Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Scientists Find New Way To Destroy Anthrax 70

Posted by michael from the when-lysol-isn't-available dept.
t0rnt0pieces writes "Yahoo news is reporting a story about how scientists have discovered a new way to combat the anthrax bacteria, even if the strain is drug resistant. The method uses an enzyme from bacteriophages, virii which attack bacteria. The scientists say that this method could even be adapted to combat other virii. This truly looks to be a fantastic breakthrough in the treatment of drug-resistant bacterial infections."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Find New Way To Destroy Anthrax More

Scientists Find New Way To Destroy Anthrax

Comments Filter:

  • ARUGH!! PSEDUOSCIENCE EATING MY HEAD!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JabberWokky ( 19442 ) <slashdot.com@timewarp.org> on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @10:48PM (#4116656) Homepage Journal
    Dear Submittor:

    So, which is it? A method to kill bacteria or a method to kill viruses? You know the two are *totally different things*, right?!?!?!

    There is no cure for any virus. Never has been, and imo, there won't be in our lifetimes. The best thing we can do is bolster the human immune system before infection (vaccine) or after infection (ranging from simply getting rest to AZT cocktails that always remind me of Milkplus from A Clockwork Orange).

    Bacteria, however, can be beaten with a wide varity of medicines, from that trusty old blue moldy favorite, penecillin, to modern antibiotics.

    Now repeat after me: Anthrax is a bacteria. This article is about using virus style or derived tools to kill a bacteria. It has nothing to do with combatting viruses (or as you put it, virii). The two are totally different biological forms, like tapeworms and right whales.

    Arugh! Even CNN and AP can't get it right, so maybe I should be more forgiving. Maybe I should just blithely lump dogs, cats, sofas and trees into the same generic category and not worry about any sort of technical consideration, especially in a friggin' scientific article submission!!!

    Thank you, I have now vented. Bacteria != Viruses.

    --
    Evan (no reference)

    • Antiviral medications... (Score:3, Informative)

      by rjh ( 40933 )
      ... Look into Amantadine or its ilk, which are effective drugs for the treatment of influenza.

      There aren't many antiviral drugs, and the ones we have are not especially effective, but it's incorrect to say antivirals don't exist.
      • Oh, they exist, certainly, but from the day you get a virus, to the day you die, that virus potentially inhabits your body. Generally you have the acute phase (with one, Chicken Pox, in another, a low grade flu like experience), and then later a secondary reaction (Chicken Pox leads to shingles, and that low grade flu is from HIV, which leads to AIDS). Viruses stick around. Basically, while there are antiviral medications that aim to slow the replication of viral bodies, they don't cure, and they don't affect the long term effects of viral infection. Much like a diamond, herpies is forever.

        Basically, what you call antivirals really just lessen aspects of the viruses life cycle in the body. I'm not aware of anything that can actually "cure", i.e., remove a virus, from a host. I've long since ceased following the medical publications, though - there may be cutting edge research that has had some nice breakthroughs, but I haven't heard of any, and I follow the general medical press with quite an interest, followinug the interesing bits back to the source.

        --
        Evan (no reference, but I almost put in a bit about Captain Trips)

        • but from the day you get a virus, to the day you die, that virus potentially inhabits your body.

          What's your point? Every human being is a colony of thousands of different unique bacteria. From the day you catch strep throat to the day you die, there are strep bacteria living somewhere on your skin. Just counting the number of different Escheria coli bacteria living in your gut would push me past Slashdot's space limitation. Just counting the number of different helpful, necessary bacteria would make me go on for paragraphs and paragraphs.

          Sure, bacteria and viruses are with you for life. What's your point? That's why we acquire immunities.
    • the original article would help, or perhaps carefully reading the original post. The poster is incorrect about spelling the plural of "virus" as "virii" but did accurately restate from the article that The method uses an enzyme from bacteriophages, virii which attack bacteria. .

      Ignoring the spelling blunder, the poster has offered a portion the original article's gist. There was no mix-up of bacteria and viruses.
      • From the submittor: "The method uses an enzyme from bacteriophages, virii which attack bacteria. The scientists say that this method could even be adapted to combat other virii."

