When it comes to stopping the outbreak of a dangerous drug-resistant “superbug” bacteria, doctors often have to become detectives. They can treat each patient as they come in, but stopping the infection from spreading — that can be the key to saving even more lives.
Recently, a team at the University of Michigan and Rush University Medical Center used data from a real-world outbreak of a dangerous, drug-resistant superbug called CRKP to show that genetic testing can reveal how these superbugs are spreading, giving doctors a heads up on how to break the chain of infection and potentally stop an outbreak in its tracks.
The data from that CRKP outbreak provided researchers with the story of how the disease spread. In 2008, a man — who was incredibly sick and dying from a CRKP infection — was transferred to Rush University Medical Center in Chicago from a hospital in northern Indiana. Doctors there knew he wasn’t the first CRKP case in the Chicago area. Another case had cropped up just five months earlier.
Two cases of a dangerous superbug appearing in the same region had the doctors worried. A team headed by Mary Hayden, an infectious disease physician, began investigating. With a bit of legwork, they were able to find and map out the spread of the infection, watching how it hitched rides on dozens of different patients as they were transferred from hospital to hospital, nursing home to nursing home.
At the time, genetic analysis wasn’t sophisticated enough to really help Hayden track the chain of infection, but her team preserved samples from the patients anyway, hoping they could one day serve as time capsules for future investigations.
Now, they can.
The recent breakthrough involves whole genome sequencing. As bacteria grow and spread, they inevitably accumulate mutations in their genome, and by taking genetic samples from two different strains and comparing their unique mutations, scientists can tell if they’re related. It’s kind of like running a bacterial paternity test.
Hayden wanted to see if this kind of sequencing could have helped find the chain even faster during the 2008 outbreak.
To test her theory, she teamed up with Evan Snitkin’s genetics lab at the University of Michigan. Snitkin’s team tested each of Hayden’s samples in the order they were originally collected and without any prior information about each sample, essentially walking through the crisis beat-for-beat. As they did, they used the genome sequencing to build a kind of bacterial family tree.
When the two teams compared the new bacterial family tree with the results of Hayden’s 2008 investigation, they lined up nicely.
The technique won’t just duplicate conventional detective work, Hayden says. It could also help reveal nuances and insights into how a superbug is spreading, allowing doctors to move quickly to stop the chain of infection.
During the 2008 outbreak, for example, there were five patients, all at the same hospital, who had all caught CRKP. But doctors didn’t know how and when each patient picked up the bug. If one patient had carried it and spread it to all the others, for example, that’d mean the superbug was spreading within the hospital. On the other hand, if each patient had picked up the bug somewhere else and then came to the hospital, the source must be somewhere else.
Back then, the doctors had to work without knowing which scenario was true, but Hayden’s new genetic analysis showed that it had actually been a combination of both scenarios. Three of the patients contracted CRKP outside the hospital first, then two of them spread the bug to two other patients once they were hospitalized.
Had this technology been available at the time, doctors would have known as soon as they saw the test that they needed to do something to prevent transmission inside the hospital, such as isolating carriers and infected patients, as well as look for an outside source.
“The earlier we can intervene to contain an outbreak, the more likely it is that we can eradicate it," Hayden explained in a press release.
Drug-resistant bacteria like CRKP have become a major medical problem in the United States. At least 2 million Americans catch one of these infections each year and more than 20,000 die from one.
The team’s process will still need to be tested in other settings, like nursing homes and with other diseases, says Hayden, but it should work with nonbacterial infections, such as those caused by viruses and fungi, and could provide a powerful complement to standard epidemiological detective work. The team’s work appeared in the journal Science Translational Medicine.
The team isn’t the only lab that has this kind of equipment and capability, and as such, they’re hoping their results can serve as a proof of concept for doctors and public health agencies like the CDC.
When outbreaks happen, doctors have to become detectives. Thanks to tools like this, the medical Moriarty that is superbug outbreaks may soon be easier than ever to defeat.
A woman deprived of her sleep.Image via 
A Looney Tunes classic. 
Artist's rendering of a brain overlaid a woman's head.Image via 
Ultrasound of human baby.Image via 
IVF animated process.Image via 
A couple speaks with a fertility professional.Image via 
Love, Mom.Photo from Heidi Johnson 
A teen boy having a hard time. 
Why do some folks use social media but don't engage?
Psychologist says people who never comment on social media share these 5 positive traits
For over 20 years, social media has developed into a staple in many people’s day-to-day lives. Whether it’s to keep in communication with friends and family, following the thoughts of celebrities, or watching cat videos while sipping your morning coffee, there seem to be two types of social media users: commenters and lurkers.
