lab zero and lab one. Any questions about that? So, that's the regular time. You'll have a quiz uh due at 11:59 p.m. Wednesday night. You do need Respond Us Lockdown Browser and Despondest Monitor to take the practice quiz. You also have a plagiarism quiz which is due 11:59 p.m. on Saturday for April 19th. And that will be covering the plagiarism tutorial. You must achieve 100% on the plagiarism quiz in order to ch achieve points on your uh your uh infectious disease project. The infectious disease project is worth 100 points. So, you need to get 100% on the plagiarism quiz. On the plagiarism quiz, I rarely have a student who needs to take it more than two times. You can take that quiz. I think you can take it up to seven times. It's the same questions. So, if you get a question wrong, you just have to figure out what the answer is and then change your answer. But you can take the plagiarism quiz up to seven times. Any question about any of that? You do need respondence lockdown browser and respondence monitor to take the plagiarism quiz. See if I can unhook this and show you what you need to do to uh take respondence monitor a little longer than I was hoping. That came out. That came out. I think that's it. Now, if [Music] your camera is in a uh browser, hopefully you can see this browser. Maybe in the picture before you can see it. I can't see them on here. Let me see if I can shut down the uh background. I might not be able to do that from here. Now you can see the monitor on my lap here. Uh what you want to do is uh Yep. Let me shut that down. Are you seeing this now or am I not sharing my screen? I can see able to see it. You can see me. Okay. So, uh uh take your monitor if you need to and then tilt it down so you can show me where the uh the monitor is sitting and then move the monitor to show me the right and then move the monitor to show me the left. If you're not sure what to do, just move to the right and then go up and then down and then go to the left side and show me up and down and then I'll see the entire background. But I do need to see where the monitor is sitting and to the right of that and to the left of it. Uh, somebody had a uh computer and they were very good and they just went v and uh I really didn't see. You need to go really hard with the uh webcam to show me the background right here, which I'm not sure I'm even seeing that because I'm not seeing the screen now. It's down so far. And uh and then they went wump and wump. And uh especially if you do it with your hand and you go like that, I'm not really seeing much of the background. You need to go sharp and then go to the left and the right. And uh actually all I'm seeing here is the monitor. So I got to go sharper. Something like that. If you do not show me your background information, uh, then I have to watch your entire quiz. Let me start the background again. There it is. Video. Which one did I have here? I think I have the Clark College one. There we go. Um, if uh you don't show me your complete background, then if you ever take your eyes off of the computer screen, like right now I'm looking at the computer monitor screen. If you take your eyes off the monitor, especially if you look down to the left or to the right, I'm going to assume that you've got something to cheat notes on over here. And then if you take your eyes off the monitor, I'm just going to give you a zero for that quiz because you took your eyes off the monitor and I can't see what you're looking at. So, you're getting a zero on that quiz. And if you don't like that, you can also take the quiz at Clark College. You just need to let me know and then I will take give you the quiz, print it out, and you'll take it in class at Clark College. The room number will be determined um at the regular time, which would be 5:00 on Wednesday night. And if you're not near a Clark College, you can uh uh schedule to take the exam rotored at another college. You got to schedule this yourself. Let me know in advance so I can print out the exam and then send them to them. And hopefully you'll do that for the rest of the term. And I will simply uh uh need to know in advance and then I can send the print out the exam and send it to them. And I do need to know gosh about at least 3 days in advance so that I can get it to them in time. Although if you set it up uh and I email it to them, I can probably get it to them in about a day. Any questions about any of that? Okay. You you're broke up. So can you repeat that and uh let me uh try and listen to that again. Sorry I have poor signal. Are the tests required to be taken out of specific at a specific what? All right. Sorry. I'm going to stop sharing my screen and then you can ask your question uh in a uh text message. A chat is what it's called. But I got to stop sharing the screen here in order to see the uh chat message. Am I sharing my screen now? Can somebody confirm? Am I not sharing my screen? I don't think I'm sharing my screen. So, uh, let me get out of here. All right, let me, uh, All right, use the chat to give me your question. Are the quizzes required to be taken at a specific time? Yeah, they have to be taken sometime between midnight Tuesday night and 11:59 p.m. Wednesday night. They must be taken at that time. Is that your question? All right, I'm not hearing anything, so I'm going to assume that was your question. Uh, how do I get out of chat here and then restart sharing my screen? All right. Are there any other questions? Don't know how that got changed. So, let's begin chapter one. Good. It's showing me where I left off last time. Uh, is this where I left off last time? That's not right. Let me look where to here is. I think it's here. This where we left off last time. microbiology and microorganisms and also might be a brief history of microbiology. I think this is where we left off. Is that correct? All right. I think