Astral Codex Ten

BCS3-L1

6 min read

BCS3-L1

Article

BCS3-L1 is a recurring brand in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 3 times across 3 issues between December 07, 2023 and April 16, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as “BCS3-L1 (brand name “Lumina”) is a genetically-modified strain of the tooth decay bacterium streptococcus mutans”; “the BCS3-L1 genetically engineered bacterium”; “The rats with the new strain (BCS3-L1) got only 1/3 the normal rats’ “caries score”“. It most often appears alongside Aaron, Dr. Hillman, FDA.

Metadata

  • Category: Brands
  • Mention count: 3
  • Issue count: 3
  • First seen: December 07, 2023
  • Last seen: April 16, 2024

Appears In

Source Context

Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.

Defying Cavity: Lantern Bioworks FAQ
December 07, 2023 · Original source
1: What is BCS3-L1?
BCS3-L1 (brand name “Lumina”) is a genetically-modified strain of the tooth decay bacterium streptococcus mutans.
BCS3-L1 has four main genetic modifications:
In The Long Run, We're All Dad
December 22, 2023 · Original source
But a parable: when you were born, your mother kissed you. Along with the kiss came a microdose of the BCS3-L1 genetically engineered bacterium. Without any teeth to cling to, it fell into the pit of your stomach and died. But she’ll kiss you again and again, transferring a few more BCS3-LI each time. In a few months, one of the colonists will find an incipient tooth and hang on for dear life. It will fight off competitors, wage epic battles that will determine the fate of the mouth for decades to come. It will win, because its genetic enhancements are pretty good. Then, if some smart people got their calculations right, it will do exactly nothing. No tooth decay. No cavities. The teeth will stay safe and clean.
Inline links: the BCS3-L1 genetically engineered bacterium
Updates on Lumina Probiotic
April 16, 2024 · Original source
The rats with the new strain (BCS3-L1) got only 1/3 the normal rats’ “caries score”. But they didn’t get a score of zero. So maybe claims like “BCS3 represents a complete cure for cavities” are overblown. Why didn’t rats with the new strain get zero dental caries? Bacteria other than S. mutans can also cause cavities, so maybe it’s one of those. Rat trials are famous for results that don’t replicate in human trials, so take these with a grain of salt. 3: What did the latest colonization studies show? Aaron was able to retest six people who got free samples in December. Four of those people still have the bacterium. The other two don’t. Of the two failures, one had an active cavity at the time the strain was applied (which interferes with the oral microbiome), and the other had his wisdom teeth removed (which involves rinsing the mouth with strong antiseptics). Aaron hopes this shows the strain will stick around in most normal situations (though the failure in the presence of active cavities is disappointing). 4: Any new concerns about side effects? In my original post, I mentioned the possibility that this would set off Breathalyzers. Lantern was able to test this, and proved that it wasn’t a problem. Yesterday, Lao Mein suggested on Less Wrong that it might raise oral cancer risk - their post focused on people with ALDH deficiency (most common in Asians) but the calculations are too vague to be sure exactly which groups should and shouldn’t worry. This is less than 24 hours old, the company hasn’t replied yet, and is still developing. I’ll try to update people if anyone gets more clarity on this. Someone on the post mentioned that they’ve gotten worse hangovers since using the product, maybe because the constant trickle of alcohol changed the way gut flora metabolize it. 5: Any other meaningful results since the samples? Cremieux says his breath smells better. Some people have objected to this claim on the grounds that it takes ~12 months before the bacterium has colonized your mouth. One of the figures in my earlier post suggested that the bacterium might start strong, retreat for a while, and then take 12 months to fully colonize, so that might potentially explain his findings. But also, is it biologically plausible that this prevents bad breath? My impression was that bad breath came from other bacterial byproducts besides lactic acid. It might be possible in theory that the same metabolic changes that switch lactic acid to alcohol disrupt these other byproducts, but it seems kind of unlikely. An alternate explanation is that, in order to apply this product at all, you need to do a dentist-style teeth cleaning that kills your previous mouth bacteria. Maybe that improves the bad breath regardless of whether you add the Lumina afterwards? Some other people have said their mouth feels fresher or something, but realistically all of this is overwhelmingly likely to be placebo. 6: Do I “endorse” Lumina? Richard Hanania has a post about how he trusts Lumina because I’ve endorsed them. It’s extremely kind and I appreciate his respect. But also, the most I said in the original post was that I was still debating whether or not to get the treatment. My real opinion, as precisely as I can express it, is: Advance of approximately the same magnitude as fluoride: 5%
Inline links: Bacteria other than, Lao Mein suggested on Less Wrong that it might raise oral cancer risk, says his breath smells better, has a post about how he trusts Lumina because I’ve endorsed them