New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Anthrax Genome Spills Its Deadly Secrets

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Mutations in just a few genes can turn a benign dirt bacteria into the deadly form of anthrax that was used to kill five people in the fall of 2001, researchers report. Scientists compared the deadly pathogen's genetic makeup with those of its two closest, and less dangerous, relatives. The findings, published today in the journal Nature, should help elucidate how virulence evolved and help researchers mount a better defense against the potential bioterror agent.

Previous research yielded maps of large portions of B. anthracis's genome. In particular, scientists knew that the main differences between B. anthracis and its harmless soil bacteria cousins came from its two plasmids, which are small circles of DNA that lie outside of the chromosome. In B. anthracis, these plasmids (known as pXO1 and pXO2) carry genes that account for much of its toxicity to animals and humans. Now Tim Read of the Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) and his colleagues have analyzed the five million DNA bases that comprise the entire chromosome of B. anthracis. They also compared the results with the genomes of B. cereus, which can cause food poisoning, and B. thuringiensis, which is employed as a pesticide. The team found only 150 significant differences among the more than 5,000 genes that comprise each of three genomes, including several key changes that could contribute to B. anthracis's harmfulness. Read notes that B. anthracis's virulence "may have come mainly from horizontal gene exchanges, more so than by mutations within the genome."

A second comparison of the B. anthracis genome with that of B. cereus, carried out by Natalia Ivanova of Integrated Genomics and her colleagues, appears in the same issue of Nature. The findings hint that the common ancestor shared by the bacteria favored a carnivorous diet and may have been a parasite or dined on dead flesh. Because the genomes of all three species are so similar, the researchers posit that the ability to cause disease depends mainly on which genes are turned on in each organism. "Deciphering the anthrax genome is important to a wide range of biomedical and biodefense research," Claire M. Fraser of TIGR notes. "The genome sequence will benefit research projects to find targets for new drugs and vaccines as well as to improve anthrax detection and diagnosis."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe