This is actually not a funny question. It is really important question, which, if answered, could help in many practical ways to treat several physiological disorders in human body. In recent times, there are increased number of research which focuses on brain-microbial interaction (brain-gut interaction), and the possibility of having bacteria in brain is less explored. But, answering to your question, if there are bacteria in brain, they definitely not have originated there but migrated.

Dear Abhijeet Singh,

There is every likelihood that you are right but don't make promises you can't keep, not lay, if they are there.

Interesting subject! The question is what is the role that such bacteria play for our health?

I will follow this discussion

Victor Ostrovskii Can you tell clearly what you wanted to say? As I can see, I neither made any promise, nor mentioned anything to appear like that.

OK, Dear Abhijeet Singh,

I will try to explain my position. I confirm nothing, but I don’t consider impossible, although consider highly improbable, formation of the simplest living issues within a system, where chemical substances necessary for such a transformation exist and the corresponding structural peculiarities of the system occur. As you, possibly, know, living matter originate, according to our LOH-Theory (Life Origination Hydrate Theory), from definite minerals within the matrix gas-hydrate structure. This means that chemical substances are principally capable of transforming to living matter. I can’t exclude completely that the chemical components of the brain tissue can be in equilibrium with some living matter, the more so because some brain tissues have, evidently, matrix structure, all chemical elements necessary for living matter origination are in inventory, and no disturbances preventing thermodynamically-directed proceeding of the chemical reactions occur. I repeat that I don’t predict the occurrence of the living-matter origination process in brain but only write about impossibility of the categorical denial of the possibility of such a process.

I assume most of the bacteria that are in our brains migrated there at some time after the early embryonic development of the brain. And certainly the metabolites and resulting inflammatory mediators from our microbiome do affect our brain. But what about the possibility that some bacteria may be acquired in the earliest developmental stages as the ectoderm folds inward to create the brain. Might there be bacteria on the surface of the ectoderm that become 'trapped' within the neural tissue? This sort of scenario does happen in other areas, for example the development of a pilonidal cyst with the infolding of our 'tail' (caudal vertebrae)?

Indeed, we know that living matter was primordially originated from the mineral matter and that hydrocarbon, nitrate, and phosphate are necessary and sufficient for this. I believe that the LOH-theory reserves no doubts in this. We all are also certain about necessity of the DNA occurrence for the appearance of a living issue under definite conditions. We know that DNAs are capable of transforming under some strong impacts such as highly-energetic radiation.

But is it possible formation, with no external impacts, of any new DNA as a result of some rearrangement in an existing one and any new living issue formation in an appropriate medium on the basis of another DNA that contains all necessary chemical elements and that is available off the shelf?

In my opinion, it is a very interesting (funny) question of a common significance, at least, for biology and medicine.

Dear Robert,

Your hypothesis is trivial and, of cause, it is the first that strikes. Meanwhile, ...

Dear Victor,

Because we have not been able to study something does not make it trivial. We often find that these questions that are extremely difficult to study (by typical scientific methods) often have a reality after we find a means to verify the phenomenon. We do know several things, the amniotic fluid is not sterile. Infolding of tissues following gastrulation and during fetal development can bring bacteria into tissues. They may then remain in these tissues for decades with no apparent growth. While it might be uncommon, even unlikely, do not use the general lack of knowledge about these biological processes to try to trivialize and distract from a very real possibility.

Robert John Wolff

What do you think about germ free mouse?

Do you think they can be helpful to figure out more?

They may be able to tell us part of the biology that occurs. But there is another problem. " Germ-free mice lack all microorganisms (as determined within the limitations of the detection methods available) and are housed in tightly controlled and monitored isolators to prevent contamination." This is from the company Taconic which produces germ free mice. What they are saying is they are germ free only based on known methods of testing for sterility.

So there may be organisms hidden in the mice that we are not aware of. A good example of this might be an analogous situation with arthropods. Wolbachia appears to be able to 'inhabit' the insects during egg production. There could easily be similarly passed organisms in mammals as well. Another method that might result in bacteria in human brains.

