Antibiotics and Nanotechnology 91
Evil Pete writes: "In an article at Nature Update there is what appears to me is the first use of nanotechnology in a significant way. A team from Scripps Research Institute has used molecular assemblages to destroy bacteria by puncturing their cell walls. The tests on mice cured staph a. infections by injecting a solution of the nanotubes into the mice."
Really a cure for antibiotic resistant strains? (Score:1)
Nanites of death (Score:1)
Re:Robots in Disguise... (Score:1)
Does it matter? (Score:1)
And she swallowed a spider.. (Score:1)
Re:Robots in Disguise... (Score:1)
Re:Points to ponder, these may be a niche market (Score:1)
1. Time. PCR techniques mean you could identify the bacterium and even the strain within a matter of hours rather than days. Other technologies for rapidly typing bacteria are being tested right now and have the potential to bring the time down to minutes. It won't be long before these technologies are cost effective for hospital use, if they are not so already.
2. For Otitis media this is probably right. But then in most cases antibiotics don't make much difference for this anyway. In hospitals with big MRSA problems antibiotics can be a major cost; vancomycin, the last line antibiotic, is not cheap and is also very toxic. It's also only a matter of time before the the vancomycin resistance gene jumps to MRSA (the current S. aureus strains with reduced vancomycin-resistance are probably going down an evolutionary dead-end). If you have an everything-resistant strain cost would not be a major problem.
3. To turn this around, the one thing that antibiotics are very bad at is staying where you want them. Pervading other tissues means that there will be increased selection for resistant strains at these sites. Ideally, you only want the drug where the bacteria you want to kill are. I don't think only treating bacteraemias can really be described as a niche market.
downfalls of antibiotics (Score:5)
Generally, antibiotics have led to the conquering of many types of once deadly diseases have saved many lives, but not without a cost. They are prescribed much too often, which has ultimately led to these resistant strains of bacteria we hear about in the news today. Use of antibiotics reach further than just the medical field. First-world consumers demand that their cleaning products that "destroy 99.9% of germs", and chemical companies produce such projects, but neither hardly ever realizes the consequences of such a request. Antibiotics and growth hormones are given to farm animals, and passed along to humans in the food they eat. I have never had a doctor recommend that I supplement antibiotic use with bifidus and/or acidophilus, and with the amount of training in clinical nutrition/alternative treatments that most doctors get in medschool, I don't expect to have this happen for a long while. For these reasons I avoid antibiotics unless absolutely necessary, as they have caused me more harm than good in the past in situations where their use wasn't entirely justified.
Re:You will be assimilated... (Score:1)
Soon they built a nanotube so big, it destroyed them all! Ahh Hah Hah Hah!
Re:downfalls of antibiotics (Score:1)
For example, there are more cases of anti-biotic immune diseases in parts of the world with the least medicine than where anti-biotics are prevelant.
anyways, very tired from an engine swap. Have to leave it at that.
~^~~^~^^~~^
Re:Self Assemblage (Score:2)
Re:The Two most interesting aspects of the article (Score:2)
How long do the nanotubules last?
Because it seems to me that, once the mice shit the things out, the nanotubules are pretty much "released into the wild."
I'm not sure this is a desirable thing, particularly as the tubes were tuned to "prefer" bacteria -- which, to my reading, means that they'll happily go about puncturing other things as well.
It's best if these things have a reasonable half-life, perhaps a day or two. Inject 'em, let 'em savage the bacteria, let 'em get processed into mouse poop, and then have them decompose.
--
Re:The dark side (Score:1)
> How about this one. Not realizing how
> incredibly powerful these suckers are, they
> dispose of the ones that don't work (i.e. kill > blood cells)
> in a less than perfect fashion.
You think that's bad? Suppose this technology becomes common (as nanotech is eventually supposed to do). Now suppose that anybody with access to this ubiquitous technology decides to create a strain of the critters that targets human red blood cells...
The dark side (Score:2)
Self Assemblage (Score:1)
Bacteria adapt and change based on their environment.
As long as self-assembling doesn't mean self-replicating, we can hope that nano-tube 'anti-biotics' would not behave similarly when they run out of targets they have an affinity for. Imagine clearing up that sinus infection and having the lil' guys start producing a version that has it in for some random vital organ...
Damn.. I sound like Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park. Kill me now.
