Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

New Superbug Weapon to Replace Failing Antibiotics 201

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers in British Columbia have identified a peptide that can fight infection by boosting the immune system. Because antibiotics are under threat due to an explosion of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, this may be just in time."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Superbug Weapon to Replace Failing Antibiotics

Comments Filter:
  • Frosting (Score:5, Funny)

    by CosmeticLobotamy ( 155360 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @07:35PM (#18522465)
    I won't take it unless it comes with mint frosting.
  • I hope not (Score:5, Funny)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @07:40PM (#18522517)
    I, for one, hope it doesn't work. I have a lot of shotgun shells and canned foods that will go to waste if my prediction of bacteria wiping out the human race doesn't come true.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Not_Wiggins ( 686627 )
      I, for one, hope it doesn't work. I have a lot of shotgun shells and canned foods that will go to waste if my prediction of bacteria wiping out the human race doesn't come true.

      Dude... if you're hoping to fight bacteria that's large enough to attack with a shotgun, I don't think this treatment is any threat to those dreams. ;)
  • Quick. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Original Replica ( 908688 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @07:40PM (#18522521) Journal
    Let's inject it into all our livestock.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by antarctican ( 301636 )
      Let's inject it into all our livestock.

      Close, that's another project....

      I didn't know we were allowed to talk about the peptide publicly yet. I guess the cat is out.

      I've been working on the bioinformatics side of this project for over four years now, and it was very exciting when Bob and the guys in the lab made this discovery.

      This really is a great new solution, prevent infection before it takes hold. Make the innate immune system stronger. Since no new classes of drugs have been developed for what, a d
      • by mpe ( 36238 )
        This really is a great new solution, prevent infection before it takes hold. Make the innate immune system stronger. Since no new classes of drugs have been developed for what, a decade? Just rehashing the same old types of drugs again and again, this is at least something new and promising.

        Rehashing existing drugs isn't likely to be very effective when it comes to resistant bacteria. It would only take a small evolutionary change in the bacteria population to negate the effectivness of newer drugs.
        Since
  • Source? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Piedramente ( 1063240 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @07:42PM (#18522531)
    Why do I have a hard time trusting a source like "curedeath.com"?
    • More snake oil (Score:5, Informative)

      by mrbluze ( 1034940 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @08:27PM (#18522965) Journal

      "We now have a powerful new tool that will allow us to stop infection before it starts -- it's a new concept in treating infection,"

      This is a very speculative and pretty dodgy article. Firstly, it's not a new concept (being healthy is the best tool for stopping infection before it starts, and, secondary to this, immunization, sanitation and quarantine).

      Secondly, drugs already exist which are used in severe sepsis to boost the immune system. These drugs are very dangerous and expensive and when used inappropriately cause as many deaths as they save lives.

      While it is true that antibiotic use is excessive, the situation we have is that the people who are getting the MRSA and VRE and other 'superbug' infections are frequently already immune compromised and, in whole body infection, invariably die without antibiotics - nothing else is proven to work without them.

      Also, it's a peptide. You can't take it as a tablet - it's not going to be on the shelves of your supermarket - and if it is, better off eating a hard boiled egg! If anything, it will be a small scale intravenous drug for use in intensive care units, usually when all else fails, just like all these other 'breakthrough' solutions.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by RMB2 ( 936187 )
      I found that sketchy too, but check out this recent comment on the article:

      2. Eric
      3/28/2007 6:44:30 PM MST

      Hello,

      It seems that curingdeath.com are a bunch of thieving asshats.

      http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/media/releases/200 7/mr-07-030.html?src=ubcca [publicaffairs.ubc.ca]

      I hope you get sued, you bunch of spamming jackoffs.

      I wonder if Eric is actually an estute /.er

    • Why not? Don't you like your eath cured?

  • Over-prescribed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpiffyMarc ( 590301 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @07:43PM (#18522547)
    Maybe if we didn't prescribe an antibiotic for everything that can ever go wrong with a person, there wouldn't be so many resistant strains.