it was the other one. You think it was the other one? All right. So we discussed what comes under the umbrella of microbiology. Uh a brief history of microbiology largely concerns the debate over life spontaneously generates or the theory of biogenesis that life comes from life. The history of microbiology also concerns the golden age of microbiology. You don't need to know the times of the golden age of microbiology, but it is early microbiology from about 1857 to 1914 when wherever microbiologists look, they were looking at something brand new that nobody had ever seen before. So, they were making new discoveries almost all the time in the golden age of microbiology. And this is giving you a a timeline or the golden age of microbiology events before microbiology actually began like the discovery of the microscope and then the golden age of microbiology and then the history of microbiology which we will briefly cover history of microbiology. I'm going to state uh the events in the history of microbiology do giving you a timeline. You do not need to know any of the times except for the very first event and that is 3.5 billion years ago. The ancestors of bacteria were first seen in the fossil record where we can see fossils and rocks of the earth. And this is actually showing you, let me see if I can blow this up. That's an actual fossil of a microorganism. And there's the artist rendition of what they think they're seeing, which were the ancestors of bacteria and ar the archa uh that we see in the fossil records of earth greater than 3.5 billion years ago. The next event uh in the history of microbiology was the Babylonians. You don't need to know the time, but about 4,300 BC wrote down recipes for making beer. And they didn't know this, but you need microorganisms to make beer. And then 600 AD, the Mayans wrote down recipes for making a fermented beverage from co that we now call chocolate. And you kind of need to know the events like before the Mayans wrote down their written record for making cacao, how the Babylonians had to write down their written records for making beer. And then before that we needed to have the first fossil records of microorganisms in the history earth. So you just need to know uh that the fossil record was first, the Babylonians were second, the Mayans were third. You don't need to know the dates of these events. Any question about any of that? All right. The next important event in the history of microbiology was the development of the compound microscope. Johnson developed the microscope. You don't need to know the date, but in 1590. And that had to be done before uh anyone could look at microbes and see them with a microscope. Uh Robert Hook was the next person uh in the history of microbiology. And you don't need to know the date, but in 1665, he's the first microbiologist who took a microscope and looked at living things. And he looked at plant cells and he found little boxes or cells in the plants. And he called these little boxes cells, marking the beginning of the cell theory, which a whole bunch of uh scientists developed over time. But it it basically the cell theory is that all living things are composed of cells. And it first started with Robert Hook looking at plants and seeing little boxes in the plant cells that we called cells. The cell theory is simply that all living things are composed of cells. It was actually wrote up uh and written later by Verko. We'll talk about it later where he proposed the theory that all living things are composed of cells. But it developed over time as people started looking at different things and they looked at anything that was alive and eventually they saw cells in them. Uh Robert Hook did look at animal tissue but he did not see cells and animal tissue and that is because plant cells have something which is very thick and could be seen in the blurry microscopes that Robert Hook was looking at. And the primitive microscopes were blurry and you could not see animal cells in these blurry microscopes because of one thing that they lack and plant cells have. What is that? What do animal cells lack and plant cells have? And that's why Robert Hook was able to see the cells in plants. Anyone know? You should know that from biology 160 or your earlier microbiology or your what do you call that? The uh class you had to take before you could take microbiology. I'm not hearing anything. So what plants have and animals lack is a cell wall. The cell wall is very thick and the primitive microscope could see the cell walls and then Robert Hook could see the cells in plant tissue. He could not see the cells in animal tissue because they lack a cell wall. All they have is cell membranes and the microscopes were too blurry to make out cells and animal tissue. at least back when Robert Hook was looking around 1665. The above is not specifically microbiology. Even Robert Hook looking at plant cells. This is not microbes. Plants are a organism that is larger than a microorganism. What Robert Hook did when he was looking at the first uh plants that he looked at was actually uh the cork which is the bark of the cork tree. And cork is also used to describe the cork tree itself as well as the bark of that tree. And then cork is also used what we uh cap a bottle and we call it a cork. So that's three ways the term cork is used. And that cap is made out of the bark of the cork tree and why it's called cork. Anyways, when he took a look, let me stop the screen here at plant cells, what he saw was this. Trying to make straight lines here. Sort of straight. Not going quite high enough there to get it at the top either. But hopefully you can figure this out. and which is last one here. Anyways, in uh the monastery, which we're going to draw here. So, this would be a hallway in the monastery. Uh, and I guess this would be uh let me erase that right here. Right