B.O. Gives Up Its Stinky Secrets
Staphylococcus hominis is a key perpetrator of body odor—and researchers say selectively interfering with it could make for more effective deodorants. Christopher Intagliata reports
By Christopher Intagliata
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
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.
Body odor. The smell of B.O. is unmistakable. And the culprit behind that signature stench is a molecule called thioalcohol. Our noses are so attuned to it, we can pick up quantities as small as one part per trillion. But here's the mystery: How does that stinky substance get there in the first place?
Well, it turns out bacteria named Staphylococcus hominis is the major perpetrator, along with a few of its relatives. Their genes code for enzymes that snip the molecules in our sweat to pieces—creating the offensive thioalcohols, along with bits of food for the bacteria. Hey, bacteria gotta eat, too, right?
When innocuous E. coli bacteria were given the genes that our B.O. perpetrators have naturally, they, too, could achieve the stank. These findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Society for General Microbiology, in Birmingham, in the U.K. [Daniel Bawdon et al, Battling body odour: transport and catabolism of malodour precursors by the underarm microbiota]
Not surprisingly, this work was partially funded by Unilever. Because now that we've identified these microbial targets, the researchers say, it might be possible to design more effective deodorants. Which, instead of crippling all underarm bacteria, dispatch only the most dastardly denizens. Smells like profit to me.
—Christopher Intagliata
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
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