Huh? (Score:1)
well, no... (Score:1)
Virii don't splice their RNA into the host DNA. Some viruses, such as Retroviruses, reverse transcribe (copy their RNA into DNA) then integrate this into the host genome. Furthermore, many, many viruses have RNA genomes and don't splice their genomic material into the host's.
then allow the cell to act like a little virus factory to crank out copies of the original virus
Some virues aim to furiously replicate themselves... others don't.
The cell fills up with these copies and pops when it surpasses critical containment volume, releasing all the copies to repeat the process with other host cells.
Not really. Some viruses, such as rhabdoviruses, may replicate at rates which essentially "pop" the host cell, but more often than not this isn't the case.
So there is no point in using a nanotube to pop the host cell, as this will simply do what is going to happen anyway.
Considering "popping" the host cell is essentially what an activated T-cell does to an infected cell, this isn't such a pointless scenario.
To stop virii in general, it helps to inhibit the virus's ability to splice its RNA into the host cell's DNA. This approach is where the most promising and effective HIV treatments reside today.
Only a select few virues actually "splice" their genomic material into the host genome and the only one I can think of that we are actively targetting therapeutically is HIV. AFAIK, there are no "integrase" inhibitors on the market today, but it is an active area of drug discovery research... and a logical point of intervention in the retroviral life cycle. The majority of treatments for this class of viruses involve inhibiting the conversion of the viral RNA into DNA (nucleoside analogs and non-nucleoside RT inhibitors) and inhibiting a viral specifc protease (protease inhibitors).
However, the only way to whack a virus is to get the body's own destroyer cells to eat them. This is difficult to do with HIV because the invader-signaller cells are the ones that HIV loves to use as factories.
Actually, the host "destroyer" cells "whacking" the "factories" (T-cells), may contribute to disease. Kinda like the body doing it's job, but killing itself in the process.
This nanotube approach is great against living invaders (bacteria, and possibly even some types of cancer), but not useful against virii: HIV, or any other.
Agreed it may be useful towards bacterial infection. Cancer? Doubt it, but if it is possible for cancer, then it would probably be possible for killing virus infected cells.... virus infected cells are often much easier to distinguish from "normal" cells than cancerous cells are. Virus infected cells are producing foreign material (viruses), while cancerous cells are "normal" cells which just don't know when (or can't be told) to stop dividing. (Very simplistic description, I know)
The scariest aspect of the technology. (Score:2)
This technology is simply amazing IMO, but just like other treatments it is frightening as well. From what I understand the quote above is correct, the cyclic peptides were selected to bind specifically to bacteria. Bacterial cell walls are significantly different than the plasma membranes surrounding our cells, but how different is different enough? They mentioned testing the peptides against red blood cells, but in our bodies there are a multitude of different cell types. So herein lies a major obstacle. Until they can tell exactly how these peptides are binding to the bacteria (at the molecular level) and be sure that mammalian cells don't have any similar structures on their surfaces, I wouldn't volunteer for a phase I clinical trial. Imagine you get a the highest dose in the trial and for some unpredictable reason, the peptide binds to and punches holes in... let's say... blood vessels deep in your brain. Not fun.
Another issue is how selective are these peptides for pathogenic bacteria and how are they metabolized? The problem lies in the fact that we have a multitude of normal bacterial flora, much of which probably looks the same to a nano-peptide as pathogenic enterococcus (for example). If the peptides are really effective and have a short half-life, one could imagine a lot of normal flora being wiped out along with the bad guys.
One more thing, don't think that nature hasn't thought of this already. This is one of the same principals by which bacteria are already targeted by our own immune systems. Specifically, when your body generates Antibodies against a particular bacteria, the antibodies bind to the bacteria, then a specific cascade of events involving the Complement system occurs. The result of this cascade is called the Membrane Attack Complex which is a complex of proteins which pokes holes in whatever is covered (opsonized) by antibody.
Furthermore, when T-cells target infected cells for destruction, they release a protein called perforin which, once again, pokes holes in the cell slated for destruction.
Congratulations to the authors for taking such a biological prinicipal and engineering it to our advantage!
Re:The dark side (Score:2)
--
Re:The dark side (Score:2)
Compared to existing chemical weapons such as Sarin, you'd need a very large amount of nanotubes to kill a person, at a likely very high cost. It just isn't a very effective weapon.
Re:Self Assemblage (Score:1)
but bacteria? uh-uh. they just eat and reproduce.
