生物与医学2018pnas.org
草甘膦扰乱蜜蜂肠道微生物群
Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees
入门 · 约 45 分钟读完前置知识：微生物学基础、蜜蜂肠道共生菌群、统计学显著性检验
导读
这篇 PNAS 论文研究草甘膦对蜜蜂肠道菌群的影响：实验发现蜜蜂摄入草甘膦后，肠道中部分有益微生物数量发生显著变化，提示草甘膦可能通过扰乱菌群间接削弱蜜蜂健康。不过实验结果存在不一致之处，低剂量组观察到显著差异而高剂量组反而没有。
HN 关注点：草甘膦（孟山都 Roundup 主要成分）的安全性是 HN 长期争议话题，这项研究提供了新的证据角度，评论焦点集中在实验数据质量和监管制度上。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：支持 1 质疑 2 补充 1
支持批评美国化学品“无罪推定”式监管，认为应效仿欧洲上市前证明安全
令人沮丧的是，需要靠这类研究才能推动监管改变。草甘膦（以 Roundup 形式）自 1980 年以来一直是市场上最畅销的除草剂。在养蜂人圈子里，说“Roundup 会杀死蜜蜂”就像说“下雨会弄湿东西”一样毫无争议。美国监管环境对人工化学品采取“无罪推定”，更安全的做法（欧洲已采用）是要求工业、农业和家用化学品在上市前先证明其安全性。另外，西方世界精子数量自 1990 年以来急剧下降，我猜草甘膦或其他监管不严的常见化学品与此有关。
arctangos查看英文原文
I find it disheartening that it takes studies of this nature to reshape regulations. Glyphosate (as Roundup) has been the bestselling herbicide on the market since 1980. Among bee-keepers, asserting that "roundup kills bees" is about as controversial as "rain makes things wet." The US regulatory environment treats artificially prepared chemicals as innocent until proven guilty. A safer approach (recently adopted in Europe) would be to guarantee the safety of industrial, agricultural, and household chemicals before they are allowed to go to market. On a potentially related note, sperm counts in the western world have been declining precipitously since 1990. I'd bet that glyphosate and/or other common poorly regulated chemicals have something to do with this. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sperm-count-dropping-in-western-world/
质疑质疑剂量-效应关系反常：低剂量有效果、高剂量反而没有
一条批评性评论：看图 1B，实验开始时（第 0 天）肠道菌群变异就很大。喂 5 mg/L 草甘膦的蜜蜂有 8 种微生物中 5 种与对照组有统计显著差异，但喂 10 mg/L 的反而与对照组没有显著差异。论文自己也承认高剂量组效果缺失“无法解释”，只给出了一些猜测。
sampo查看英文原文
A critical comment: Look at Figure 1B. The variation in the gut microbes is large at the start of the study (day 0). Feeding the bees 5 mg/liter glyphosate, they have a statistically significant difference from the control (no glyphosate) in 5 microbes out of 8. But feeding 10 mg/liter, they get no statistically significant differences from the control. They have no explanation for why glyphosate seems to have an effect at 5 mg/litre concentration but not at the higher 10 mg/litre concentration ("The relative lack of effects of the G-10 treatment on the microbiota composition at day 3 posttreatment is unexplained"). They do give speculations, though.
补充关注点应是 Roundup 复合制剂而非草甘膦单质，其中其他成分可能更有害
我不在乎草甘膦本身有没有害。孟山都有一堆研究表明它基本无害，也许这像当年的烟草巨头，时间会证明。我真正关心的是 Roundup 整个产品——里面有很多成分，有些看起来比草甘膦更糟糕。比如如果人们近来的肠胃问题是因为收割谷物前喷洒 Roundup 造成的，我们需要尽快搞清楚。不管罪魁是哪种化学物质，反正都是同一批坏人。
hinkley查看英文原文
I don’t care what glyphosate does or doesn’t do. Monsanto has a pile of research showing it as mostly harmless. Maybe that’s like Big Tobacco. Time will tell. What I do care about is what Roundup does. There are many many curious compounds in Roundup, and some of them appear to be much nastier than glyphosate. If for instance all of these stomach problems people have been having lately are caused by application of Roundup to aid in grain harvesting, we need to know sooner rather than later. And it doesn’t really matter as much to me which chemical is the culprit. It’s the same bad actors regardless.
质疑质疑实验设计：基线差异大、糖水饲养偏离蜜蜂自然饮食
图 1 看起来很奇怪。第 0 天各组（对照、G-5、G-10）的细菌数值范围差异很大——这是噪声吗？为什么？如果我对图的理解正确，研究只在低剂量草甘膦（G-5）下发现菌群变化，高剂量（G-10）下没有。我不是蜜蜂专家，但蜜蜂平时应该不会整天喝糖水——这也会导致对照组从第 0 天到第 3 天出现奇怪的变化。
mkettn查看英文原文
Figure 1 looks weird. At day 0 the ranges for the bacterias in the evaluated groups (C, G-5, G-10) differ a lot - Is this noise? Why? If i interpret this graphic right the study did find bacteria changes at lower levels of glyphosate(G-5), but not at higher levels of glyphosate expose (G-10). I am no bee expert but I doubt that bees normally eat sugar syrup all day - which also will contribute to the weird stuff happening in the C-group in comparision from day 0 to 3.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2018Hacker News 讨论帖165 分 · 77 评
同领域还值得读
CRISPR 在活体动物中消除 HIV-1 感染
CRISPR eliminates HIV-1 infection in live animals
报告利用 CRISPR/Cas9 基因编辑技术在活体动物中清除 HIV-1 感染：研究人员通过腺病毒载体递送特定的 Cas9 系统，从被感染细胞中切除嵌入的 HIV 病毒 DNA。
生物与医学2017 · 1,455 分 · 239 评入门 · 约 30 分钟编辑精选保护区飞行昆虫生物量27年下降75%
75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas
这篇发表于 PLOS ONE 的研究通过在德国保护区长达 27 年的昆虫生物量监测，发现飞行昆虫总量下降了约 75%。
生物与医学2017 · 901 分 · 432 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选为什么大多数已发表的研究发现是错的
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)
这篇 2005 年发表于 PLOS Medicine 的经典论文由 John Ioannidis 撰写，论证了在统计功效不足、研究偏倚和多重检验等因素下，大多数已发表的医学研究发…
生物与医学2022 · 388 分 · 351 评入门 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选人类免疫系统的物理接线图
A physical wiring diagram for the human immune system
这篇 Nature 论文系统绘制了人类免疫系统的“物理接线图”：通过大规模实验鉴定免疫细胞表面受体之间的相互作用（包括约 30 种此前未知的受体互作），并结合定量计算模型模拟免疫…
生物与医学2022 · 342 分 · 49 评专业 · 约 90 分钟编辑精选脂肪组织在减重后仍保留肥胖的表观遗传记忆
Adipose tissue retains an epigenetic memory of obesity after weight loss
这篇 Nature 论文研究了肥胖对脂肪组织的长期影响：即使减重成功，脂肪细胞仍保留着肥胖时期的表观遗传记忆，可能解释为什么减重后容易反弹。
生物与医学2025 · 263 分 · 327 评进阶 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选