    Sniffles? Take an antibiotic.
    • by biocute ( 936687 )
      I've been wondering -- If a significant group of "say-no-to-antibiotic" people get together and breed, will they create a new, wait, will they remain normal who can fight off illness with their immune system, while the new antibiotic human will forever be relying on new drugs?
    • by LunaticTippy ( 872397 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @07:56PM (#18522665)
      We need to develop a new, superstrong antibiotic called Placebocillin. If that doesn't work, we can always try intravenous Cephplacebo.
      • by Dunbal ( 464142 )
        We need to develop a new, superstrong antibiotic called Placebocillin. If that doesn't work, we can always try intravenous Cephplacebo.

              For those patients who expect a little more, there's always Levoplaceboxacin, Vancoplacebomycin (which can turn you red, too!) and Placebozolid.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TubeSteak ( 669689 )

      Maybe if we didn't prescribe an antibiotic for everything that can ever go wrong with a person, there wouldn't be so many resistant strains.

      The #1 problem for Doctors is:
      1. patient takes meds
      2. patient starts to feel better
      3. patient stops

      Patients who do not finish their course of medication, do not kill all the bacteria.

      Maybe if people were compliant with Doctors' orders you wouldn't have resistant strains cropping up.

      It's easy to blame the doctors, try looking beyond that.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Gordo_1 ( 256312 )
        But that's the whole point. The average person *can't* be trusted to take all their antibiotics, so the problem continues because the path of least resistance (and most profit) for doctors is to succumb to the demands of their patients. The inevitable long-term result is that antibiotics will no longer work and the death rate from bacterial infections will gradually return to the rate at which it naturally stood for thousands of years before antibiotics were discovered.

        In the short-term, we can slow the det
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by TubeSteak ( 669689 )

          The average person *can't* be trusted to take all their antibiotics,

          Yea... that's what I said

          so the problem continues because the path of least resistance (and most profit) for doctors is to succumb to the demands of their patients.

          I fail to see how you got to this conclusion.
          You went from step 1 to profit without filling in the question marks.
          What exactly are the "demands of their patients" and what does it have to do with patient non-complaince?

          The inevitable long-term result is that antibiotics will no l

          • by Gordo_1 ( 256312 )

            I fail to see how you got to this conclusion.

            It's just an observation: patients pay the bills, patients want quick fixes, patients demand the treatments they see on TV -- but the power to make decisions about what's best for the population rests in the hands of doctors. My contention is that doctors are the enablers of this over-prescription epidemic, so I place responsibility squarely on the medical establishment rather than patients themselves.

            you attribute it to overperscription of antibiotics. To counter that assertion, consider that drug resistant strains of HIV are showing up. Are you going to argue that HIV retro-virals are being overperscribed?

            Though there are significant differences between bacteria and viruses such as HIV, current thinking is th

      • Patients who do not finish their course of medication, do not kill all the bacteria.

        Maybe if people were compliant with Doctors' orders you wouldn't have resistant strains cropping up.

        It's easy to blame the doctors, try looking beyond that.


        Agreed, but from a different angle.

        What does it say about the application of "modern" medicine (or more to the point, the pharmaceutical industry) when millions of people have stopped taking their medications prematurely since the antibiotic was commercialized?
        Surely ther
      • by mpe ( 36238 )
        The #1 problem for Doctors is:
        1. patient takes meds
        2. patient starts to feel better
        3. patient stops

        Patients who do not finish their course of medication, do not kill all the bacteria.


        Dispite just about any drug perscription in the last 30 or so years coming with instructions to finish the treatment. One real problem with antibiotics is that just taking them is likely to make people feel ill. Because they also wind up altering the bacterial population of the gut.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Bryan B. ( 73804 )
      The problem is soccer moms who absolutely insist that their kid needs an antibiotic no matter how much you tell her its a virus and antibiotics are futile.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by archen ( 447353 )
        Although you narrowed that down to soccer moms, the reality is people in general think they should always get something from a doctor. Nevermind that you might just be sick and need some rest and some time, that's sheer silliness. If I recall correctly doctors prescribed antibiotics something like 30% of the time when the patient did not need them.
        • Okay, fine maam. Just have your pharmacist fill this prescription for Obecal-P.
          Take two and call me in the morning.
        • by mpe ( 36238 )
          Nevermind that you might just be sick and need some rest and some time, that's sheer silliness. If I recall correctly doctors prescribed antibiotics something like 30% of the time when the patient did not need them.

          They might be better off prescribing placebos or even pills with instructions to be swallowed with at least a certain quantity of water.
    • by mpe ( 36238 )
      Maybe if we didn't prescribe an antibiotic for everything that can ever go wrong with a person, there wouldn't be so many resistant strains.