A cure for all infection? (Score:1)
Re:Have them at salad bars. (Score:1)
you are not cool (Score:1)
You will.... I promise.
my biggest regret just might be that I won't be around to see how much further still we can reach
Yeah yeah yeah, Gene Roddenberry is sooooo proud of you....
I love it when ppl try to act all spontaneous when writing an email or posting to /., as though they've made an innocent and cute mistake (like 'accidently' rambling in non-English, for example). Sometimes it's funny, but this guy is really stretching. What the hell does russian slang have anything to do with anything? Should I think that it's somehow cool or neat that this guy know's a Russian/Polish (what!?) exchange student who taught him some cuss words? OK, they may not be cuss words, but I wouldn't know. I considered looking for a "Russian/Polish slang" translator on the web, but why bother? I've already wasted enough time on this reply....
Re:you are not cool (Score:1)
Do you see the stupidity in continuing this conversation? I'm sure you are a really philanthropic person, judging by the way chimed in. And I can obviously see that you are a non-conformist free-thinker, judging by the '666' in your nick. But please.... stop talking.
Re:Hi! How are you? (Score:2)
Prediction: SirCam turns into another "All Your Base" phenomenon, and while you're laughing now, in six weeks you, and half of Slashdot, will be hunting me down with intent to terminate with extreme prejudice. The last words I hear will be "Hi! How are you! I send you this bullet to get your advice on how to get the fad to stop!" ;-)
(Hmm, or maybe not. Maybe the last words the Iceman heard before he got frozen into the glacier were "Ook! Og send you this arrow...")
Hi! How are you? (Score:5)
Re:The dark side (Score:1)
Make a ton of stuff, apply real life, cross breed and mutate the survivors.
You get some AMAZING results from that.
It'll all be fun and games until.. (Score:2)
When this happens, the current antibiotic-resistant 'superbugs' are going to look pretty tame in comparison.
Re:You will be assimilated... (Score:1)
Here are the prefixes: (Score:1)
Femto Quadrillionth -15
Atto Quintillionth -18
Zepos Sextillionth -21
Yocto Septillionth -24
lethal nano wars (Score:1)
subatomic
http://www.mp3.com/subatomicglue [mp3.com]
Re:lethal nano wars (Score:1)
subatomic
http://www.mp3.com/subatomicglue [mp3.com]
Interesting factoid... (Score:1)
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Have them at salad bars. (Score:2)
That experience led me to realize a perfect use for these; create nanotubes that destroy bacteria that cause food poisoning, and put them onto the salad bars at crappy grocery stores, dirty restaurants, etc! If they can't be put on the food, they can be injected with those air pressure guns used to innoculate masses of children in poor areas! The perfect solution to spending Friday nights getting drunk at a club and not rolling around in bed clutching one's abdomen!
Re:Have them at salad bars. (Score:2)
Re:Nanotechnology?! (Score:3)
Since nanotechnology is a newly emerging field, there are many definitions in current use among researchers. None of these, as far as I know, is limited to "electronic circuits and devices." Lets look at some contemporary definitions:
The foresight institute's [foresight.org] official definition of "molecular nanotechnology":
Thorough, inexpensive control of the structure of matter based on molecule-by-molecule control of products and byproducts of molecular manufacturing.
From the web page of the University of Washington Center for Nanotechnology [washington.edu] (the first PhD. program in nanotechnology in the world, I believe):
Nanotechnology refers to the ability to manipulate individual atoms and molecules, making it possible to build machines using molecular building blocks or create materials and structures from the bottom up, designing properties by controlling structure.
From the sci.nanotech FAQ:
Nanotechnology is an anticipated manufacturing technology giving thorough, inexpensive control of the structure of matter. The term has sometimes been used to refer to any technique able to work at a submicron scale; Here on sci.nanotech we are interested in what is sometimes called molecular nanotechnology, which means basically "A place for every atom and every atom in its place."
The main reason, I believe, that this work can be considered nanotechnology is because it takes advantage of the concept of self-assembly. Self-assembly is the property of certain molecules to spontaneously assemble themselves into ordered super-molecular structures. Looking for ways to take advantage of self-assembly processes is a major focus of state-of-the-art nanotechnology.
Great! (Score:2)
Basically Complement System (Score:1)
This is the same mechanism of action as the Complement System used by your Immune System. Antibodies recognize and bind to a bacteria and recruit the first part of the system, which inserts itself into the cell membrane. The first part of the system recruits other proteins, which recruit other proteins, etc., until a ring of proteins is made in the cell membrane. Since the concentration of salt, protein, sugar, and everything else is higher inside the cell than outside, water rushes in through the tiny hole and the cell membrane ruptures from the rapid expansion of volume.