The term “lurker” sounds equally mysterious and insidious, with some social media users writing them off as non-participants at best or voyeurs at worst. However, mindfulness expert Lachlan Brown believes these non-commenters have some very psychologically positive and healthy traits. Let’s take a look at how each one of these traits could be beneficial and see how fruitful lurking might be even though it can drive content creators crazy.
1. Cautious about vulnerability
Consciously or not, making a post online or commenting on one puts you and your words out there. It’s a statement that everyone can see, even if it’s as simple as clicking “like.” Doing so opens yourself up to judgment, with all the good, bad, and potential misinterpretation that comes with it. Non-commenters would rather not open themselves up to that.
These silent users are connected to a concept of self-protection by simply not engaging. By just scrolling past posts or just reading/watching them without commentary, they’re preventing themselves from any downsides of sharing an opinion such as rejection, misunderstanding, or embarrassment. They also have more control on how much of themselves they’re willing to reveal to the general public, and tend to be more open face-to-face or during one-on-one/one-on-few private chats or DMs. This can be seen as a healthy boundary and prevents unnecessary exposure.
Considering many comment sections, especially involving political topics, are meant to stir negative emotional responses to increase engagement, being extra mindful about where, when, and what you comment might not be a bad idea. They might not even take the engagement bait at all. Or if they see a friend of theirs post something vulnerable, they feel more motivated to engage with them personally one-on-one rather than use social media to publicly check in on them.
2. Analytical and reflective mindset
How many times have you gone onto Reddit, YouTube, or any other site and just skimmed past comments that are just different versions of “yes, and,” “no, but,” or “yes, but”? Or the ever insightful, formerly popular comment “First!” in a thread? These silent browsers lean against adding to such noise unless they have some valid and thoughtful contribution (if they bother to comment period).
These non-posters are likely wired on reflective thinking rather than their initial intuition. Not to say that all those who comment aren’t thoughtful, but many tend to react quickly and comment based on their initial feelings rather than absorbing the information, thinking it over, researching or testing their belief, and then posting it. For "lurkers," it could by their very nature to just do all of that and not post it at all, or share their thoughts and findings privately with a friend. All in all, it’s a preference of substance over speed.
3. High sense of self-awareness
Carried over from the first two listed traits, these silent social media users incorporate their concern over their vulnerability and their reflective mindset into digital self-awareness. They know what triggers responses out of them and what causes them to engage in impulsive behavior. It could be that they have engaged with a troll in the past and felt foolish. Or that they just felt sad after a post or got into an unnecessary argument that impacted them offline. By knowing themselves and seeing what’s being discussed, they choose to weigh their words carefully or just not participate at all. It’s a form of self-preservation through restraint.
4. Prefer to observe rather than perform
Some folks treat social media as information, entertainment, or a mix of both, and commenting can feel like they’re yelling at the TV, clapping alone in a movie theater when the credits roll, or yelling “That’s not true!” to a news anchor that will never hear them. But contrary to that, social media is a place where those yells, claps, and accusations can be seen and get a response. By its design, social media is considered by experts and the media as performative, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. Taking all of the previously mentioned traits into account, one can see why they would prefer to “observe the play” rather than get up on the stage of Facebook or X.
On top of that, these non-commenters could be using social media differently than those who choose to fully engage with it. Using this type of navigation, there may be nothing for them to comment about. Some commenters are even vying for this for their mental health. There are articles about how to better curate your social media feeds and manipulate algorithms to create a better social media experience to avoid unnecessary conflict or mentally tiring debate.
If you go on a blocking spree on all of your accounts and just follow the posters that boost you, it could turn your social media into a nice part of your routine as you mainly engage with others face-to-face or privately. In terms of commenting, if your curated Instagram is just following cute dogs and all you have to offer for a comment is “cute dog,” you might just enjoy the picture and then move on with your day rather than join in the noise. These non-commenters aren’t in the show and they’re fine with it.
5. Less motivated by social validation
The last trait that Brown showcases is that social media users who browse without posting tend to be independent from external validation, at least online. Social media is built to grow through feedback loops such as awarding likes, shares, and reposts of your content along with notifications letting you know that a new person follows you or wants to connect. This can lead many people to connect their activity on social media with their sense of self worth, especially with adolescents who are still figuring out their place in the world and have still-developing brains.
Engaging in social media via likes, shares, comments, and posts rewards our brains by having them release dopamine, which makes us feel good and can easily become addictive. For whatever reason, non-commenters don’t rely on social media as a means to gauge their social capital or self worth. This doesn’t make them better than those who do. While some non-commenters could have healthier ways to boost their self worth or release dopamine into their systems, many get that validation from equally unhealthy sources offline. That said, many non-commenters’ silence could be a display of independence and self confidence.
Whether you frequently comment online or don’t, it’s good to understand why you do or don’t. Analyzing your habits can help you determine whether your online engagement is healthy, or needs to be tweaked. With that information, you can then create a healthy social media experience that works for you.