Skip to content

Two studies looked at manganese and found that high levels are associated with problems. Manganese is an essential trace mineral necessary for development, metabolism, the antioxidant system, and for normal brain and nerve function. Getting manganese through foods (e.g. nuts, seeds, whole grains) is beneficial, but ingesting large amounts through supplements or being exposed to high levels in some other way (such as polluted air) is associated with various health problems. 

The first study found that high manganese in the diet (in mice) was associated with an increased risk of staph (Staphylococcus aureus) heart infection. The second study (done in East Liverpool, Ohio) found that exposure to consistently high levels of manganese in the air is associated with lower IQ scores in children. And why did the air the children were breathing have high levels of manganese? Because there was a nearby hazardous waste incinerator and a facility that handles manganese.

From Medical Xpress: Excess dietary manganese promotes staph heart infection

Too much dietary manganese—an essential trace mineral found in leafy green vegetables, fruits and nuts—promotes infection of the heart by the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus ("staph"). The findings, reported this week in the journal Cell Host & Microbe, add to the evidence that diet modifies risk for infection. The discovery also suggests that people who have excess levels of tissue manganese, including those who consume dietary supplements with high concentrations of the metal, may be at increased risk for staph infection of the heart.

Skaar and his colleagues studied the impact of dietary manganese on staph infection in a mouse model. Most of the mice that consumed a high manganese diet—about three times more manganese than normal—died after infection with staph. The investigators discovered that the animals on the high manganese diet were particularly susceptible to staph infection of the heart, which was a surprise, said Skaar, who is also professor of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology.... The researchers found that excess manganese inactivates a key line of defense against pathogens: the innate immune system's reactive oxygen burst. 

Staph is the leading cause of bacterial endocarditis (infection of the inner lining of the heart chamber and heart valves) and the second most frequent cause of bloodstream infections. Interestingly, some populations of people have both increased risk for staph infections, particularly endocarditis, and higher than normal levels of tissue manganese, Skaar noted. These populations include intravenous drug users, patients with chronic liver disease and patients on long-term intravenous diets.

From Medical Xpress: Higher manganese levels in children correlate with lower IQ scores, study finds

A study led by environmental health researchers at the University of Cincinnati (UC) College of Medicine finds that children in East Liverpool, Ohio with higher levels of Manganese (Mn) had lower IQ scoresThe study analyzed blood and hair samples of 106 children 7 to 9 years of age from East Liverpool and surrounding communities, who enrolled in the study from March 2013 to June 2014.... The study found that increased Mn in hair samples was significantly associated with declines in full-scale IQ, processing speed and working memory.

Manganese is an element generally found in combination with iron and many minerals. It plays a vital role in brain growth and development, but excessive exposure can result in neurotoxicity. Manganese is used widely in the production of steel, alloys, batteries and fertilizers and is added to unleaded gasolineLocated in northeast Ohio along the Ohio River, East Liverpool has a demonstrated history of environmental exposures, with EPA records showing elevated levels of manganese concentrations since 2000.... all  [air] monitors in East Liverpool had "consistently exceeded" health-based guidelines set by the agency.

 Manganese (Mn). Credit: Wikipedia

 Some people have nasal bacteria - Staphylococcus lugdunensis, that kills other disease causing bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus (including strains of MRSA) and Enterococcus. This is because S. lugdunensis produces a molecule (lugdunin) that acts as an antibiotic. It is thought that 10% of people naturally carry S. lugdunensis in their nasal passages. Will this lead to a new class of antibiotics or to probiotics of the future? Could it help in treating sinusitis? Stay tuned... From Science News:

The nose knows how to fight staph

The human nose harbors not only a deadly enemy — Staphylococcus aureus — but also its natural foe. Scientists have now isolated a compound from that foe that might combat MRSA, the methicillin-resistant strain of S. aureus....Investigating the intense interspecies competition in the nose — where microbes fight for space and access to scant sugars and amino acids — might offer a fertile alternative to searching for new drug candidates in soil microbes.

Despite being a relatively nutrient-poor environment, the human nose is home to more than 50 species of bacteria. One of these is S. aureus, a dominant cause of hospital-acquired infections such as MRSA, as well as infections of the blood and heart. But there’s a huge variability in the nasal microbe scene between individuals: while S. aureus is present in the nasal passages of roughly 30 percent of people, the other 70 percent don’t have any sign of it.