Here's a brief link [clevelandclinic.org] or two [ultranet.com]
Re:Have them at salad bars. (Score:2)
---
Re:Have them at salad bars. (Score:2)
addressing the symptoms may make them disappear, but the cause will rear its ugly head elsewhere. let's say salad bars are infected with bacteria because the salad is old & moldy. Sure, we can kill the bacteria, but does that deal with the toxins in the rotting food on the line? Would you want to eat rotten lettuce, even if it is bacteria free?
---
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:The Two most interesting aspects of the article (Score:2)
THe second point about it begin hard for bactera to evolve resistance mechanisms is a great point. Most antibiotics are isolated from bacteria themselves. So, in order for a bacteria to be able to produce antibiotics and still live... it has to be able to have a system to protect itself. The typical antibiotic/resistance genes evolve at the same time in an organism. With this new technology, the microbes will have to co-opt systems already in the cell to meet the new stresses of the nanotubules. This could in theory take longer to adapt than typical resistance mechanism.....BUT remember that by using any sort of system like this... where you are brut force killing organisms...you strongly select for individules who have the ability to survive, and pass the ability to flourish to their progeny.
Just my thoughts:)
Re:Really a cure for antibiotic resistant strains? (Score:2)
I have reasonable hopes that the day isn't too far off when we'll be able to custom-produce drugs which not only go after specific pathogens, but also work with patients' specific biochemistries. Pharmacies will no longer stock drugs; instead they'll be drug factories which, given the lab workup on a patient, can turn out exactly the right medicine for the patient _and_ the disease within a few hours. My guess is that disease-specific meds are five years off, disease-and-patient-specific meds are about fifteen years off.
Wake up (Score:1)
WAKE UP, guys. These things are _NOT LIVING_, and neither they are nanobots, and they _CAN NOT_ reproduce, or reprogram themselves to kill other cells.
Re:Self Assemblage (Score:1)
Re:downfalls of antibiotics (Score:2)
This is not true. Different antibiotics in use today do have specificities for different kinds of bacteria, and candidiasis is a textbook condition in certain immunosuppressed patients contrary to your assertion that the medical community believes it doesn't exist. However, it is not a common side effect of normal antibiotic use as far as I know.
Antibiotics and growth hormones are given to farm animals, and passed along to humans in the food they eat. I have never had a doctor recommend that I supplement antibiotic use with bifidus and/or acidophilus, and with the amount of training in clinical nutrition/alternative treatments that most doctors get in medschool
While it is very true that antibiotic use in farm animals breeds resistant bacteria and should be banned, it is primarily due to the resistant bacteria being spread to people, not the antibiotics themselves. Even if the antibiotics and recombinant growth hormones were present at high levels in the meat, the growth hormones would never survive cooking and most antibiotics wouldn't either. As far as medical school, I'm unfortunate enough to be in medical school, and they beat us over the head with clinical nutrition and complimentary medicine stuff for hours daily, not that either of those things are in any way related to commonsense ideas like eating yogurt when you're taking antibiotics that cause GI upset by disturbing the normal GI flora.
I haven't read the paper itself, but as far as the specificity issue goes, there would probably be a highly supralinear relationship between membrane concentration of the drug molecules and cell killing ability since they have to multimerize to form the pores, so that would make it easier. I would suspect that these could give you much better specificity than antibiotics commonly used in clinical practice. The mechanism is similar to proteins bacteria make to kill each other (such as gramicidins, colicins, etc.), and those have much higher specificity than any common antibiotics.
Re:Really a cure for antibiotic resistant strains? (Score:1)
My guess is that disease-specific meds are five years off, disease-and-patient-specific meds are about fifteen years off.
If you ment the time it takes for those medicines to reach _everyone_ then you forgot to add +XX years for patents and lawsuits. Add a few more years for the developing countries. .*shrc is
--
$HOME is where the
Note to self… (Score:2)
Re:you are not cool (Score:1)
This is pretty cool (Score:2)
As the article points out, it would be difficult (though not yet proved impossible) for a pathogen to develop resistance to these things. Traditional antibiotics attack only one aspect of a cell's function: the synthesis of peptidoglycan (a substance used to reinforce the cell wall, without it the wall weakens and bursts) is a favourite, and these are relatively easy to work around through minor modification to the affected pathway. Not only that, but our antibioitics are derived from compounds already present in nature (e.g. penicillin), and tests on old bacterial samples show that the resistance genes predate our use of antibiotics. The bugs already had a defence ready to roll.