Victor Ostrovskii

Indeed now the discussion started to get funny, since you are pushing forward the possibility of origination of organism (bacteria) in another organism (human, brain). You being the author of LOH-theroy, can you please provide your reference where you have found the origination of any organism in your experiments? As I can interpret, LOH-theory is very similar to the Miller's experiment, where it was shown the origination of simple organic biomolecules from the inorganic/organic molecules. Although, the experiment is not valid anymore (on grounds of what happened on early earth), but it still explains that the origination of biomolecules from different constituents. Thus, LOH-theory might be a better elaboration of Miller's experiment.

Nevertheless, coming to the main topic, it sounds really absurd if one argues the origination of bacteria in human brain on the basis of LOH-theory. Dont you think there must be some pre-requisite for the LOH-theory to be applicable? Do you think the brain environment is reductive? OR before answering that, can you please consider, if there is any difference in brain cell and any other human cell? Why to talk about just brain, as in the discussion here, all the cells are similar and have possibility of your LOH-theory to be applicable, isn't it? How many of the research have found that?

Further, I would possibly believe, if some research say. they have found origination of some prion, virus/phage de novo in human environment, since there are already a lot of viral genetic elements incorporated in human genome, and there is always a possibility for them to convert to lytic or become active and can be detected as an living entity. Another sub-topic could be is virus alive ? Well, that is a different thing. Coming back to the topic, Bacteria is not viral particles. Bacteria are living entity and well functioning metabolism and genomic structure. And it is totally impossible for the integration of whole bacterial genome in human genome and not have been detected yet. Additionally, also another impossible thing is to reconstruction of intergrated bacterial genome into a functioning genome and resulting in complete bacteria.

You are playing safe by saying, you can't confirm or you claim nothing. You are an experienced scientist and proposed the LOH-theory, please discuss with facts and figures and references based on your own theory.

In the context of discussion, Robert John Wolff suggestion sounds more plausible (very likely). In addition to him, foetus is connected for a very long time with umbilicus, which is yet another possibility of the migration of bacterial microflora from mother to foetus and somehow it got established in foetus. One big queston which arises here, first we need to find out the presence of any bacterial cell in normal/healthy human brain, as a general fact for everyone, later to argue if it is originated to migrated.

Dear Abhijeet Singh,

The LOH-theory is not similar to the Miller's experiment; it is opposite to the Oparin’s theory, which underlies the Miller’s experiments.

The LOH-Theory is available, for example, by the addresses:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265255386_Life_Origination_Hydrate_Theory_LOH-Theory_and_the_Explanation_of_the_Biological_Diversification

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235342937_Life_Origination_Hydrate_Hypothesis_LOH-Hypothesis

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235354873_Life_Origination_Hydrate_Hypothesis_LOH-Hypothesis_Original_Approach_to_Solution_of_the_Problem

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235351966_Generalized_hypothesis_of_the_origin_of_the_living-matter_simplest_elements_transformation_of_the_Archean_atmosphere_and_the_formation_of_methane_-_Hydrate_deposits

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235342966_Thermodynamics_of_formation_of_nitrogen_bases_and_D-ribose_from_mineral_substances_in_light_of_the_problem_of_origination_of_simplest_elements_of_living_matter

Don’t hurry with conclusions.

Victor Ostrovskii As the main topic of discussion is not LOH-theory or millers experiment, its not really matter how biomolecules originated on early earth (thats what I said, Miller's, experiment, Oparin theory or LOH theroy). Any of the theory or better theory in future can try to explain what happened on early earth, but was that the main point?

Dear Abhijeet Singh,

Your verbal artillery guns at imaginary targets and without preliminary reconnaissance of the locality and your non-acquaintance with principal LOH and MRH theories which are in the field of your activity and are downloaded by many thousands researchers for about two decades isn't indicative of your large curiosity.

I wrote here above: "I confirm nothing, but I don’t consider impossible, although consider highly improbable, formation of the simplest living issues within a system, where chemical substances necessary for such a transformation exist and the corresponding structural peculiarities of the system occur" and wrote below: " I repeat that I don’t predict the occurrence of the living-matter origination process in brain but only write about impossibility of the categorical denial of the possibility of such a process." There are no grounds to write that I propose the mechanism of living matter origination in brain. But I don’t consider it impossible and state that such a possibility should be taken into consideration when considering the causes of the occurrence of living issues there if they really there exist.

