5. ANTIBIOSIS AND ANTIBIOTICS
255
significance. To them, the production by a microorganism of a chemical
harmful to another microbe (a case of antibiosis) was in no way comparable to the production by a snake of the venom with which it kills its
prey (a case of biological competition). Oddly enough, the same example of the venomous snake was one of those selected by Vuillemin to
illustrate his own concept of antibiosis.
If Papacostas and Gate did not speculate about the possible significance of antibiosis in nature, their medical training led them to investigate mixed infections in animals and man and, in particular, to examine
the principles and mechanisms of bacteriotherapy, a practice for which
some hope was held at the time. Although many of the in vivo experiments were initiated on the basis of antibiosis or stimulation as observed
in vitro, the authors felt, inconsequentially as it may appear at first sight,
that different words were needed to designate, respectively, those instances in which the introduction of an additional microorganism was
either favorable or detrimental to the infected host. They were in fact
aware that the outcome of a mixed infection, as compared to that of a
pure one, is not simply the result of antibiosis or stimulation occurring
in vivo as they may in vitro. Antagonism and synergism were thus introduced to indicate, respectively, the more and the less favorable outcome
for the host when doubly rather than singly infected. This, sound as it
may be in principle, was unfortunately a source of confusion. First,
Papacostas and/Gate considered usefulness and harmfulness with respect
to a microorganism when dealing with mixed cultures (stimulation
versus antibiosis), but with respect to the host when studying mixed
infections (antagonism versus synergism). Second, the word antagonism,
borrowed from de Bary (10), had been used by Emmerich (11) with
exactly the same meaning as antibiosis by Papacostas and Gate.
It is evident that the word antibiosis was used by different scientists
to cover observations of the same general biological significance, but
that each author displayed a tendency to restrict somewhat its meaning
in his own way. Thus, the rambling of a predaceous animal over its
hunting grounds and the killing of its victims, the destruction of vegetal
species by herbivorous animals, the laying of traps by carnivorous
plants, ensnaring fungi, and various animal species, are clear examples
of antibiosis in Vuillemin's sense of the word. And so must, therefore,
be the corresponding activities when exercised by man and brought to
their highest degree of efficiency thanks to his intellectual power, such
as the use of more and more deadly weapons developed through ages for
hunting and war (war, by the way, being an example of isoantibiosis) or
of the ever more efficient machinery devised to destroy plant life for
nutritional or industrial purposes.
255
significance. To them, the production by a microorganism of a chemical
harmful to another microbe (a case of antibiosis) was in no way comparable to the production by a snake of the venom with which it kills its
prey (a case of biological competition). Oddly enough, the same example of the venomous snake was one of those selected by Vuillemin to
illustrate his own concept of antibiosis.
If Papacostas and Gate did not speculate about the possible significance of antibiosis in nature, their medical training led them to investigate mixed infections in animals and man and, in particular, to examine
the principles and mechanisms of bacteriotherapy, a practice for which
some hope was held at the time. Although many of the in vivo experiments were initiated on the basis of antibiosis or stimulation as observed
in vitro, the authors felt, inconsequentially as it may appear at first sight,
that different words were needed to designate, respectively, those instances in which the introduction of an additional microorganism was
either favorable or detrimental to the infected host. They were in fact
aware that the outcome of a mixed infection, as compared to that of a
pure one, is not simply the result of antibiosis or stimulation occurring
in vivo as they may in vitro. Antagonism and synergism were thus introduced to indicate, respectively, the more and the less favorable outcome
for the host when doubly rather than singly infected. This, sound as it
may be in principle, was unfortunately a source of confusion. First,
Papacostas and/Gate considered usefulness and harmfulness with respect
to a microorganism when dealing with mixed cultures (stimulation
versus antibiosis), but with respect to the host when studying mixed
infections (antagonism versus synergism). Second, the word antagonism,
borrowed from de Bary (10), had been used by Emmerich (11) with
exactly the same meaning as antibiosis by Papacostas and Gate.
It is evident that the word antibiosis was used by different scientists
to cover observations of the same general biological significance, but
that each author displayed a tendency to restrict somewhat its meaning
in his own way. Thus, the rambling of a predaceous animal over its
hunting grounds and the killing of its victims, the destruction of vegetal
species by herbivorous animals, the laying of traps by carnivorous
plants, ensnaring fungi, and various animal species, are clear examples
of antibiosis in Vuillemin's sense of the word. And so must, therefore,
be the corresponding activities when exercised by man and brought to
their highest degree of efficiency thanks to his intellectual power, such
as the use of more and more deadly weapons developed through ages for
hunting and war (war, by the way, being an example of isoantibiosis) or
of the ever more efficient machinery devised to destroy plant life for
nutritional or industrial purposes.