      It's actually worst than that. Antibiotics are also pumped into perfectly healthy animals reared for food. Plenty of bacteria parasites arn't that fussy about their hosts.
  • If people wouldn't run to their doctor every time they get a little sniffle, we wouldn't have this problem.

    Let your body fight off problems on its own. Only go for help when it's really life-threatening. Your "busy" life can wait a few days while you get better.
    • by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @08:03PM (#18522749) Homepage Journal

      Actually, there has never ever ever ever been any causal link between antibiotic prescriptions for personal, in-home use and the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. Given the number of studies by people trying to scare people away from antibioitics, it is likely that such a link simply does not exist, as it would likely have been found by now if it did.

      Antibiotic resistance develops as a direct result of hospital use of antibiotics. Unfortunately, hospital use usually equates with life-threatening. The reason that resistant strains take hold in hospitals is that you have a higher concentration of sick people breathing the same air, using some of the same shared facilities, etc. with doctors and nurses moving from patient to patient. As much as they try to minimize the spread of illness among patients, it still occurs, and unlike in your home, the people in the hospital are often already sick or in poor health, and are thus more susceptible to bacteria that (barely) survived a round of antibiotics.

      By contrast, letting yourself "wait a few days while you get better" from bacterial infections has been linked to numerous diseases, including several varieties of arthritis, rheumatic fever, Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, and even heart damage. Waiting it out is absolutely the worst thing you can do.

      • by Belial6 ( 794905 )
        Of course, I have yet to go to the doctor with flu like symptoms (which is what the parent is really talking about) where they didn't just take my temperature, weigh me, tell me it's a virus, and that I should just go home and get rest. I really doubt that the doctor weighing me did anything to prevent secondary diseases. There are a growing number of people who are beginning to distrust general practitioners. I know that of the last three times I visited a general practitioner, I was either mis-diagnose
      • by wkk2 ( 808881 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @09:29PM (#18523535)
        My mother was a nurse trained in the 40's. Since this was before major antibiotic use, significant training was about sanitation control. No wrist watches (since you might not wash), how to change bed sheets (to minimize airborne dust), and proper washing.

        Now we have keyboards, remote controls, and all kinds of stuff that can't be cleaned. She died from an infection carried by improperly sterilized diagnostic equipment.

        Today, hospital care seems to be more about pushing pills and foregoing the basics so it's no wonder we have resistant bugs.
      • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @09:33PM (#18523553)
        Actually, there has never ever ever ever been any causal link between antibiotic prescriptions for personal, in-home use and the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

              Funny, these guys [cdc.gov] seem to disagree with you. Specifically: "Clinical misuse of antibiotics may be more common among private practitioners than among public health personnel--private practitioners charge higher fees, the demand for antibiotics seen in private patients is higher, and more drugs are available in private clinics than in public hospitals "

              Oh look, so do these guys [cdc.gov]. My search returned over 100 hits and it's really not my job to educate you, so I won't go on. But there IS a causal link. Ask any infectious disease specialist and s/he will cite a lot more articles for you.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          Those particular studies are pretty easy to discount. Developing countries != modern society, and the other one did not come to the conclusion you suggest. It showed a number of factors that lead to the difference, the most critical of which was the spread of resistant bacteria among infants in day care. Unless I missed something, it did NOT claim a causal relationship between higher prescription of antibiotics and greater frequency of antibiotic resistance, and indeed, at one point in the paper actually

      • by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @11:12PM (#18524237) Homepage

        Actually, there has never ever ever ever been any causal link between antibiotic prescriptions for personal, in-home use and the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. Given the number of studies by people trying to scare people away from antibioitics, it is likely that such a link simply does not exist, as it would likely have been found by now if it did.

        First wrong statement: Overprescription of antibiotics for (presumably viral) ear infections has been strongly linked to various strains of drug resistant streptoocci and staphylococci.

        Antibiotic resistance develops as a direct result of hospital use of antibiotics. Unfortunately, hospital use usually equates with life-threatening. The reason that resistant strains take hold in hospitals is that you have a higher concentration of sick people breathing the same air, using some of the same shared facilities, etc. with doctors and nurses moving from patient to patient. As much as they try to minimize the spread of illness among patients, it still occurs, and unlike in your home, the people in the hospital are often already sick or in poor health, and are thus more susceptible to bacteria that (barely) survived a round of antibiotics.