I, by no means, bear in mind a reconstruction of genomes.

We proposed a definite mechanism (and chemism) of living matter origination on the basis of three discoveries made by us, presented the thermodynamic and kinetic justifications of the theory, explained on its basis many observed features of living matter including rather mysterious ones, coordinated it with the available data on the cold and warm periods in the Earth’s history and on the oxygen content increasing in the atmosphere, revised Darwin’s hypothesis of the species diversity, presented available observable data which can be interpreted as the confirmation of living matter origination in our days by the mechanism, proposed by us, presented a method and the apparatuses usable for syntheses of biologically active substances including DNA, used the same principles for the first physico-chemical explanation of the mitosis and replication processes (Mitosis and Replication Hydrate Theory, MRH Theory), on the basis of which we step-by-step explained the mechanism of cellular replication.

Integrally speaking, we answered at least 25 principal questions in this field. For about 20 years, we presented all this in biological, chemical, physical, paleontological, thermodynamic, and specialized journals, approximately, at 15 printer’s sheets.

Apparently, all this have passed by you.

Sorry, I can’t repeat all these for you here.

However, I still will write you a little.

At present, the replication of DNAs of the brain neurons is well known fact. It is known from 1960s. It is possible to discuss the question, whether it begins in the course of neurulation or later on, however, this process, apparently, proceeds even in the brain of persons of ripe years. This means that the protoplasm of neurons contains nucleotides and nucleosides. Therewith, the conditions that are close to those that, according to the LOH-Theory, had led in due time to formation of the first DNAs occur in the protoplasm and it is quite possible that simple DNAs, which differ significantly from the host ones, form within some cells as the side process. Being formed, such foreign DNAs can give the progeny in the form of more or less simple microorganisms with rather short DNAs. I think that such a process is possible and that it would be poorly to neglect its possibility.

I was, may be, too cautious when writing about such a possibility, because I didn’t want to offend and to harm you. Unfortunately, you didn’t understand this.

Dear All,

I would like to underline that my last issues are directed not to a definite student but to the community of experienced scientists. In my opinion, the repeated information about detection of microflora (or, may be, microfauna) in the brain has a more important significance than it can seem at first sight. I wrote here that these observations can be of great importance for general biology, including medicine. The fact is that they can give a new explanation to the occurrence of different living organisms in other volumes within living issues. It is necessary to understand that our LOH- and MRH- Theories call to relate to the phenomenon of life as to any other natural phenomena that are controlled by common physical and chemical laws. According the LOH-Theory, living DNAs appeared in Nature when the super-protoplasm of the gas-hydrate structure and containing hydrocarbon and nitrate- and phosphate- ions were created by Nature. These DNAs were different depending on the duration of their “incubation period” and external conditions, and led to different living issues (I somewhat simplify the presentation). According to the MRH-Theory, the processes of the living matter distribution, including mitosis and replication, are similar to the processes of living matter origination in their common features because they are regulated by the same physical and chemical laws. Therefore, I consider by no means impossible the development of different living DNAs and different living issues on the basis of similar protoplasm under somewhat different conditions, including that inside a definite organism.

I would like to add that we together with Elena Kadyshevich work for many decades in different fields of science and always crave for orientation our theories to reaching a real public benefit, for example, we gave a new explanation for the phenomenon of aging and proposed new approach to the problem of optimal nutrition and life prolongation, gave advance notice to population about the danger of some solar phenomena, etc., and it is not improbable that our understanding of the phenomenon under consideration will be of practical importance for biology and medicine.

And one more remark: our papers on the problems under consideration are multidisciplinary and not simple by their content and, to understand and estimate their content, it is necessary to read papers but not only abstracts.

The future is written in the past.

Therefore, to understand the present and to predict the future, the studies of the past are necessary.

And just therefore, paleontology and history of humanity are among the most important directions of scientific studies.

However, it is necessary to be widely educated to read the future in the past being in the present.