Trying to explain this difference led Peschel and colleagues to study “the ecology of the nose.” They suspected that other nasal inhabitants, well-tuned to compete in that harsh niche, might be blocking S. aureus from colonizing the nose in those who don’t carry it. From nasal secretion samples, the team isolated 90 strains of different Staphylococcus species. Of these, one bacterium, S. lugdunensis, killed S. aureus when the two were grown together in a dish. Introducing a variety of mutations into S. lugdunensis produced a strain that didn’t kill. The missing gene, the team showed, normally produced an antibiotic, which the researchers named lugdunin; it represents the first example of a new class of antibiotic.

Lugdunin was able to fend off MRSA as well as a strain of Enterococcus resistant to the antibiotic vancomycin. Neither bacteria developed resistance. The team also pitted S. lugdunensis against S. aureus in test tube and mouse studies, with S. lugdunensis besting S. aureus. Only 5.9 percent of 187 hospital patients had S. aureus in their noses if they also carried S. lugdunensis, the team found, while S. aureus was present in 34.7 percent of those without S. lugdunensis. Peschel and colleagues also reported the results July 28 in Nature.

Lugdunin cleared up a staph skin infection in mice, but it’s unclear how the compound works. Researchers could not rule out that it damages the cell membrane, which could limit its use in humans to a topical antibiotic. Peschel and coauthor Bernhard Krismer also suggest that the bacterium itself might be a good probiotic, applied nasally, to fend off staph infections in vulnerable hospital patients.  (The original study and accompanying Commentary)

 A compound secreted by the nose-dwelling bacterium Staphylococcus lugdunensis may fight antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria such as MRSA (pink). CREDIT: NIAID, NIH/WIKIMEDIA COMMONS


Once again, two opposing views about beards have been in the news - that they harbor all sorts of nasty disease-causing bacteria vs they are hygienic. An earlier May 5, 2015 post was about the question of whether bearded men have more bacteria on their faces than clean shaven ones. I cited a 2014 study found that they don't, and that we are all covered with bacteria, all sorts of bacteria, and this is normal.

Now another study has looked at the issue of hospital workers with and without beards and whether they carry infectious bacteria. Researchers swabbed the faces (center of the cheek and the skin of the upper lip under the nostrils) of both clean shaven individuals and individuals with facial hair (beards) that worked in two hospitals (they all had direct contact with patients) and looked at the bacteria present. They especially looked for the presence of the bacteria Staphylococcus aureus, which surprisingly was found more in the clean-shaven men. Also to their surprise, it was more of the clean shaven men who carried the pathogenic bacteria Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (also known as MRSA). For those bacterial groups most closely associated with hospital acquired infections, such as Klebsiella species, Pseudomonas species, Enterobacter species., and Acinetobacter species, prevalence was low in both groups, and less than 2% for each group.

For other, less harmful bacteria, researchers found that bearded employees harbored no more bacteria than their clean-shaven colleagues. In summary: The researchers say that "results suggest that male hospital workers with facial hair do not harbour more potentially concerning bacteria than clean-shaven workers, and that in some instances, clean-shaven individuals are significantly more likely to be colonized with potential nosocomial pathogens". (NOTE: nosocomial means a disease originating or acquired in a hospital.)

And why is that? According to the study, one explanation is "microtrauma to the skin," which occurs during shaving and results in abrasions, which could support bacterial colonisation and growth of bacteria on the clean-shaven men. However, some other researchers have a different hypothesis — that beards themselves actually fight infection. This stems from an experiment carried out by Dr. Michael Mosley who recently swabbed the beards of a variety of men and sent the samples to Dr. Adam Roberts, a microbiologist at University College London. Roberts grew more than 100 different bacteria from the beard samples, but found that in a few of the petri dishes a microbe was killing the other bacteria -  a bacteria called Staphylococcus epidermidis, and which they believe has antibiotic properties.

From the Journal of Hospital Infection: Bacterial ecology of hospital workers’ facial hair: a cross-sectional study

Summary: It is unknown whether healthcare workers' facial hair harbours nosocomial pathogens. We compared facial bacterial colonization rates among 408 male healthcare workers with and without facial hair. Workers with facial hair were less likely to be colonized with Staphylococcus aureus (41.2% vs 52.6%, P = 0.02) and meticillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci (2.0% vs 7.0%, P = 0.01). Colonization rates with Gram-negative organisms were low for all healthcare workers, and Gram-negative colonization rates did not differ by facial hair type. Overall, colonization is similar in male healthcare workers with and without facial hair; however, certain bacterial species were more prevalent in workers without facial hair.