With these things, not only do they represent a "blanket attack" on pathogenic organisms, they are a completely novel form of attack for which bacteria are yet to even begin developing a defence. This should put the bugs on the backfoot in the pharmaceutical arms race for some time, if not forever.
Re:Have them at salad bars. (Score:1)
On a side note, I noticed that it took slightly more weed to catch a buzz, and that a small dose that would normally get me a little buzzed, gave me no high at all, but relieved almost all symptoms.
Also... Isn't it poetic justice that those who repress and persecute people for drug use get to suffer explosive diarrhea/projectile vomiting. It gives me no end of pleasure to think of the suffering they afflict upon themselves because of their own stupidity.
Re:you are not cool (Score:1)
Re:Points to ponder, these may be a niche market (Score:1)
Re:Robots in Disguise... (Score:1)
Robots in Disguise... (Score:3)
I would love to say "Transform!" and then turn into a car and drive to work.
Re:Nanotechnology?! (Score:1)
Nanotechnology refers to the ability to manipulate individual atoms and molecules, making it possible to build machines using molecular building blocks or create materials and structures from the bottom up, designing properties by controlling structure.
As for self-assembly, though these things certainly do, so to do umpteen million proteins, nucleic acids, etc. I wonder if the unspoken differentiation is just the use of solely organic stuff for molecular biology and not in nanotechnology? Anyway...my point is to call this nanotech means you must call a large portion of moly bio the same.
-Ted
Re:The dark side (Score:2)
Welcome to drug discovery 101. This is a very normal way of finding useful properties and improving those properties. Selection methods like that are an integral part of any drug's path to production.
-Ted
Nanotechnology?! (Score:5)
From dictionary.com: nanotechnology (nn-tk-nl-j) n.
The science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules
Labelling this as nanotechnology seems a bit inaccurate to say the least. This is really *very cool* molecular biology, but unless being nano and in a technical field = nanotechnology, this isn't it.
As a side note, I work at Scripps (across the hall from Ghadiri actually) and can tell you the amount of money received from the Gates Foundation is barely even pocket change.
-Ted
Possible, but think of it this way (Score:1)
You will be assimilated... (Score:5)
On a serious note, these asemblages were entirely static in nature (no nanobots yet...) but it doesn't really discuss how these injected nanutubes were exponged, and after how long. Presumably they were released as part of the mice fecal matter but how long does it take to exponge the tubules?
The Two most interesting aspects of the article... (Score:5)
--CTH
READ ... (Score:1)
READ ... (Score:1)
Re:Those lucky bastards (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
http://arnica.csustan.edu/grobner/biol3310/Cilia%
Microtubules: Cilia and Flagella - Structure and Function
General features - hairlike, motile organelles; project from eukaryote surface
Cilia (oar) move cell in direction perpendicular to them - rigid in power stroke, flexible in recovery
1.In multicellular organisms, move fluid & particulate material through various tracts
2. Occur in large numbers on cell surface, beating activity coordinated
B. Flagella - fewer on cell surface; those present longer; show beating pattern variety (waveforms)
1. Single-celled alga - pulls itself forward (waves 2 flagellae in asymmetric manner like breast stroke); pushes itself through medium with symmetric beat like that of sperm
2. In sperm, beat undulatory (>1 wave at a time along flagellum length); generates force pushing cell in direction parallel to flagellum long axis
WHAT ARE CILIA AND FLAGELLA?
Cilia and flagella are whip-like appendages of many living cells that are used to move fluid or to propel the cells. Cilia beat with an oar-like motion and flagella have a snake-like motion as illustrated in Figure 1. The cilia in your lungs keep dirt and dust from clogging your breathing tubes (the bronchi) by moving a layer of sticky mucous along to clean out the airways. Sperm cells use a flagellum as a propeller to move the cell through the fluid of the oviduct to reach the egg. Thousands of animals and plants use cilia and flagella for swimming (example: paramecium), or feeding (example: clams and mussels) or mating (example: green algae). It is a curious fact that all of these cilia and flagella have a very similar internal arrangement of tubes (the outer doublets) and protein connectors (the nexin links and dynein arms) that suggest that there is something very special about this particular way of building a cell propeller. Figure 2 is a diagram of these internal parts of a cilium. Nature tends to keep designs that work well. Possibly if we can understand why this particular design works so well we might be able to design miniature devices that use the same principles of operation!