Dear Abhijeet Singh,

You, for some reason, don't continue to insist on your opinion about the impossibility of origination of an organism within another organism. Meanwhile, this is a problem of principal importance and one who proves the reality of such a mechanism gets the ring. In my paper (with Elena Kadyshevich) published in Global Journal.... by the address

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235354873_Life_Origination_Hydrate_Hypothesis_LOH-Hypothesis_Original_Approach_to_Solution_of_the_Problem , some other important unsolved problems are formulated. I think that the historical experience testifies that the researchers who choose new paths in science make the most important contributions to the natural sciences, although, maybe, earn less money than those who choose the beaten paths. Who dares wins (sometimes).

Bacteria in the body can come off in different ways, so the immune system should fight them and the more the brain. How is it possible for bacteria to grow in the brain in the long term? This would mean that the immune system, the antibodies do not fulfill their role.

I invite you to the discussion.

Dear Dariusz

I see what you mean, but look other aspect, immune system don't look them as foreign.

Dear Dariusz,

Dear Alireza,

Really, this question is of extreme importance for understanding the general biology of organisms, medicine, living matter origination, and species diversity. It may happen that this problem may be related to other tissues of organisms rather than to brain only. As for the so-called immune system, it cannot fight against those issues which are unknown to it and against which it has no means.

Apparently, no reasoning is sufficient and it would be useful to admit that this problem exists and to become occupied with it without imaginations and preconceived notions. It cannot be excluded that, on the way of its solution, unexpected discoveries await us.

Unfortunately, not all our notions of natural phenomena are scientifically proved and we are too conceited in our assurance that we got far along the way of cognition of the world around. I will not be surprised if it turns out that unknown organisms could originate in cells of parental organisms. Moreover, I would not be surprised if it would turn out that, inside cells of recently died organism, new living issues could originate.

I think that the notions of the nature of life can’t be adequate until a correct understanding of the mechanism of living matter origination and development are available among biologists. When formulating the Life Origination Hydrate Theory and Mitosis and Replication Hydrate Theory, we have done in this direction what we were capable of doing. We know that many thousands of researchers acquainted with these theories. We call to discuss and criticize them, because the adequate physical and chemical understanding of these processes is necessary for everybody and because the adequate physical and chemical understanding of these processes will do harm to nobody.

Dear Dariusz,

Dear Alireza,

Were are you? "I invite you to the discussion" - this is your propsal. Didn't you want to discuss? Please, who wants can. Science is the travel into unknown. It needs to search the answer through studies of related phenomena and processes and through experiments but not through discussions. First thing, it is necessary to have an own solid opinion, and discussions are useful after that only. Isn't this?

Dear Victor Ostrovskii

You are right.

I am sorry I have been hospitalized.

I will search and com back to discussion.

I had some digging on the issue, my studied end up with a big dead end nonetheless.

There is tow studies on this issue.

1. Branton WG, Ellestad KK, Maingat F, Wheatley BM, Rud E, Warren RL, et al. (2013) Brain Microbial Populations in HIV/AIDS: α-Proteobacteria Predominate Independent of Host Immune Status. PLoS ONE 8(1): e54673. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054673

2. Maradonna F, Gioacchini G, Falcinelli S, Bertotto D, Radaelli G, Olivotto I, et al. (2013) Probiotic Supplementation Promotes Calcification in Danio rerio Larvae: A Molecular Study. PLoS ONE 8(12): e83155. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083155

But non of them did not study about origin of microbiom of brain. All most studies are about role of gut microbiota and their role in brain health or diseases.

In my knowledge scientist face up with a many gaps on microbiota issue, especially microbiota of tissues like brain, bladder and etc.

Studies in field of microbiom such mentioned above use NGS technique that can say to us just microbiom are present or absent not much more like them are alive, have been colonized or etc.

For reaching to right and exact answer we need other technique like proteomics and also different expert scientists in different field i.e I just know about bacteria that very common in medical and I do not know anythings about α-Proteobacteria.

On the other hand many studies shown peptidoglycan in the T cells, also we know some bacteria use of immune system cells to move on through the body, in addition some peptidoglycans are toxic for human nonetheless LPS is not toxic for rabbits so if even we use animal models for this issue I do not think get right answers.

I apology if I could not explain clearly about I think.

I will wait for other opinions.

Best regards.