        Where in the article does it say that this method combats any virus? PlyG lysin, if I interpret it correctly, destroys the bacteria by shredding the cell membrane. A virus does not have a cell membrane, nor is there anything in the article that would lead someone to think that this could be used to treat a virus, or "combat other virii".

        Perhaps *you* should read the article and submission again.

        --
        Evan

        • You are quite correct. I read the article first and "read" what I expected in the OP. Mea culpa.

          • No problem - I'm actually quite easy going about spelling mistakes or errors due to quick reading or simple insufficient knowledge. The bacteria/virus misuse issue has just become a massive personal pet peeve since anthrax became a major news item. Time, AP, CNN and other news sources have science and medical editors who should spot egregious errors. I even saw one story on the BBC that made the mistake. Slashdot just happens to be the one place where I can vent about the rampant equivelence of the two terms in the media and thus in common usage. :)

            --
            Evan (no reference)

            • Slashdot just happens to be the one place where I can vent about the rampant equivelence of the two terms in the media and thus in common usage. :)

              Same here. Too many cranks in the family.

  • The human body is an ecosystem.

    Bad things happen when you introduce foreign living things into an ecosystem.

    A significant lesson could be learned from examining what the Cane Toad did to Australia [ozramp.net.au] as a good example of what happens when you do this.

    • That'd be why they test it on animals first to see what happens.
      • Yes because a rat's body behaves just the same as mine.

        • Test animals - rats, pigs, primates - are chosen for their similarity (in some ways) to humans. After the animal tests come limited human tests. It's not as if they just start using it on everyone, for goodness sake.
          • in some ways

            Lucky for them they lack self awareness and don't suffer pain.

            It's odd how other species are so close to us that they make ideal test candidates and yet far enough away from us that this is considered acceptable.

            I've got a new claw hammer and I want to test it for vivisector injuring capabilities, know where I can find any?

            • Sacrificing a tiny number of animals in order to cure diseases that cause suffering for millions of humans is bad, then?

              The idiocy of your argument amazes me.
              • vivisection isn't the only way.

                The shallowness of your argument is no surprise to me.

                • How, then, do you suggest testing anti-viral drugs before doing widespread human trials?
                  • Here's a link from a quick search I did detailing how to test anti-viral drugs without animals

                    http://www.phenosense.com/people/331.html

                    When animal testing is mandatory alternatives are nto sought. While animals are regarded by people like you as walking test chambers then progresss is difficult.

                    The advancement of knowledge requires an open mind. Sounds like you've failrd that simple test.

                    • Unfortunately, that kind of testing only shows the effect on the virus itself - not its possible side effects on the rest of the organism. It'd be like testing shampoo only on hair samples, selling it, and then - oh shit - finding out that it burns peoples' skin off.
                    • I find this quote amusingly relevant:

                      "That's one thing the leadership of PETA has in common with their precious salamanders, an inability to think." [? [canada.com]]
                    • Fair enough, I'm no expert personally but who to trust?

                      how a about a german doctor :

                      "Vivisection is barbaric, useless, and a hindrance to scientific progress. I learned how to operate from other surgeons. It's the only way, and every good surgeon knows that."
                      - Dr. Werner Hartinger, 1988, surgeon of thirty years, President of German League of Doctors Against Vivisection (GLDAV).

                      or maybe an American

                      "Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to double-talk in technical jargon...The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything - no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system which will 'prove' a point....The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."
                      - Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY.

                      Or maybe someone close to your field of study

                      "Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it."

                      Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine.

                      Will that do?

                    • Yes, it's unlucky that all the pro-vivisection people got the brains

                      http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk

                      From: imgonakillu67@hotmail.com
                      Date: 22 Jan 2001
                      I agree to ripping out your throat. Any1 who thinks an animals life is
                      as inportant as a humans deserves to have "his" (:)), balls hacked
                      off with an ice pick! Ha ha. If i saw any of u [deleted] protesting
                      i would lob an half ender of ya [deleted] head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                      Yours respectfully (HA)
                    • Everyone knows there are fanatics on both sides. I could easily find a similar rabid e-mail from the opposing side.
                    • so why quote the anti-PETA?
                    • 'cause it applied to the point - you posted a "solution" to animal testing that wasn't properly thought out - it can't replace testing.
                    • I'm sorry but I think that's a lie.