        This paragraph is an interesting mix of logic, illogic and just incorrect statements. While there are certainly strains of bacteria whose resistance is linked to hospital use of antibiotics, it is no where near correct to state that this is a totality or even a majority of cases. Bacteria aren't terribly bright, just persistent. Stick some antibiotics in their culture medium, wherever it happens to be, and somebody's bound to come out alive. It's just selection pressure in action. In the hospital, in the home, in the cattle yard.

        By contrast, letting yourself "wait a few days while you get better" from bacterial infections has been linked to numerous diseases, including several varieties of arthritis, rheumatic fever, Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, and even heart damage. Waiting it out is absolutely the worst thing you can do.

        Just what the hell are you talking about? While there are diseases that are due to an immune response set up by a bacterial infection, for example, rheumatic heart fever from streptococcal sore throat (and there are several others), I don't think you will find any evidence to support your claim that stomping out every bacterial infection the instant it starts (and you know this just how?) will help you in any way. In fact, for strep throat, it is quite clear that you have ten entire days after the onset of symptoms to start antibiotics in order to prevent rheumatic heart fever. While there are some interesting hints that some chronic diseases, such as atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) is linked to chronic low grade bacterial infections, the current longitudinal studies where they have given people antibiotics for several years on a regular basis have failed to show any real decrease in heart disease. There are a number of flaws in these studies, the most striking is that they have been too short (one or two years) but my point is that simply taking antibiotics at the first instant of an infection (and again, how to you know this??) doesn't seem to help the immune system modulated damage. It's way harder than that.

        And for all of the rest of you folks. The living organism isn't just a petri dish, the immune system modulates and in fact is responsible for most of the clearance of bacterial infections. You don't have to kill every damned little microorganism, in fact, if you do you tend to create other problems. You just have to let the immune system get an upper hand. It's a very complicated problem. Anybody here taken a good, hard look at what we know about the immune system lately? Your head will asplode. We don't know nearly as much as we need to in order to deal with the complex problem of bacterial

      • by Tim C ( 15259 )
        Actually, there has never ever ever ever been any causal link demonstrated between antibiotic prescriptions for personal, in-home use and the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

        Fixed that for you. Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm not saying that you're wrong (I don't have the data to do that), just pointing out that you're making something of a leap in your conclusion.
      • by PMuse ( 320639 )
        By contrast, letting yourself "wait a few days while you get better" from bacterial infections has been linked to numerous diseases, including several varieties of arthritis, rheumatic fever, Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, and even heart damage. Waiting it out is absolutely the worst thing you can do.

        And yet, "waiting it out works" for most viruses. Do we want people in the ER every time they get "the sniffles", or just "feel bad"? If not, how to we propose to teach the general populace to accurately diagno
    • by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      If people wouldn't run to their doctor every time they get a little sniffle, we wouldn't have this problem.

      Hey hang on a second, I earn a living from those sniffles!!!

      You cut the number of patients I see per day, and I'm going to have to put my rates up. You don't mind $500 a consult do you?

      I agree that antibiotics are overprescribed by many doctors. But please DO visit your doctor if you don't feel well!!! :-)
    • "If people wouldn't run to their doctor every time they get a little sniffle, we wouldn't have this problem."

      I don't know of anyone in the past 30 years who had antibiotics given to them by a licensed physician for a viral infection as you're suggesting. Maybe I live in a different part of the world than you.

      In evolutionary terms, it seems inevitable that the use of antibiotics on a widespread basis will cause resistant germs to evolve. By cutting down the use of antibiotics, we're buying more time to com
  • Immunology (Score:5, Informative)

    by HomelessInLaJolla ( 1026842 ) * <sab93badger@yahoo.com> on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @07:48PM (#18522595) Homepage Journal
    This is a representation of some very adept work by researchers at Inimex and some well spent funding by CIHR.

    The human body has seven systems: muscoskeletal, reproductive, skin, cardiopulmonary, nervous, digestive, and immune. Many of the ailments which people experience--cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders, prion diseases, leukemia, infections--invade tissues of the six other systems but are ultimately traceable as a deficiency in their own immune system. The immune system is trained as the maintenance arm of the body. When cells become cancerous the immune system is trained to find and remove them. When viruses and bacteria enter the body the immune system is trained to kill them. When plaques build up in the body the immune system is trained to remove them. When cells are starving, or asphyxiated, or agitated it is the immune system which is responsible for transmitting the proper signals systemwide and stimulating other tissues to produce the materials necessary to fix the problem.