there. And now I need to get the uh brush back. So this would be the monastery right here. And the hallway would probably go around like that. Um anyways, in the monastery where the monks live, they had an individual room and it was shaped like this and they called it a cell. And Robert Hook saw these plant boxes in plant cells and it reminded him of the cells of the monk's room. So we coined the term cell after the monk's specific room in the monastery that they call this cell and that's where the term cell comes from. Anyone got a question about any of that? And that was simply from the shavings of the bark of the cork tree. All right. So in the history of microbiology, it largely composed the hypothesis about how life originates. Originally there were two competing hypothesis to explain how life began. There was the theory of spontaneous generation that life arises from a vital force coming into inorganic matter and spontaneously generating life. So that was the theory of spontaneous generation. And then there's the theory of biogenesis that all life originates from earlier life. Like people say, a baby arises when the two parents come together and then the sperm fertilizes the egg cell forming the baby. So the question about where babies came, everyone would agree that they came through biogenesis. The baby only came from the two parents. But there were other instances where life seemed to spontaneously generate John says a century ago they would throw a log into the fire and sometimes a nuke would arise and crawl out of the fire and scientists would say or primitive scientists would say ah we put the wood into the fire the two came together forming the noot and then the noot crawled out of the fire. In reality, the n was just in the bark of the tree and somebody threw the wood into the tree and the n felt the heat and so the noot would crawl out of the fire. But they also saw flies emerging from manure and they said the vital force came into the manure. The organic matter gave rise to the flies and then the flies came out of the manure. And then they also saw maggots in decaying corpses or decaying organic living tissue. And they would say the vital force came into the organic matter and gave rise spontaneously to the maggots. Most of these were logical, but they were not scientific. Some were even amusing. Somebody wrote up that if you put sweaty underwear in a jar and put wheat kernels in the bottom of the jar, it would spontaneously give rise to mice. In reality, what had happened was the mice crawled into the jar to get uh access to the wheat kernels and then the mice got trapped in the jar and could not climb out of the glass of the jar. And so that's how the mice got into the jar with the sweaty underwear. And the sweaty underwear actually had nothing to do with the mice coming into the the jar. Any questions about any of that? All right. Well, one thing about microbes and that is that in the early microbiology, if you made media and then you didn't cap it with time, the media which looked like this would become turbid and then they would look at things in that media and they would see microbes growing. And so people said, "Ah, microbes spontaneously generated in the media." And uh this almost always happened whenever we made media over time. Even if you capped it over time it would become turbid and they would say the vital force came in giving rise spontaneously to microbes. The first uh scientific evidence to disprove the theory of spontaneous generation happened by Francesco ready. And you should know this person. He actually did this in 1668. You don't need to know the date, but you should know that Francesca Ready did the first experiment to disprove spontaneous generation. And actually, this was the first documented controlled scientific experiment. So you should know this as the first controlled scientific experiment that was ever written up. Francesco ready. He got three jars and sealed the jars, putting before he sealed the jars, meat in the jar. And then he got three open jars and leave them open. And the maggots appeared in the meat in the open jar, but not in the sealed jar. And the uh spontaneous generation people said, "No, Francesco radio, you sealed the jar." So the vital force could not get in the meat and then give rise to the maggots. So your experiment didn't work. They said and Francesca Reddi very ingeniously thought of a way to do this and that is he got a jar, put the meat in the jar and then covered the jar with a fine wire net and no maggots came into the meat. In reality, what happened was the flies from the open jar landed on the meat, laid their eggs in the mate, which gave rise to the maggots. The flies could not get into the seal jar or the jar covered with a fine uh wire net and so they got no maggots. The point is after Francesco read his day people would say that complex organisms like maggots or anything is not a microorganism could not spontaneously generate. However, uh if you use the fine wire netting, microorganisms could get in and then they would grow in the meat or they would grow in the media. And so people still argued that microbes could spontaneously generate after Francesco Ready's experiment. Any question about any of that? Uh, in this time we also have uh Antony Vanl Levenh Hook. I'm not Dutch so I could be mispronouncing his name. He observed the first microbes using the microscope to actually look at microorganisms and essentially wherever he looked he found microorganisms. He described morgan microorganisms in scrapings from his teeth in rainwater and peppercorn infusions meaning he took peppercorn put it in water and uh let that grow and he saw microorganisms and then he saw microorganisms in the water from the river temps and the people of London didn't really like that because they were using that water to drink for their drinking water. Any question about any of that? Here is Antony Van Levenhook. He saw cells that were so small that they were not seen by other people for nearly a century. And here are the drawings here. Uh there is a uh rod bacteria. Here's more rod bacteria. Here is a sporillum. And there figure E. Those are actually cockey. He was seeing cells so small that other microbiologists were not able to see them for nearly a century later. And that's because he was the best microscope builder and the best microscope lens grinder. He actually ground his own lenses and he was the best lens grinder. And here's a microscope that he built. It's a simple microscope only using one lens to uh magnify the specimen. But it was the best microscope of his day because he grinded the lens the best and he was able to see really small objects clearly. Whereas the microscopes that the compound microscopes that were being used were not the lenses were not ground as finely and then they were blurry when they put them together and so people could not see the bacteria which Antonio Van Lea Van Hook actually saw a century earlier than other people. No, other people if they used the microscopes he built could actually see uh this figure. But any other one any other microscope you could not see these bacteria or archa because the microscopes needed a hundred years development before they got good enough to actually see these very tiny cells. Any question about any of that? That's actually the primitive microscope. That pen was what he actually stuck things on and then he uh is using the primitive microscope there. Let me see if I can blow that up. He's looking at it there. He actually shine that per primitive like a microscope up to the light, usually the sun, to view the object that he was looking at. Any question about any of that? All right. Uh, in this time, Rudolph Verko actually wrote up the cell theory that all living cells arise from pre-existing cells. This became known as a concept of biogenesis. However, arguments still continue. You don't need to know the date here that uh microorganisms could still spontaneous generate. And that argument continued until 1861. You don't need to know that date either, but there's a few years after Rudolph Vero proposed his theory that all cells came from pre-existing cells. And what happened was Louisie Pasture came on the stage and he uh disproved the spontaneous generation theory and therefore confirm the theory of biogenesis by his ingenious famous swan neck flask experiment where before that Louis paste also showed that microorganisms are present in the air and that if the air simply came in contact with the media that uh the microorganisms would grow in the media and then also that microbes could be in the tube. And so if you put the media in the tube and then seal the tube, there's microorganisms in the tube and they'll give rise to the other microbes in the tube. And he did show Louis Pastier that if you heated the tube and then sealed it that uh microorganisms would not grow in that heated tube and then sealed too. And so what he did was he took a a long container with a long neck and put the media in it. And then he heated the media up and then he heated the tube to make it a swan neck meaning in this bent shape like that. He showed that no microorganisms would grow in the tube. And then he further showed that you needed to get the media down into this region of the tube before and then bring the media back into the tube before microorganisms would grow in the tube. And he proposed that microorganism from the air came into the tube and fell down into the lower portion of the tube. But the microorganisms could not come up the tube against gravity and then come into the media. And that was a swan neck experiment that the media stayed sterile and the tube that was sterilized and the swan neck will be open. So the vital force could come in into the media but the vital force did not give rise to the life because the life came from pre-existing cells and they would be stuck right here in the uh bottom portion of the swan neck there because of gravity. Any question about any of that? And there was a uh swan neck like this that uh the uh uh actually he's actually the head of the the biology department now uh Antonio Roberto put and he put it in the window there of the biology 260 lab and you can actually see that tube. It's been there for over 10 years now and it's never grown microbes. Eventually the media will evaporate and there won't be anything there. But uh the last I checked which was probably about two or three years ago that flask was still in the window of the media. So you can go past the lab and see it there. So after that uh people said no microbes do not come from spontaneous generation they only come from the theory of biogeemists. biogenesis and this led to a number of discoveries in microbiology such as the relationship between microbes and disease that became known as the germ theory of disease that microbes could cause disease. This also led to the concept of immunity. That is a person could become immune to a microbe and then that person would be exposed to that germ and they would not become sick. And then that also read let led to the development of antimicrobial drugs that we could find an antimicrobial drug to use against a germ and then cure somebody from a disease. Any question about any of that? There were a whole bunch of advancements after uh L pasture's discovery that microbes could only come from pre-existing other microbes. uh pasture developed the basic concept of a septic technique where if you sterilize something like a bottle of media and you cap the media uh that that that tube would stay sterile meaning aseptic technique and then developed a technique for streaking for isolation using solid media. Uh he initially streaked it out on a potato and that would not be the best way to do it but uh because it'd be very difficult to keep the potato sterile but uh someone in his lab developed nutrient augur a new solid media and then Dr. uh stre it out on uh um first on gelatin plates and then they did it on augur plate nutrient augur with augur and Dr. Hess was actually working in the same lab as Dr. uh actually I don't think he was a doctor I think that was Mr. Hest but uh um anyways my point is uh Dr. Cox technique was important because streaking for isolation on a solid media, you can then streak your what do you call it? Mixed organisms out on a solid plate, get individual cells and then if you took an individual isolated colony and then stre it out a second time to get individual isolated colonies. If you took the cells that went through two colony isolation events, you would most likely have a pure culture, meaning a culture that was a colony that was descended from one cell and therefore would give rise to only one type of cells in the colonies. And like I said, if you do that through two colony isolation events, you could then get a pure culture. That was a very easy way to get a pure culture. Louisie Pasteur did develop a way of getting a pure culture before Dr. Caul, but it was a much more difficult way. So today in microbiology to get a pure culture, we use Dr. Cox method of streaking for isolated colonies and we do it two times before we say we have a pure culture. Dr. Pasture's way was he would take different delusions and then make 10 replicas of that dilution. And if he ever he got one tube out of nine tubes that got growth and nine tubes did not get growth, he correctly assumed that the tube with only one out of 10 tubes having growth in it would be derived from close to one cell. And so that likely was going to be a pure culture. And Dr. Pasture was correct. But that was a very difficult way of getting a pure culture because you had to make delusions of your organism and you had to make many different dilutions and then you had to replica plate that dilution 10 times and then you had to find one where you only got one tube out of 10 tubes having growth. and then you could get your uh pure culture. If ever you didn't get one tube out of 10, uh then obviously you never got pure culture. Any question about any of that? All right. A little bit after this time but close to that time is when Sergey Wenoggrassi developed the concept of uh the biogeeochemical se cycles like the nitrogen cycle and the sulfur cycle. And the reason why he was able to see these biogeeochemical cycle was he was looking at microorganisms living in their natural inhabitant where there were many microorganisms living together and different ones gave rise to for example the nitrogen cycle. Other microbiologists at the time were generally studying a pure culture because if you have a mixed culture and then the tube becomes yellow, you don't know which species in the mix culture gave rise to the yellow culture. Could be one of them. It could be some of them. It could be all of them. You just don't know until you study it in a pure culture. But Sergey Winter Gransky in order to study the nitrogen cycle had to study many different organisms living together because one would do one step of the cycle, another species would do another step of a cycle. And to see the complete cycle, he had to have all the species there. Any question about any of that? All right. A little after that, pasture showed that microorganisms are responsible for fermentation. Alholic fermentation is the conversion of sugar like in the grape juice. Um, and the microorganisms would ferment that sugar to make the alcohol to make the wine. And you can also ferment the sugars in hops to make the beer. And Louis pasteur showed that the microorganisms were responsible for that alcoholic fermentation. Louisie Pasteure also went studied further and found that the beer and the wine could become contaminated by another microorganism which then further, excuse me, um, spoiled the alcohol of the beer and they converted the alcohol in the wine or the beer into acetic acid, vinegar. And that is actually how vinegar was made. And that is the alcohol is fermented by another microorganism uh to make the acetic acid in the vinegar and that would spoil the wine or the beer if the microorganism would then uh ferment the alcohol in the beer or the wine making the beer or the wine sour or non-drinkable. Any questions about that? So, Louis Pastier showed that microorganisms did the fermentation and then microorganisms would then spoil the beer or the wine to make the vinegar. At least that's what the wine changes into. I'm not sure what beer changes into, except for spoiled beer. Louis Pasture then showed that the spoilage bacteria could be killed by heat that was not hot enough to evaporate all the alcohol in the wine. And he called this process pasteurization where you apply a high heat for a short time. And then he used it to pasteurize the beer so that the beer would not spoil. And then you could keep it and cork it or cap it and then keep it for at least a year or longer and sell it and it would stay beer. It's used in a vi wide variety of foods today that we call pasteurization. It's most commonly used with milk where we pasteurize the milk and it prevents the immediate spoilage of milk by killing off the the many of the spoilage organisms in the milk and it also kills off any human pathogens and that's why we pasteurize the milk. It does not sterilize the milk though. Does not sterilize the beer either when you pasteurize it. But it does prevent the spoilage organisms from immediately spoiling the milk. But there are microorganisms that can survive the pasteurization process. They are reduced in number. But that's why pasteurized milk does a shelf life, but it is longer than the shelf life of raw milk. And I don't know how long it is. It's something like two