                      "I find this quote amusingly relevant:"

                      You just wanted to try and insult me somehow.

                      But what you have failed to discuss is that animals have consiousness and self awareness. They feel pain and suffering and yet your solution to less suffering is to inflict more of it.

                      The only argument you can come up with in favour of it is that shampoo might burn.

                      I'm quite happy to contend that the primary motivation for pharmacuetical and cosmetic companies is not to benefit humankind but to seprarate it from it's money and that in the ruthless persuit of this goal they are likely to rush products to market that will injure and maybe kill members of the public. As some sort of barrier to this market govts. introduced mandatory animal testing. Yet the system doesn't work [mcspotlight.org]. They lie and cheat to get products to market and if the drugs fail in the regulated markets then they you may well find them on sale in India or Malaysia or Mexico. So the people doing the testing, for our "protection" can't even be trusted. Heck they even try to kill us.

                      "According to 1989 US EPA data, Hoechst Celanese was one of the leading releasers in the USA of known or suspected carcinogens."

                      YET animal testing is not in and of itself necessary to develop such products. A point which is conceeded and acknowledged by many eminent doctors around the world.

                      Maybe you missed the quotes so I'll pop one in again and see if you can ignore it once more :

                      "Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it."

                      Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine.

                      We don't need a solution to animal testing.
                      We just need to stop doing it.

    • Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @11:57PM (#4116864) Journal
      One: An enzyme is not a living thing. Thus, it is also not a "foreign" living thing. A "foreign" thing it may be, but this is hardly unusual; your body manages to survive well despite the amazing array of foreign things it comes into contact with.

      Two: Your body is not an ecosystem. While some aspects may be modelled that way, it can not be completely reduced to an "ecosystem". You have conciousness and a will to live, and you can die, a binary "dead/alive" process that ecosystems can not be said to experience. (While we talk of killing ecosystems, ecosystems always change. The only truly dead ecosystem is the one that contains no life. The state of the ecosystem naturally changes over time; it may change to the point that we say its no longer the same ecosystem, but there's really no natural reason to say such things.)

      Thus, even accepting the fallacious point that this treatment consists of an induced viral infection, because we face the possibility of true death, it may make perfect sense to choose not-certain-(and-quite-unlikely-)death (this treatment) over certain death (anthrax), a choice embedded in an ethical system that has no real analogue in your ecosystem reduction. Thus the reduction is of no value.

      (On a final note, "Bad things happen when..." is an amazing, horrific oversimplification on just about every level. For instance, try a clear definition of "foreign". It's a hell of a lot harder then you may think. Just as a sampler, would it be "foriegn" to re-introduce the mammoth now into the Great Plains, even though it's now extinct? What about ten years after the extinction? That's just a sampler of the sampler, too; "bad things" do not always happen; more often, the 'foreign' transplantee just dies. Major havoc is the exception, rather then the rule. Proof of that on the body level is your continued existance despite exposure to all kinds of foreign life forms, some of which even get so far as causing you to get a "cold", a significant infection, yet not managing to kill you.)
    • NB: I'm a programmer not a biologist.

      Phage's are not a new means of treatment. They have been used against anti-biotic resistant bacteria in Georgia (the country.. not that place in the US) for some time. The phages cannot survive in humans thats why they are using an enzyme extracted from the phage in this case.
      I understand the actual phage can only kill bacteria at the surface.

      Orthanc
  • So you eat bateria to kill a virus. (I thought viruses merged with your DNA...).
    But then you will probably have a reaction to the bacteria.
    Sooooo then they will give you a drug to fight the reaction.
    But then the drug will cause strange side effects.
    They will give you other drugs to fight the effects of the side effects.
    Thus giving you MORE side effects. (I am beginning to see a nasty pattern here...)
    So then you will probably get sick of this and try herbal remedies to ease the side effects.
    That won't work so you will take up drinking which will destroy you liver and give you heart disease...
    This will necessitate MORE drugs.
    (Repeat previous steps.)
    In the end you will still die anyways...
    At least it will keep you busy on the way though, eh?