    The devoted study of immunology, of which the language which cells use to communicate with each other is central, has been pushed aside for many years by the larger, more established, more prestigious research groups both in academia and in the industry. When I worked at Abbott Laboratories, starting in '99, I found that their immunology department had recently been all but terminated in favor of shuffling the money to the devoted disease areas. While treating the diseases as separate from the body has led to some novel treatments (eg. antiangionesis and apoptosis for cancer) it seemed, to me, that a whole boatload of data which pointed to the potential cures available within the body itself were being ignored--not because they lacked scientific merit--but because the social structures within the company (and the industry) were attached to the research paths which were easier for the marketers and PR releases to handle.

    To some extent that's the way things must work. The venture capitalists and investors need to know where their money is going or else they aren't going to contribute. That's a sad state of society, though, when one group's ignorance is stifling another group's innovation [slashdot.org].

    The study of immunology has quite a bit of potential for worldwide medicine. ImClone managed to open the popular path with its approach of monoclonal antibodies, though that segment was somewhat sabotaged by the insider trading scandal. Let's hope that companies like Inimex, and hopefully some companies in the US, will begin to devote greater resources to understanding how the body naturally works and working with it. Many of the detrimental side effects of today's pharmaceuticals are directly related to the immune system's response to those molecules being introduced into the body. The industry has really created its own problem of side effects by buckling in to the demands of the financiers and not holding to the strict scientific principles.

    Even though they're in Vancouver I sent a resume.
    • by FFFish ( 7567 )
      ? Even though ?

      As Vancouver is consistently ranked as one of the world's best cities, I can not begin to fathom how you see that as an "even though."
  • by PixieDust ( 971386 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @07:51PM (#18522619)
    Part of the reason Antibiotics have been overprescribed is in our world of super ultra hygeine concious society, people are killing off all the germs they can everywhere. People sanitize their hands 50 times a day. This is all well and good, and healthy, but it also causes a problem. Without exposure to various germs, bacteria, etc. people's immune systems actually atrophy. So when they get a little bug that a 'normal' immune system could kick without much trouble, theirs can't, or they fraek out because they are ultra health concious, so they go to the Dr. Dr sees what's going on, prescribes an anti-biotic because John Q and Sally public are so afraid to go a few weeks with the sniffles and let it run their course.

    The end result is that a person's immune system no longer has to do it's job, job gets done for it. The immune system becoems weaker, they get sick more, then get more anti-biotics.

    Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

    • Taking this to the other extreme, I'm reminded of a little story. I once worked as manager for a full-service gas station, and one of the employees kept on eating during most of his shift. Almost every day I'd admonish him after catching him handle money, gasoline, etc, then eating potato chips and licking the salt of his fingers.
      One day, he came to work with half of his face paralyzed, to hand me a disability notice, saying he thought that this had happened because he had eaten ice cream at home, just be
    • by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      people's immune systems actually atrophy. So when they get a little bug that a 'normal' immune system could kick without much trouble, theirs can't, or they fraek out because they are ultra health concious, so they go to the Dr. Dr sees what's going on, prescribes an anti-biotic because John Q and Sally public are so afraid to go a few weeks with the sniffles and let it run their course.

      This is an interesting theory that has been kicking around for some time. But then again what do yo
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by belg4mit ( 152620 )
        Don't vaccinate against things for which there is no real reason to i.e; varicella (chicken pox).
        Stop putting triclosan, etc. in every fucking toiletry and soap under the sun.
        • by Dunbal ( 464142 )
          Don't vaccinate against things for which there is no real reason to i.e; varicella (chicken pox).
          Stop putting triclosan, etc. in every fucking toiletry and soap under the sun.


          Ok I agree with being against "antibacterial" soaps, unless for wound cleaning or surgical prep. It's just a marketing thing, regular soap and water is just as good for household purposes.

          But people can die from chickenpox. Admittedly, not many people. 99% suffer no lasting effects apart from
          • >What exactly is an "acceptable" death rate for a "preventable" disease? Who gets to determine that figure?
            Pretty damn high apparently, consider heart disease, obesity, type II diabetes, etc.

