Comparatively Speaking: Pathogenic vs. Non-pathogenic Bacteria

Comparatively Speaking: Pathogenic vs. Non-pathogenic Bacteria

August 28, 2012 | By: Anthony J. O'Lenick Jr., Siltech LLC, and Kelly Dobos, Kao Corp.
Fill out my online form.
This item has been saved to your library.
View My Library
(click to close)
Save to My Library
Title: Comparatively Speaking: Pathogenic vs. Non-pathogenic Bacteria
  • Article
  • Media

The terms pathogenic and non-pathogenic are often are applied to various microbes. By definition, a pathogen is a specific cause of a disease, while a non-pathogen is considered harmless. In reality, the distinction is not always clear. In 1890, the German physician Robert Koch formalized the criteria to classify bacteria as pathogenic. (See Koch's Postulates)

While these definitions made sense at the time, advances in microbial sampling and identification have shown that they are unable to account for microbes that cause disease in some individuals but are also present in normal individuals without causing disease. A harmless microbe could become an opportunistic pathogen, especially in an immune-compromised host. For example, Staphylococcus aureus, a bacterium that is part of the normal human skin flora is also a common cause of nosocomial (hospital-acquired) infections.

As a formulator is often tasked with utilizing ingredients to prevent the formation of pathogens on the body while preserving beneficial skin non-pathogens, understanding the two is essential.





Koch's Postulates

1. The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease.
2. The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown in pure culture.
3. The specific disease must be must reproduced when a pure culture of the bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.
4. The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected host.

Next image >