New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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

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