            >Another example is the HPV vaccine. Cervical cancer is fully preventable with routine pap smears.
            Blah blah blah. I'm already down on record regarding this one. HPV is not nearly as big of a deal as people
            are *now* making it out to be (thanks to marketing). If you want to get vaccinated for it, fine. But don't
            requ
        • by mpe ( 36238 )
          Don't vaccinate against things for which there is no real reason to i.e; varicella (chicken pox).

          Whilst in most cases this causes just a mild disease it can have nasty complications, especially amongst adults. "shingles" is a far more disabling disease caused by the same virus.
          • Yes, I know that. Which is why you you instead vaccinate those whom have not had chicken pox once
            they reach puberty. But in the mean time, wait and see. Apparently medical workers in the UK get
            vaccinated if they've not developed resistance, but otherwise there is vaccination program for it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by rthille ( 8526 )
      That's why I have my kids lick the floors in public restrooms!
    • by Tim C ( 15259 )
      I've been thinking that more and more recently. Over here in the UK there seems to be an increasing number of products advertised as killing some large percentage of all-known germs, typically 99% or more. There is also now a product you can carry with you to disinfect your hands to help protect yourself from the cold virus and other skin-borne nasties you come into contact daily.

      With the tone of some of the adverts ("There is more bacteria on your chopping board/table/baby's high chair than your toilet sea
    • by mpe ( 36238 )
      Part of the reason Antibiotics have been overprescribed is in our world of super ultra hygeine concious society, people are killing off all the germs they can everywhere. People sanitize their hands 50 times a day. This is all well and good, and healthy, but it also causes a problem.

      Quite a bit of the advertising for smothering homes with bacteria killing chemicals comes with a "for the children" undercurrent. Quite a few of these chemicals appear to be quite toxic to human beings too.

      Without exposure t
  • Not a replacement (Score:4, Insightful)

    by iamacat ( 583406 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @07:52PM (#18522629)
    Immune system just doesn't work well for fighting off certain bacteria, such as tuberculosis and antharax. Also, a lot of hospital infections happen to elderly, AIDS patients and otherwise people with weak immune system. Even with a booster, it would be better to develop substances that kill bacteria directly.
    • by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      Immune system just doesn't work well for fighting off certain bacteria, such as tuberculosis

      Actually one could argue that the immune system works very well, in fact. Only in these cases the bacteria found a way to adapt to it so that it wouldn't harm them. Neutralizing hydrogen peroxide, or inhibiting phagocytosis, etc. The damage done from TB is caused by your own immune system, not by the bacteria. Those guys are just trying to, like, get along, man! Compare this to, say, Staph pyog
  • by posterlogo ( 943853 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @07:54PM (#18522649)
    The post is very misleading (don't think the poster actually read TFA, surprise surprise). There's no new "Superbug" to replace old antibodies. The new immuno activating peptide was designed in a lab based on rules derived by analysing naturally occuring host peptides that trigger immunomodulatory responses. Superbugs have nothing to do with this. The peptide did not come from a bug, and it does not directly kill bugs either (which is what antibiotics do). This peptide simply stimulates the innate immune response to fight infection. The abstract from the paper is below:

    We show that an innate defense-regulator peptide (IDR-1) was protective in mouse models of infection with important Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. When given from 48 h before to 6 h after infection, the peptide was effective by both local and systemic administration. Because protection by IDR-1 was prevented by in vivo depletion of monocytes and macrophages, but not neutrophils or B- and T-lymphocytes, we conclude that monocytes and macrophages are key effector cells. IDR-1 was not directly antimicrobial: gene and protein expression analysis in human and mouse monocytes and macrophages indicated that IDR-1, acting through mitogen-activated protein kinase and other signaling pathways, enhanced the levels of monocyte chemokines while reducing pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. To our knowledge, an innate defense regulator that counters infection by selective modulation of innate immunity without obvious toxicities has not been reported previously.

    • by ewieling ( 90662 )
      As I understand it, antibiotics don't actually kill anything. They prevent the bacteria from reproducing and the body's immune system then kills the bacteria. BTW, do bacteria die of "old age"? i.e. if they can't reproduce and the immune system does not kill them (because someone doesn't have much of an immune system) will the bacteria eventually die off anyway?
      • Some antibiotics are "bacteriocidal" - they kill the bacteria, usually by disrupting the cell wall synthesis. Some, however are "bacteriostatic" that just keep the critters from multiplying and then have the immune system take them out. And some bacteria will die if they fail to get enough bug juice, most will go into some sort of hibernation stage - either by just shutting down metabolic pathways or creating a shell around them of one sort or another.

        Mother nature likes to have options.

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @08:02PM (#18522743) Homepage

    The article is a link to a spam blog. The original content is in this press release [publicaffairs.ubc.ca], which was copied without attribution. The original source and contact information were removed, six ads were added, and a false claim of copyright was made.

    The people behind this are Web Doodle LLC [webdoodle.net] of Missoula, MT, run (as of 2002) by Branden Long. They have other similar spam blogs.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by peipas ( 809350 )
      Jesus, they even list 2008 as the copyright. Talk about low maintenance.
  • by lightspawn ( 155347 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @08:08PM (#18522801) Homepage
    "falling antibiotics" - and immediately think of Dr. Mario?
  • by Etherwalk ( 681268 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @08:12PM (#18522831)
    > Because antibiotics are under threat due to an explosion of antibiotic-resistant bacteria

    The antibotics are under threat--more accurately, we are under threat from those bacteria--because of poor medical practices. Not from everyone, of course, but from a tremendous number of people. (And the inefficiencies that have evolved into medicine are ridiculous, but that's another story--though one which makes it harder to rectify the real problems.) There are hundreds of hospitals that aren't strict about things like, for example, having people wash their hands before drawing blood, or, if they're putting on a new set of gloves to do it, not touching non-sterile surfaces until after they've drawn the blood. If you do that (and follow similar rules before starting an IV, etc...), you cut the number of staph infections down to almost nothing--to a tiny fraction of what they are otherwise. Just a few simple procedures...

    But there are hospitals where those procedures don't happen. On a regular basis. So staph is hundreds of times more prevalent than it would be if people--people who are supposedly trained--did a few simple things as part of their working habits. I'm thinking of one Canadian hospital where a relative of mine was for a few days, but similar incompetence happens in the states, too. There was a hospital in Hawaii where I know of them managing to break six of a patient's ribs in the days before he died. You need to know which hospitals to go to, and you need to keep your wits about you when you're there.

    Erm... Well, that was a bit of a rant. =)
    • by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      You are completely right. Poor medical practice consists in lack of effective hand-washing and other hygene measures on behalf of medical staff and visiting family members, and overprescription of antibiotics when they are not really necessary. I always sigh when nursing decides to place the HIV patient with muti-resistant TB in the room right next door to the neutropenic (read - no immune defense system) leukemia patient.

      Poor patient practice - not completing the full course of ant
      • by jafiwam ( 310805 )
        They need some cobalt-60 carts to park in the hallway, nothing like a little gamma to ruin a bacteria's day.

        Just clear the floor, and have some robot or remote control steer it in.

        Kill all the crud sitting and flying around once a week and hospitals would have less of a problem.

        (In addition to hand washing and plain dumb mistakes that is.)
  • Is this similar to how gamma globulin injections function? All I really know about them is that they're proteins that somehow work to boost the immune system, providing some kind of temporary boost in immune function. Well, a peptide is just a short protein (kinda, right?) so isn't this something along the same lines, even if it (more than likely) works in a completely different way?
  • Collateral damage? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by element-o.p. ( 939033 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @08:54PM (#18523209) Homepage
    'Scuse the possibly stupid question, since IANA(M)BOD (biologist/microbiologist or doctor), but what about the potential for damage to your own body as a result of a temporarily ramped up immune system?

    As I understand, this peptide temporarily boosts the immune system, which then is better able to fight off the invading organism. However, there are a number of medical conditions caused by an immune system that's a little too heightened--allergies for example, or a number of other, more serious conditions. When I was 21, I contracted "Rapidly Progressive Glomerulonephritis" which is a condition where the immune system attacks the nodules in your kidneys that filter your blood. I now have a kidney transplant as a result. Lupus, I believe, is another serious condition resulting from an overactive immune system.