weeks after pressurized the milk. The milk can uh stay refrigerated for two weeks. That's longer than unpasteurized milk which must be thrown out after about a week. Any question about pasteurization? So it does not sterilize the the milk or the food item that you're pasteurizing, but it does reduce the number of microorganisms and then it removes all human pathogens. Uh so fermentation I don't discuss it here but we'll talk about it later. There's two processes for fermenting the food. You can do it very briefly at a very uh high temperature, not boiling but under boiling or you can do it at a mildly high temperature for a longer period of time. We'll talk about that later and that's known as pasteurization which is most commonly used with milk. It does not sterilize the milk. Uh the concept of fermentation that microbes could affect the organic matter making the alcohol. Other microbes could uh grow in the alcohol and fermented further to acetic acid gave rise to the theory the germ theory and that is could microbes have a similar relationship with plants and animals. M microorganisms cause disease. This concept became known as the germ theory of disease that microorganisms could give rise to disease. This was an important advance in the theory of uh well in microbiology because originally disease was thought to come from poisonous vapors that would be breathed in by the person so that the doctors would say ah you went walking through a swamp you breathe in the poisonous vapors of the swamp and that's why you came down with chalera in reality. ity chalera was present in the swamp. You breathed in the chalera and then the patient came down with uh the disease chalera because they breathe in the chalera when they went walking through the swamp. So that uh in reality the person didn't breathe in poisonous vapors, they breathe in the chalera microbes which gave disease chalera. Any question about that? So that's the germ theory of disease an advancement over the theory that you breathe in the poisonous vapors. Uh in the germ theory disease uh I'm not how sure how you say this name. I'm not German but Ignes Shimawis advocated handwashing and then when people or doctors handwash they were able to greatly reduce if not totally reduce postpartum or plur plural fever on the obgen patients. Dr. Shimma Weiss was in charge of the OB/Gen department of his hospital and he showed that if the doctors washed their hands, the uh pregnant patients were much less likely to come down with these two diseases. Uh the doctor who was the head of the hospital was so insulted by Ignes Shimlowise advocating that doctors should wash their hands before surgery as well as um giving rise to a lady's birth that he actually fired Ignes Shimlowise and then Joseph a listister you don't know had need to know the date but he used chemical disinfectants to prevent surgery ical wound where he uh used uh what is this called? Phenol treated the patient's skin with phenol and that dramatically reduced the surgery related infections. He had to treat the surgical instruments with phenol as well. Proving that surgery infections are caused by microbes and that if you use a chemical disinfectant before the surgery, you dramatically reduce the surgery related infection. Robert then showed the first microorganism that was shown to give rise to the first disease and that is he showed that the basillus anthraxis this organism causes the disease anthrax. What he did was he injected basillus anthraxis into mice and saw that the mouse came down with anthrax. He then wrote up the experimental steps. He showed to prove that basillus anthrax causes the disease anthrax. And he called this Cox postulates the steps we use to go through to show that a specific organism causes a specific disease. This or uh Dr. Cox's work actually proved the germ theory of disease that specific uh microorganisms or germs could cause a disease. And he showed that basillus anthrax would cause the disease anthrax. Any question about any of that? And then the steps used to show that a specific microorganism causes disease became known as cox postulates. Any question about any of that? All right. Around this time, Edward Jenner developed the first vaccine. He made the first vaccine against smallpox. And what he did was he was listening to some of his patients and apparently there was a a milk maiden who told him, "Oh, I can't get smallpox because I got cowpox." And everyone who comes down with cowpox is essentially immune to small pox, meaning they could not get small pox. And Edward Jenner listened to this patient of his and actually experimented on two boys injecting cowpox virus into them. And then when small pox came through uh the village or the city that the boys were living in, uh they never came down with small pox. I'm not sure if he actually subjected the boys to small pox or not, but probably not. But uh he actually only had his understanding and his knowledge. He actually did not have proof that cowpox would protect the boys from smallpox. And he also did not know what would happen when he gave the boys the cowpox virus. And that is they got a very slight illness, usually just one pock mark, which was cowpox, uh usually in the sight that he injected it into the boy. And he did that with his own son. And the first boy, gosh, what was the boy's name? I don't remember who the boy was, but uh you can look at online, but it's not entirely important. But my point is that Edward Jenner was experimenting on two boys, which would be highly frowned upon today because he did not have proof that what he was doing was safe, would protect the boy against small pox and that injecting cowpox was actually injecting a fairly safe disease into the boys. But he was working with children and apparently at the time uh experimenting on children was perfectly okay at the time. Any questions about any of