Re:HIV, well, no... (Score:2)
The common flu and cold virus retain their internal code under a disposable outer coating. Once popped, they lose their transport mechanism and are 100% vulnerable to the human body's defenses.
A simple example would be having you go swimming in a wetsuit in the ocean, then I come along like a shark, tear away your wetsuit along with your arms and legs, then go looking for another snack.
I could go into detail about things like flagella or cilia. Flagella being a whiplike tail like on a sperm cell used for swimming. Cilia being hundreds of tiny oars on the cell body used for swimming. And I could mention that without these, the viruses are pretty much dead in the water without arms or legs to move them, but I already have. As for HIV, once popped, the virus is still just as deadly. Most other viruses cannot withstand the popping though.
Re:downfalls of antibiotics (Score:4)
Antibiotic resistance is not a 'downside' or 'harmful side effect' of antibiotic technology.
Antibiotics have saved thousands of lives in the past half-century by killing bacteria. If anti-biotics are now less good at killing bacteria, this does not in any way negate the past successes. "Superbugs" as some irritating media technology writers and broadcasters have called them are simply exactly as dangerous as bacteria in the pre-anti-biotic world were. Going back to where we started is not a 'hazard', and what's more that's not where we're going. New antibiotics seem (at least so far) to be keeping up with resistance.
Re:Hi! How are you? (Score:1)
I wonder... (Score:1)
And since they work by puncturing cell walls, there shouldn't be side effects like there are in normal antibiotics....
In other news... (Score:1)
Re:lethal nano wars (Score:1)
Points to ponder, these may be a niche market (Score:1)
1)Time - a) most non-life-threatening bacterial infection will run their course in about a weeks time (except for chronic sinusitis, TB, chronic acne etc). Antibiotic use will still happen and be the best choice in these cases (instead of the nanotubes) because by the time you get one matched several days will have elapsed. Why? to target the nanotubes after a specific bacteria, you must first CULTURE IT! This takes minimum of a couple days culture and get enough of a sample to test your tubes on. By this time, with a 20 dollar prescription of amoxicillin, zithromycin, etc you could have knocked out most of the common infections
2)MONEY! - This will NEVER be less expensive than our generic / non-brand name antibiotics. If your child has Otitis media (ear infection), and they are wailing keeping you up at night would you rather wait for 2 days or more for that super nanotube that will kill them and pay a prohibitive price OR pay 20 bucks for an amoxicillin suspension that morning and get a good night's rest THAT night.
3)Location of infection - this sounds like this will really only be effective against sepsis/bacteremia (when the blood becomes colonized and bacteria start multipling in your own blood). One thing antibiotics are really good at is pervading the tissues not just the blood stream. If you have cellulitis (infection of skin that can rapidly progress) you need a antibiotic with good spectrum coverage and that will also be excreted/oozed out through the blood vessels into the surrounding tissues (say Augementin for example). They said nothing in this article about whether these nanotubes can migrate from the blood stream to the tissues. And what about an abcess for instance? Abcesses will have walled them selves of from the surrounding tissues with a cavity liner and it can be very difficult to get antibiotics to get there, i don't see how nanotubes would be any more effective.
Another issue that i can think about is people that are more likely to suffer from gout (buildup of urate crystals in the periphery and joints such as big toes, knees, and elbows. IF these nanotubes do leave the bloodstream to the tissue level, they may be comparable in size to urate crystals, so would they all buildup and cause a nano-gout reaction (instead of a urate-gout buildup)
Another example, Bactrim (aka TMP/SMZ (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole)) which wildly successful for bladder infections because it leaves the blood stream rapidly and concentrates in the bladder. Where are the nanotubes excreted at?