    If we start prescribing this peptide the way we currently prescribe antibiotics, what are the chances that more than the patient's immune system will attack more than just the intended target? Also, what if, like me, you have an intentionally weakened immune system (to prevent transplant rejection), when you take this peptide? Will you be at greater risk to reject the transplant, since the transplanted organ is a foreign body?
  • to cows!!! and I don't mean fat chicks. Make it a crime against humanity.
  • by quixote9 ( 999874 ) on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @09:00PM (#18523277) Homepage
    - the peptide has to be injected within hours of -- or even before -- the infection. That means it's only likely to be useful in a hospital setting.

    - anything that boosts immune response in a non-specific way runs the risk of causing over-reaction, at least in some people. (Think about the six healthy volunteers in England who nearly died because of an unexpected immune response to the drug they were testing.) Again, that means it'll likely only be usable in a closely supervised, hospital setting.

    - since the publication is appearing in one of the Nature journals, you can be pretty sure this does exactly what it says it does, and really is a breakthrough for the particular immune response in question.

    - re the commenter earlier who said there was no evidence of antibiotic resistance appearing except due to hospital misuse: total claptrap. Just one example: antibiotic resistance has been documented developing in chickens and cattle due to antibiotics in the feed. Those bacteria can pass to humans. Sometimes they cause symptoms, sometimes they don't. But even when they don't, bacteria are capable of passing bits of DNA back and forth, and genes for antibiotic resistance are -- for obvious reasons -- among the likeliest to persist in bacterial populations. So, if you eat a tainted hamburger, say, or spinach, the disease-causing bacteria on that item can mix it up with the other bacteria in your gut, and there you are. Fun, huh?
  • by cloudance ( 139340 ) <david.cloudance@com> on Wednesday March 28, 2007 @09:39PM (#18523585) Homepage
    As a few other people pointed out, a boosted immune system isn't a good thing. A Healthy immune system is. No, I'm not a bioligist, Doctor, Immunologist, Rheumatologist, or Endocrinologist... but I have one of each in my contact list (Ok... so the Biologist is a friend who gave it up for Software engineering.... but I do have the others).

    A heightened immune system causes Psoriasis, Psoriatic Arthritis, Osteo Arthritis, Rheumatoid arthritis, Allergies, Graves Syndrome, Crohn's Disease, and a whole host of things that range from unpleasant (allergies and Osteo Arthritis) to seriously painful (Psoriatic Arthritis) to life threatening (Crohn's and very severe psoriasis). I live it every day. It's ranging from my major discomfort with the current 5000+ pollen count on my business trip to Atlanta (where I'm sitting now) where Zyrtec is barely effective, to my Psoriasis (which gets worse when my immune system gets excitied like it is with my allergies pumped up) that leaves me with large raw bloody areas that pass for skin. Yeah... I know... you really wanted to read that while you ate dinner... welcome to my life.

    Trust me... DON'T overactivate your immune system.... live well, take antibiotics only when you HAVE to and for as long as you have to, and enjoy a normal and healthy immune system.
  • um (Score:2, Informative)

    Researchers Find New Superbug Weapon for Failing Antibiotics Arsenal (3/27/2007),

    The discovery, in animal models, will be published March 25 in the journal Nature Biotechnology.

    ...
  • by IHC Navistar ( 967161 ) on Thursday March 29, 2007 @02:16AM (#18525223)
    Has anybody ever understood that germs are a good thing? Ok, I know some people might think that I am being gross, but germs are why we are here today.

    People don't understand that by having EVERYTHING, EVERY surface, EVERY food, and drink super-duper sanitized, we are doing more harm to ourselves than if we were not. Germs are what gives our immune system its effectiveness, and by reducing things it has to fight against, it loses the opportinities to recognize, learn about, and fight off foreign invaders.

    People NEED to get sick. Period. There is no logical argument against that. The more sanitary we get, the sicker we become. Humans evolved through experiences with germs. If germs were as evil as a thing as we are being led to believe, then the human race, and just about all life, would not exist today. Immunity from diseases cannot be taught. Human beings can only learn how to fight off an illness by experiencing it.

    Unfortunately, being anti-germ is a socially and politically correct thing to do, because your average idiot doesn't understand that you can beat your enemy be using it.

    People NEED to get sick. People NEED to die. It's how he human race got to where it is, and now we are destroying the very germs we need to maintain effective immune systems. No drug can replace an immune system.

"I am, therefore I am." -- Akira

Working...