that? The concept of a vaccine though was not understood what was going on. And so other people were not able to make another vaccine because nobody understood why the cowpox virus was protecting against smallpox. And that understanding did not come about until Louis paste came on the scene. And Louisie Paste actually showed that the cowpox virus was related to the small pox virus. And then that when you inject cowpox into a patient, the patient builds up immunity, meaning antibodies to the cowpox. and some of that immunity would cross over and react with smallpox thereby creating immunity to smallpox. So that understanding did not come about until past date. And then with pasteur's understanding, other people were able to make other vaccines where they could make a vaccine against a disease and then that vaccine would protect against that disease. Uh Louisie Pasteur made a number of different vaccines. The first one he made was actually against a chicken disease. He was doing this for the chicken industry. And let me see if I can remember. You wouldn't know that disease anyways, but there was a disease among chicken and Louis paste made a vaccine against that. He's most famous. He made a couple of different vaccines. He's most famous for making the disease against um rabies. He made a vaccine against v rabies and if you treated the patient with this vaccine the patient would not get the disease rabies. Any question about any of that? The protection of that vaccine we then call the immunity. the patient would be immune to the disease that the vaccine pro is protecting against. Like with uh cowpox, it protected against smallpox. With uh the rabies vaccine, it was protecting against the rabies virus. So that would be immunity to the rabies or the smallox. Any question about any of that? All right. So about this time came the concept of chemotherapy which originally was used as the treatment of a disease with a chemical. This was proposed by Paul Early that he said we could find a magic bullet which would be a chemical to protect against a disease. Nowadays, chemotherapy is specifically used as treatment with a chemical against a cancer. But originally, chemotherapy meant any disease and in the broad sense today could be used against any disease. But today in the common sense, we use it only against cancer. So we will use chemotherapeutic agents or chemotherapeutic chemicals to protect against an infectious disease. And they can be a synthetic drug or an antibiotic. A synthetic drug is one that a per person or a man makes. An antibiotic strictly defined is a chemical produced by a living organism, a microbe, either a fungi, a bacteria or an archa that inhibits or kills other microbes. Understand this is a textbook definition of an antibiotic. Antibiotics as it is commonly used is any I guess chemical that protects against a microorganism. So that penicellin G which is made by a mold the penicyian mole is an antibiotic by the textbook definition and the common use but I think it's caroxyin or even ampein is not an antibiotic because it is not made caroxy is made in a lab by a person so it's not an antibiotic. It is a synthetic chemotherapeutic agent. Okay. By the textbook definition and then um ampeoin is made by a microorganism but then a human chemically modifies the ampeellin to make it ampeoin to make it the antibiotic. And so it is not an antibiotic by the textbook definition. It is once again a it's a semiynthetic meaning uh humans modify it. Any question about that? Now in common usage caroxyllin and anti- let me see uh ampeoin is an antibiotic. Most clinicians will use the common definition they'll call ampeoin an antibiotic. So in this term I will use the comma definition. Just realize there is a textbook definition that differs in which an antibiotic is only a chemical that is made by another living organism a micro to be used against another preventing another microorganism from growing. Any question about that? Like I said, Paul Erlick concept the chemotherapy that where you could find a magic bullet, a chemical that would prevent or cure an infectious disease. And in 1910, he actually he what he did was he just studied bunch of different chemicals. And at about the fifth 500th chemical that he studied in 1910, he found a chemical that was a magic bullet that could actually cure or treat syphilis. It was a synthetic arsenic arsenic drug Salvar sun that could cure syphilis. And he discovered it, like I said, at about the 500th drug in his lab that they studied. And the lab people were so discouraged by studying one chemical after another, finding none that that uh could be used as a cure against they were studying uh syphilis, but uh that they put outside the door of this lab the message, "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here. any question about any of that. But in 1910, he actually found a magic bullet that could be used to cure a specific disease. And like I said, it was Salvar, which he discovered in 1910. You don't need to know the year. You should just know Paul Eric found the first magic bullet, a chemical that could be used to treat syphilis. The first drug that was actually discovered that could be used against uh a drug was uh the bark of the sincona tree or cona tree depending on either pronunciation is correct. Uh that was used to treat malaria. And what date about what date do you think the first drug to treat malaria was known to Europe? Anyone have a guess? Come on, just give a guess. Well, I'm not going to give it. So you guys will have to look it up because uh uh nobody's giving a guess. We'll move on. And uh uh so in 1910 uh Dr. Erlick discovered a cure for the disease syphilis. Salvan was a chemical that could be used to treat syphilis. In 1928, Alexander Fleming discovered the first antibiotic. It was actually penicellin G. And what he did was he was a lousy