will not happen (Score:2)
1)Time - a) most non-life-threatening bacterial infection will run their course in about a weeks time (except for chronic sinusitis, TB, chronic acne etc). Antibiotic use will still happen and be the best choice in these cases (instead of the nanotubes) because by the time you get one matched several days will have elapsed. Why? to target the nanotubes after a specific bacteria, you must first CULTURE IT! This takes minimum of a couple days culture and get enough of a sample to test your tubes on. By this time, with a 20 dollar prescription of amoxicillin, zithromycin, etc you could have knocked out most of the common infections
2)MONEY! - This will NEVER be less expensive than our generic / non-brand name antibiotics. If your child has Otitis media (ear infection), and they are wailing keeping you up at night would you rather wait for 2 days or more for that super nanotube that will kill them and pay a prohibitive price OR pay 20 bucks for an amoxicillin suspension that morning and get a good night's rest THAT night. 3)Location of infection - this sounds like this will really only be effective against sepsis/bacteremia (when the blood becomes colonized and bacteria start multipling in your own blood). One thing antibiotics are really good at is pervading the tissues not just the blood stream. If you have cellulitis (infection of skin that can rapidly progress) you need a antibiotic with good spectrum coverage and that will also be excreted/oozed out through the blood vessels into the surrounding tissues (say Augementin for example). They said nothing in this article about whether these nanotubes can migrate from the blood stream to the tissues. And what about an abcess for instance? Abcesses will have walled them selves of from the surrounding tissues with a cavity liner and it can be very difficult to get antibiotics to get there, i don't see how nanotubes would be any more effective.
Another issue that i can think about is people that are more likely to suffer from gout (buildup of urate crystals in the periphery and joints such as big toes, knees, and elbows. IF these nanotubes do leave the bloodstream to the tissue level, they may be comparable in size to urate crystals, so would they all buildup and cause a nano-gout reaction (instead of a urate-gout buildup)
Another example, Bactrim (aka TMP/SMZ (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole)) which wildly successful for bladder infections because it leaves the blood stream rapidly and concentrates in the bladder. Where are the nanotubes excreted at?
it's biology (Score:2)
They've done it... (Score:2)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another fun thing to do ... (Score:1)
but... (Score:1)
Re:You will be assimilated... (Score:5)
They used even bigger nano-tubes to puncture the walls of the first tubes... that's how they got rid of them.
Re:A cure for all infection? (Score:1)
-==-
We are Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Re:lethal nano wars (Score:1)
And so it begins... (Score:2)
Now, this is... (Score:1)
--
Re:you are not cool (Score:1)
kthx. Zaebis = Russian for 'fuckin cool', while Jest bardzo fajnie = Polish for 'it is very cool'. Kthx. Your bitter attitude is duely noted, sir.
And to the one who defended me (if that is what you intended) - thanks. I'm glad to see there are other people out there who are as excited by our advancements and perhaps as star-struck by our potential as I am.
--
Re:you are not cool (Score:1)
--
Re:but... (Score:1)
Those lucky bastards (Score:1)
Damn the smug little bastards.
number (Score:1)
HIV, well, no... (Score:2)
Virii introduce themselves into the host cell, splice their own RNA into the DNA of the cell, and then allow the cell to act like a little virus factory to crank out copies of the original virus. The cell fills up with these copies and pops when it surpasses critical containment volume, releasing all the copies to repeat the process with other host cells.
So there is no point in using a nanotube to pop the host cell, as this will simply do what is going to happen anyway.
To stop virii in general, it helps to inhibit the virus's ability to splice its RNA into the host cell's DNA. This approach is where the most promising and effective HIV treatments reside today. However, the only way to whack a virus is to get the body's own destroyer cells to eat them. This is difficult to do with HIV because the invader-signaller cells are the ones that HIV loves to use as factories. So the body loses its ability to know it's being attacked.
Net-net: This nanotube approach is great against living invaders (bacteria, and possibly even some types of cancer), but not useful against virii: HIV, or any other.
Sweet Bastard!
Re:downfalls of antibiotics (Score:1)
It is pathetic that the FDA & CDC refuse to accept that Candidiasis barely exists (as a "Textbook Condition"), let alone as a (potentially) Life-Threatening affliction!
As a medical student, you would do your future patients a HUGE service to educate yourself (outside the propaganda you're being fed) about CRC (Candida Related Complex) & PCC (Polysystemic Chronic Candidiasis).
You can begin at the Provo Utah Candida Wellness Center: http://www.cwchealth.com/ , which states that everyone will eventually have a bout with Candida during their lifetime.
As a 55 year old male, that only recently discovered the TRUE source of my misery, I can assure you that Candida is way more than a "Textbook Condition", and is a VERY REAL, DAY-TO-DAY, LIFE-THREATENING condition (or, can become one) for MILLIONS of people!!!