    • > So you eat bateria to kill a virus. (I thought viruses merged with your DNA...).

      If you had actually read the article you would notice that it's the other way around. Viruses kill bacteria all the time, but you can't "kill" a virus because it's not clear they're even alive.
    • >So you eat bateria to kill a virus.
      No, actually you get an injection with a purified enzyme from a type of virus, that kills the bacteria. Anthrax is a bacterial species.

      >(I thought viruses merged with your DNA...).
      That's only retroviruses. In this case the target of the virus is the bacteria, so if it were going to integrate into any DNA it would be the bacterial DNA. But, this bacteriophage is not a retrovirus, and only the purified lysin protein is being used, not the whole virus.

  • The only thing I'd worry about this would be.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pedro ( 1613 ) on Thursday August 22, 2002 @12:04AM (#4116883)
    Some bright guy might attempt to engineer a broad spectrum bacteriophage, which would, of course, shut down our entire foodchain.
    That would be bad.
    If I was George W., I'd be much more concerned about stuff like this emanating from Iraq than nasty gasses and stuff.
    After all, we're talking Doomsday weapon here...
    Total climate change, and utter devastation with but one tiny twiddle of a genetic code.
    I pray that these guys have thought this through..
    • If a broad spectrum bacteriophage was possible, the possibility of it never happening by random mutation is approximately 0.00000000% (viruses mutate very quickly, and there are lots and lots and lots of them). And if it happened, being able to infect all bacteria would be such a terrific advantage that it would already have overrun the planet. So the fact that no such virus has wiped out the foodchain yet is a good reason to think that it's impossible.
      • >the possibility of it never happening by random mutation is approximately 0.00000000%

        ITYM 'ever happening' :)
        You'll have to concede, however, that such a mutation would quickly snuff out it's own source of propagation. Locally, at least.
        Hence, we have a *Possible* genetic configuration, that nature has weeded out as nonviable, and has not repeated in further mutations.
        This does NOT mean that we, as humans, cannot reintroduce it, or something similar.
        Think of DNA as an OS with various levels of API's and I think you'll get what I mean.

    • >Some bright guy might attempt to engineer a broad spectrum bacteriophage

      You'll be reassured to know that phages have exquisite specificity for their targets-- according to the Nature article:
      "High-affinity binding (the affinity constant Ka = 3-6 10X^8, similar to affinity-matured antibodies) is directed towards species- or strain-specific cell-wall carbohydrates".
      So creating a broad-specificity phage would be like making a broad-specifity antibody-- kind of a contradiction in terms.
      • A deliberately designed phage that is focused on low level functions and vulnerabilities of the DNA (DNA is a state machine.. think hacking) could easily hijack the internal processes of a bacterium, since they are ALL based on a universal tech foundation.
        What the guys in the article were doing was getting really close to using an enzyme (think packet) to transmit information to a virus (crude processor) so as to press it into service so as to accomplish a task.
        This idea is so cool that I'm peeing myself.
        Hope this helps.
    • If I was Bush, I'd be much more concerned about stuff like this emanating from Iraq than nasty gasses and stuff.
      If were Gearge W. I'd be more concerned about stuff like this emanating from American right wing extremists like the previous anthrax scare!
    • If you were actually George W., though, you'd probably be much more concerned about what pants to put on for the "big TV speech sitting at my desk," or maybe (but very doubtful) concerned with pre-reading the speech your writers wrote so you don't fumble on two of the "big words" they always put in, like you did with the last one (darn speech writers). You certainly wouldn't be concerned about the bacteriowhatsits, because they're probably just made up anyhow.

  • Tomato! tomah-to. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by capnjack41 ( 560306 ) <spam_me@crapola.org> on Thursday August 22, 2002 @02:14AM (#4117175)
    Ok ok, I'll let the "virii" slide, even though it is "viruses" (to be honest, I wasn't sure myself). That issue's been beaten to death anyway!

    What's interesting to note is that, in addition to fighting the anthrax itself, this method is also useful in detecting the spores (below is a snippet of the article which wasn't mentioned in the article summary...it's all in the yahoo! article link):

    Fischetti said that the enzyme had another potential use: detection of small numbers of anthrax spores. When PlyG destroys an anthrax bacterium, the cell releases a substance that can be detected with the help of a fluorescent agent and a hand-held device.

  • Biology and Pharmacology being weak points for me, can somebody briefly (is that possible?) explain how these viruses know the difference between bad bacteria and good bacteria or any other good cell in the human body? Also, is there a chance that there is a necessary bacteria we don't know about in the human body that could be destroyed with this virus creating even worse problems than Anthrax? It appears that this particular application using PlyG is Anthrax-specific, but as they expand this techonolgy, I wonder about strange reactions, especially considering what somebody else said about viruses never leaving the human body.
    • Well I don't work with virii myself but they really don't tell "good" cells from "bad" cells so much as they just float about until they bump into something. All cells express a multitude of different proteins on their surfaces and these differ by cell species. Virii can recognize one or a small subset of cell membrane proteins as both the virus and the cell membrane proteins have specific shapes/charges/whathaveyou, forming a complex with the virus stuck to the side of the cell. The virus is either engulfed by the cell or "injects" its DNA/RNA into the cell which is now basically screwed.

      If PlyG is truly anthrax-specific then it might also work on other closely related bacteria, but it seems unlikely that we would be in symbiosis with it. Another thing to remember is that we take antibiotics all the time with little or no ill effect so PlyG probably wouldn't be any worse.
      • See the "the only thing I'd worry about.." thread for more on this... Basically the way this phage enzyme binds to its target bacterium surface molecule is the same sort of very very specific "3D lock and key" fit that an antibody has for its target molecule. The original Nature article is not very well explained by Yahoonews, but the scientists did testing, and the PlyG did not bind at all to several closely-related (Bacillus) bacteria, though it did bind to one that is almost identical to anthrax. Humans aren't the normal place these bacteria are found, so it's extremely unlikely that any "normal" bacteria could be targetted by this.

        I'm trying to think of a non-biology comparison here... uh, how about thinking of the recognition of a bacterium by the phage enzyme in terms of cryptography -- the phage has a key to get into this particular bacterial species, but it's really unlikely that the same key would work on any other type of bacteria.

        Oh, and viruses leave the body all the time, eg folks pick up cold viruses from other people's sneezes.
  • If you have a subscription to Nature, you can get a rather more accurate summary in this News and Views piece [nature.com].

    The research article itself is here [nature.com].

  • I just iron all my mail. Use a trouser press if you have loads.

    If it's from a government agency I also make a point of chucking it in the microwave just to take care of any nanotech surveilance devices. I'm serious about stopping "them" tracking me in any way!

    I've made a mess of more than a few credit/debit/store cards though. :(

    Ali

  • you mean that there is new way to destroy my anthrax.ds.pg.gda.pl? Please not, it's very peaceful pentium 90 with 80GiB of discs...
  • A More Effective Method of Detecting and Killing Anthrax

    Scientists at Rockefeller University in New York announced [nature.com] today in the journal Nature that a protein used by a bacteriophage (a virus that kills bacteria) can be used to quickly detect and kill anthrax. Last year, it took days to check a building for anthrax spores, but this method of causing the bacteria's cell wall to burst and yield an easily-detectible dye would cut the uncertainty to a period of minutes. It can also be used in a drug to kill strains of anthrax that have grown resistant to antibiotics. Rockefeller University has additional info [rockefeller.edu], and the NYTimes has an article [nytimes.com].

    The Nature article also mentions an interesting tidbit about a difference between Western and Russian medicine: "Such 'phage therapy' is routine in Russia - the concept is over 80 years old - but was ousted by antibiotics in the West." A nice reminder that ignoring one approach in favor of another can have disastrous results."

Slashdot Top Deals

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero, "Ad familiares"

Close