microbiologist and he streaked out his plate and uh there was a microbe that fell down from the air and then he happened to leave the plate at room temperature and then came back after the weekend and saw the plate on his counter and he noticed the bacteria streaked out was growing like this and there was a contaminant growing like that in the plate. And near the contaminant, he noticed there was a region where the bacteria did not grow. And he correctly surmised or hypothesized that something was being produced by this mold and diffusing out of the plate and preventing the growth of the bacteria. And he was correct. That was actually penicellin G diffusing out of the penicyian mold. He had to have a number of mistakes here in order to get this. First, he had to be a sloppy microbiologist. Had to have the contaminant fall on the plate. It had to be the right contaminant. He had to grow it at room temperature to get both the mold to grow and the bacteria to grow. And uh and then correctly made his observation. He was never able to uh purify the penicellin g. The only thing he could do in the 1920s would be to uh really grow up the penicellian mold and then get crude extracts of the uh media where he could filter out the cells from the media. But he couldn't de uh inject the media into a patient. But he could show that if he put the extract on a platey streak that there would be no growth where he put the uh extract. The first antibiotic that was actually uh um developed and first clinically used was sulfanomide a sulfur drug and it was a manmade chemical. So it's actually not really the textbook definition of an antibiotic. It would be an antibacterial drug or a common usage an antibiotic. It became available in 1935. Clinicians could use sulfanomide in the clinic. uh penicellin G uh never became available in the clinic until the early 1940s where they grew up the penicellin D in the media and then purified the penicellin D out of the media and then injected it into the patients and if there's time I'll try and talk about uh uh the first two patients that were tested did with penicellin G. It's kind of interesting, but today I don't have time. We've only got four minutes left. And um um anyways, penicellin G became available in World War II and sulfinomide available in 1935. Then you could inject the patients with these two antibiotics using the common usage of the term there and uh uh cure the patient of their diseases. If the antibiotic did work against that disease, a penicellin G would only work against most gram positives wouldn't work against a gram negative. And then sulfanomide, I don't know which what it works against. I'd have to look it up. Any question about any of that? All right. Bacteria was once classified as plants, hence the term flora to describe microbes. I learned the term micrllora. And if ever I use that term, I'm sorry. That's a because that's the term that was around when I took microbiology way back in the ancient times. It's now been replaced by microbiota and you should use that term instead of microfllora. All organisms have a normal microbiota present on all plants and animals that we call their normal microbiota. Usually these normal microbiota live in harmony with the host. All animals and plants have a symbiotic microbial community living with them and actually it's beneficial to them and it's central to their welfare. Any questions about that? There is a human normal microbiota and then like like a cat normal microbiota and then the bean plant normal microbiota. These are the normal organisms that are living with the host. Like stafllocus epidermis is a microbe that lives on both humans and on cats. I don't know if it lives on beans, but it might. So it' be the normal microbiota of both humans and cats. But then bartinella hinsel is a normal microbiota of cats because it lives on the cats doesn't cause them disease but bartinella henseli if it's growing in a human it will cause disease in the human so it's not a part of the normal microbiota of humans and if you want to know actually causes cat scratch fever or cat scratch disease partic Ella and so the normal microbiota are normally found only in and on the skin the oral nasal cavities the upper respiratory tract the digestive tract and the urethra is usually not found internally internal organs the bones the muscles like the spinal tissue too. Any question about that? The normal microbiota is actually important at preventing the growth of pathogens. The normal microbiota can compete for resources for space. The normal microbiota can even uh secrete toxins that inhibit the growth of the pathogen like the normal microbiota of our urethra and of our mouth make the environment more acidic that can prevent the growth of pathogens. Actually the normal microbiota of our skin make our skin a little more acidic than um the skin is normally. The normal microbiota can produce toxins that inhibit the growth of a pathogen. We'll talk a little bit about that later. like E. coli can secrete a toxin which um can prevent the growth of chagela. We'll talk a little bit about that later. The normal microbiota is important for producing nutrients and uh growth factors for the patient like E.coli E coli and everybody's gut helps us digest our food and then other microorganisms are important in producing folic acid and vitamin K. We get a significant portion of our folic acid and vitamin K from the normal microbiota in our intestines or our colon. Oh, and there it is right there. The norma my microbiota are important in in our digestion. Any question about any of them? All right. I only have like three more slides here, but I'm going to stop now and we're going to continue with the lab at 6:32. So, you have 10 minute break between now and the lab. Any questions before I log off? All right, I will say goodbye. See you in the lab at 10 minutes from now at