When Clean Living Isn't Longer Living

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.


Even harmless bacteria suck up the energy of their hosts and hasten their deaths—or so the conventional thinking went. New findings show that flies scrubbed clean of bacteria do not outlive their infested brethren. In both flies and humans, because the number of bacteria living both inside and on the body increases with age, researchers expected infestations to prove harmful by depleting their hosts' resources. University of Southern California scientists and their colleagues compared normal fruit flies with ones born from eggs washed in antibiotics and raised in bacteria-free environments. The flies even ate disinfected food. Surprisingly, normal and superclean fruit flies had the same life span of roughly 65 days. Although these experiments cannot be replicated in higher organisms, which need bacteria for proper digestion and other functions, the investigators say their results do help narrow down which factors help to limit animal longevity. The findings appear in the August 8 Cell Metabolism.

Charles Q. Choi is a frequent contributor to Scientific American. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, Science, Nature, Wired, and LiveScience, among others. In his spare time, he has traveled to all seven continents.

More by Charles Q. Choi
Scientific American Magazine Vol 297 Issue 4This article was published with the title “When Clean Living Isn't Longer Living” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 297 No. 4 (), p. 36
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1007-36b

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe