Science and Innovation

Interview by Joan Burdeus for Barcelona Science and Universities and Núvol.

Montserrat Llagostera (Barcelona, 1954) is a scientist specialised in molecular microbiology and believes that viruses can help humanity to reduce the use of antibiotics. Specifically, bacteriophage viruses, fags colloquially, which are those that only infect bacteria. Llagostera leads the Biotechnological Applications of Bacteriophages research group and is principal investigator of the European Phagovet project, based on the development of products based on bacteriophages to combat and control certain diseases and zoonotic bacteria on farms. We talked about viruses, bacteria, scientific vocation and biological and cultural resistance.

Do bacterial viruses work better than antibiotics?

In the world of research, it is very important to understand that you can be very clear about a phenomenon, but it can be very difficult to demonstrate it under the conditions required for a publishable scientific article. What I have spent the most years of my research in recent times is to demonstrate that the use of bacterial viruses against diseases caused by bacteria is a safe and effective method to combat them. Just as we know that antibiotics promote the emergence of resistance among bacteria, the same is true for bacterial viruses. We have studied this in vitro, with food and animals. And it turns out that in both food and chicks, the emergence of resistant viruses is very low. However, we have also observed that in animals, the resistances that appear are not only due to mutations in bacteria, but also to a phenomenon we call “lateral transfer”, which shows that bacterial viruses should be studied in situations more similar to real ones than in vitro, which is how most of the work has been carried out so far.

What are we doing wrong with antibiotics?

The public, the medical community and the veterinary community have been too happy to use antibiotics; but I believe that sooner or later we would have reached a situation similar to the one we have now. Or the much more serious situation we will have in a few years if things do not change. Bacteria have had resistant genes long before antibiotics were used on a massive scale in clinics. Alexander Fleming himself warned that this could happen. I think the big breakdown has come from a combination of deleterious factors. On the one hand, overconfidence meant that we did not invest more in antibiotic research. On the other hand, the voices of scientists were not heeded when they started to warn of this drift in the 1980s.

Is the impact of the animal world much greater than the medical world?

We started working with the animal production world, because it is easier to develop products based on bacterial viruses in this context than for human use, both because of cultural resistance and because of the obstacles imposed by regulatory agencies. We work on salmonellosis because it is one of the most common food-borne pathogens. If you reduce salmonella on farms, you reduce the possibility of it reaching humans, and both improve together. Also, because the EU got serious about the use of antibiotics as a growth promoter, which is a misuse. Fags do not replace all the hygiene and vaccination measures on farms, but complement what is in place so far, which has been successful in reducing the presence of salmonella, but not eliminating it.

What do you think of organic livestock farming?

I think organic production is very good, but the important thing is to understand that more organic production does not mean safer production. Obstacles I see: in organic production, animals must be free, and contact with migratory birds is much easier. In organic production, strict safety measures are needed that are different from conventional ones and have not yet been developed.

What should people know about antibiotics?

One of the biggest misunderstandings is that people think it is us who become resistant to antibiotics, when it is the bacteria. Another is still not distinguishing between viruses and bacteria, and comparing the treatment my neighbour receives with what I receive, thinking that we have the same thing when, in fact, it has nothing to do with each other. You have to know that flu is a virus, not a bacterium, and antibacterials are useless. They used to be prescribed just in case, and now they are no longer, which is a step forward. Also, in general, trust in the judgement of doctors and scientists should be restored, and trust in networks should be reduced. The networks do not always do well in these cases.

How apocalyptic is the rise of resistant bacteria?

I am an optimist by nature, but the situation is very serious. People are dying because there are no antibiotics capable of controlling their infections, and that number will increase. My optimism comes from seeing that we have woken up and much more is being invested in research.

Is the main problem with bacteriophages cultural resistance and ignorance?

The cliché is that viruses are bad and scary. Farmers wonder what will happen if people find out that they put viruses in their chicks’ drink. But it turns out that bacterial viruses can only infect bacteria, and very specific bacteria at that: it is impossible for them to affect humans. Viruses are made up of genes and proteins, and we eat genes and proteins every day, and we also swallow millions of bacterial viruses of all kinds. The word virus is simply scary. That’s why we need intensive training at all levels, and we need people to be biologically literate.

I am Legend, The Last of Us… a lot of science fiction talks about the danger of introducing new organisms on a large scale into the population.

Bacterial viruses are the most abundant organism on planet Earth, and so far we have not become zombies. With our years of evolution, it is unlikely that anything will ever have to happen to us because of bacterial viruses. Science fiction stories are always interesting for hypothetical cases, but they have to be set against what the science says.

Can you tell me about your personal history with science?

I have always liked the scientific world. When I was a child, I used to play with all those chemistry games for children. As a teenager, what I liked most was mathematics until, when I was preparing for the university entrance exam, I met a biology teacher who made me love biology. And mathematics is very abstract, but the microorganisms I ended up working with are also things you can’t see or touch and which require the same capacity for abstraction and imagination. Then I got very tired of studying throughout my degree and I immediately wanted to go into the world of business. And I had a great time in the company at first, until, after a few years, I also got bored and thought about going back to university. I really enjoy both teaching and research. More than a previous vocation, it was the change that helped me to see what I liked.

After so many ups and downs, what temperament would you say a person who wants to dedicate themselves to research should have?

It is necessary to be curious. And you must be able to get excited. Just yesterday I was reading an article about bacteria that transforms gold and I got excited. You must also be able to not despair. Scientific research is very hard.

What do you ask of politics and society from your position as a teacher and researcher?

There are two things I want to insist on. First, the obsession with the pursuit of excellence. It is impossible for everything to be excellence. You have to have a very large mass of researchers from which excellence will emerge. But, to achieve excellence, it is necessary to invest in mass. And another is to better value the role of trainers. We will not have good researchers if there is not a good education at school, at the institute and at the university. It is necessary to value the figure of teachers in relation to the training of future researchers. People really want the results of research, but they do not know enough about the reality of research. Researchers and university professors do not have the capacity to exert social pressure by going on strike like other groups can: we depend on politicians thinking that we matter, and they will care if society knows us and values us.

How do you see gender issues in your area?

I think it is still very complicated. My experience tells me that dedication to children is normally greater on the part of women than on the part of men. There is a lot of culture, but not only that. We should not be completely the same or always have the same preferences. Mechanisms must be sought so that women do not have to abandon research when they decide to have children.

What advice would you give to a young woman who wants to dedicate herself to science?

More than giving advice, I would like to make a reflection for all girls, not just those who are interested in science. My reflection is that they connect and try to know what science is; that they meet scientists, that they see what it means to do science. And from there, if they find the path to something that excites them, that excites them, as was the case in my case with the exciting world of microbes, they should dedicate themselves to it with all their soul, with perseverance, perseverance… May they not give up, and may they always be able to do science with a smile and have a good time.