[Excerpts from Discussion]:Several studies to date have demonstrated that physician white coats and neck ties can act as significant sources of nosocomial bacteria. Our study suggests that facial hair does not increase the overall risk of bacterial colonization compared to clean-shaven control subjects. Indeed, clean-shaven control subjects exhibited higher rates of colonization with certain bacterial species. This finding may be explained by microtrauma to the skin during shaving resulting in abrasions, which may support bacterial colonization and proliferation. This may be akin to the enhanced risk of surgical site infections in patients shaved with razors prior to surgery. Further, our results are consistent with prior evidence pertaining to bacterial colonization on the hands and nares of HCWs (Health care workers).

IMG_3880 Credit:Mara Silgailis at Lacto Bacto

I spent time this past week searching the medical literature (US National Library of Medicine - Medline/PubMed) for the latest in sinusitis research. I wish I could tell you that amazing research has been happening recently, especially with the sinus microbiome (which could mean treating sinusitis with microbes), but I was disappointed. Really disappointed.

I did four searches: one for "sinusitis" (looked at 600+ studies dating back to summer 2013), then "chronic sinusitis" (going back to fall 2012), then "sinusitis, probiotics", and finally "sinusitis, microbiome". The "sinusitis, probiotics" search turned up 10 studies dating back to 2002. The "sinusitis, microbiome" search turned up a grand total of 13 studies, with the oldest dating back to 2004. Of course the sinus microbiome research by Abreu et al from September 2012  discussing Lactobacillus sakei and which I based my personal (and successful) kimchi sinusitis treatment was on the list (see my Dec. 5 post for a discussion of their research). But none of the other studies looked at Lactobacillus sakei (which is in kimchi).

Some of the findings among the many chronic sinusitis studies: microbial diversity is lower in antibiotic treated chronic sinusitis sufferers (than in healthy controls) and the microbial communities more uneven (meaning some microbes dominated over others), and greater Staphylococcus aureus populations among those with chronic sinusitis. After antibiotic treatment patients typically became colonized by microbes that are less susceptible to the prescribed antibiotics. One study found that Staphylococcus epidermidis (SE) may have some effectiveness against Staphylococcus aureus (SA) in the sinusitis microbiome in mice. Lactobacillus rhamnosus was not found to be effective against sinusitis. A number of studies reported biofilms in the sinuses which are highly resistant to medicines. Some studies found that smoking or exposure to second-hand smoke is linked to chronic sinusitis. (June 2016 UPDATE: I should have said that Lactobacillus rhamnosus (R0011 strain) was not effective against sinusitis when taken orally (a tablet) twice a day for 4 weeks in the study. There have been no further studies since then looking at L. rhamnosus for sinusitis treatment. It is unknown whether spraying or smearing/dabbing L. rhamnosus directly into the nostrils would have a positive effect)

Everyone agreed that state of the art genetic analyses found many more microbial species than older methods (the least effective was the traditional culture method). Several studies suggested that perhaps chronic sinusitis is due to immunological defects and one suggested that it was due to "immune hyperresponsiveness" to organisms in the sinuses. Surprisingly, some studies reported that there are more microbes or microbial species in chronic sinusitis patients than in control patients and that Staphylococcus aureus may be dominant (NOTE: These results may be due to not having been done with state of the art genetic analyses which would have picked up more microbial diversity. Another issue is where in the respiratory tract the samples were taken from, because it seems that the different areas have different microbial communities).

There was frequent mention that chronic sinusitis affects millions of people each year in the US, that little is known about its exact cause, and that there is controversy over appropriate treatment. Originally doctors thought that healthy sinuses were sterile, and it has taken a while to realize that is untrue. It is clear that researchers are only now trying to discover what microbial communities live in healthy individuals compared to those with chronic sinusitis.

But it appeared to me that the majority of the studies from the last 2 years indicated that treatment of chronic sinusitis is still: first try antibiotics, then antibiotics plus inhaled corticosteroids and perhaps nasal saline irrigation, then followed by endoscopic sinus surgery (or sometimes balloon dilation), then perhaps steroid drip implants (steroid-eluting sinus implants), and then there may be revision surgeries.

So I'm sticking with my easy-to-do, inexpensive, and fantastically successful kimchi (Lactobacillus sakei) sinusitis treatment. Of course! (see my Dec. 6, 2013 and Feb. 21, 2014 posts or click on the Sinusitis Treatment link for further information).