Newly Discovered Molecule Fights Off Over 300 Kinds of Drug-Resistant Bacteria (sciencealert.com) 71
schwit1 shares a report from ScienceAlert: The molecule is called fabimycin, and further down the line it could be used to fight off some of the most stubborn infections that humans can get. The new potential treatment targets gram-negative bacteria, a group of hard-to-kill pathogens that are commonly behind infections of the urinary tract, lungs, and even the bloodstream. Their resilience is due to a protective outer membrane that helps shield the wall from damaging substances like antibiotics. One study at an English hospital found more than a third of individuals with gram-negative bacteria blood infections had died within a year, demonstrating the challenges involved in managing these robust microbes.
Fabimycin overcomes these problems by passing through the outer cell layer, avoiding the pumps that remove foreign material to allow the molecule to accumulate where it can do the most harm. The substance also manages to avoid wiping out too many healthy bacteria, another issue with current treatments. The team started off with an antibiotic that was known to be effective against gram-positive bacteria and made several structural changes to give the molecule the power to infiltrate gram-negative strains' powerful defenses. In tests, fabimycin had an effect on more than 300 types of drug-resistant bacteria. What's more, in mice models it was shown to reduce levels of harmful bacteria in mice with pneumonia or urinary tract infections to where they were pre-infection. The research has been published in the journal ACS Central Science.
Fabimycin overcomes these problems by passing through the outer cell layer, avoiding the pumps that remove foreign material to allow the molecule to accumulate where it can do the most harm. The substance also manages to avoid wiping out too many healthy bacteria, another issue with current treatments. The team started off with an antibiotic that was known to be effective against gram-positive bacteria and made several structural changes to give the molecule the power to infiltrate gram-negative strains' powerful defenses. In tests, fabimycin had an effect on more than 300 types of drug-resistant bacteria. What's more, in mice models it was shown to reduce levels of harmful bacteria in mice with pneumonia or urinary tract infections to where they were pre-infection. The research has been published in the journal ACS Central Science.
Science saves the day (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Science saves the day (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Science saves the day (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It could be hospital administered, or outpatient clinic. This would ensure the full course is completed and there are no survivors left to adapt.
Well, it could be ... but there's no laws or anything like that.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be hospital administered, or outpatient clinic.
The comment you replied to says "I wonder how long it will take for indiscriminate us of this potential antibiotic in the meat industries make this weapon impotent.". The last time I checked, animals destined to become our food don't go to hospitals or outpatient clinics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are taking cows to a hospital? Okay.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Vancomycin is only effective against gram positive bacteria, it has no spectrum of activity against gram negative organisms. This is not a replacement for vancomycin since it appears fabimycin is engineered primarily to have spectrum of activity against gram negatives.
Also, vancomycin is not "a last resort drug because it can cause organ failure". Renal injury from vancomycin is tremendously rare when dosed appropriately. Vancomycin is a good drug for treatment of methicillin resistant staph (MRSA), but onc
Re: Science saves the day (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chances are, if you have an antibiotic resistant strain of bacteria, you'd be in hospital anyways. This like C. Diff, MRSA and such are nasty diseases and if you got it,
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it's going to be WAY too expensive for that kind of usage. When the patent expires and it can be made generically and cheaply, then all bets are off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When the patent expires and it can be made generically and cheaply, then all bets are off.
By the time the patent expires, it's likely that bacteria resistant to this new antibiotic will have evolved.
Re: (Score:2)
The stuff certified for human use will be very expensive, but that doesn't mean it's very expensive to manufacture.
If it's cheap to make, they can make veterinarian grade to sell at lower cost.
Re: (Score:3)
I expect this will happen the day it becomes available. Human stupidity and greed is unlimited....
Re: (Score:1)
Antibiotic resistance is for the most part a serious problem *only in hospitals*.
Stay away from hospitals, especially if you're sick. Have you seen the statistics on how many people die there?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, hyperevolution will wipe out the effectiveness of this rather quickly.
Quick, hand it to farmers (Score:2)
Agriculture needs metric tons of this ASAP.
Re: Quick, hand it to farmers (Score:1)
another Drug-Resistant Bacteria killer (Score:4, Interesting)
Long before there was penicillin there was silver but the invention of the miracle drug brought about an amnesia regarding silver.
Silver is still used in some limited situations. The handrails at your hospital may have been cleaned with a solution that leaves a trace of silver to help prevent the spread MRSA. There are nasal sprays and other forms of silver for your personal use if you know where to find them. I've heard that silver is used extensively to prevent infection in burn victims.
Research continues but scientists don't fully understand how silver kills germs; this is a step forward: https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
You need to calm down.
remind me again the last time "the science" in medicine actually cured a major disease oh yeah, 1950's!!!
Have you not read any news since the 1950s? Have you not learned how to use a search engine? We can look at hep C, for one. Smallpox has been completely eradicated. Many types of cancer have been cured.
Your statement is 100% false. Learn to use a search engine to verify your sources.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so you still haven't figured out how to use a search engine.
Also, why are you so angry?
Re: (Score:1)
OK, so you still haven't figured out how to use a search engine.
Lol, I like how when you have complete been beaten to hilarious pulp you come back for more. Unfortunately, you brought no new falsehoods to shred.
Also, why are you so angry?
It's a long story. Ask your mother.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me tell you about my mother.
You don't even know what the word "cure" means. You think if someone got reinfected, they weren't cured.
Re: (Score:1)
Let me tell you about my mother.
Nice Blade Runner reference. Appreciated.
You don't even know what the word "cure" means. You think if someone got reinfected, they weren't cured.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suite. I get it. So, let's talk in small words about nomenclature. First, there is "cure" which means "A drug or course of medical treatment used to restore health." So, by that definition we've hardly cured a damn thing since the 1950's (exactly what I started off saying which got you and your pals so infuriated). Now let's talk about prevention. It's certainly part of medicine. Do we have shitton of super effective preventiv
Re: (Score:2)
we've hardly cured a damn thing since the 1950's
Ok, at least you've changed your phrase a little now. It ignores all the amazing things medicine has done in the last 70 years, but you're learning.
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, at least you've changed your phrase a little now.
Liar. Only the wording has changed and even then, not much. Observe:
Here is my original statement:
remind me again the last time "the science" in medicine actually cured a major disease oh yeah, 1950's!!!
Here is the one you just commented on.
we've hardly cured a damn thing since the 1950's
As you can see the only thing that's changed is the number of times you've been wrong or chastened by the facts.
It ignores all the amazing things medicine has done in the last 70 years
It's been 62 years, since the 1950's not 70. Pay attention. I wasn't asking for "amazing things" I was just talking about their basic function: healthcare. The primary way to move forward with eradicating and preventing disease is via medical progress on vacci
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, at least you've changed your phrase a little now.
Liar. Only the wording has changed and even then, not much
Ah, then you didn't learn. That's too bad.
I always learn.
Clearly not. You still think we've hardly cured anything since the 1950s.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, then you didn't learn. That's too bad.
You have nothing to teach.
Clearly not. You still think we've hardly cured anything since the 1950s.
Which is the case. You've just had your ass handed to you in a debate, so denial is okay, though, if it makes you feel better.
No recently cured disease...really? (Score:2)
Copper is in a similar category regarding viruses.
Not really because, unlike silver, if ingested copper is toxic [webmd.com] and it can build up in your body over time.
remind me again the last time "the science" in medicine actually cured a major disease oh yeah, 1950's!!!
Well, there was a global pandemic that started a couple of years ago that has largely been cured using a completely new way to make vaccines. Perhaps you missed it? or forgot about it?
Re: (Score:1)
Not really because, unlike silver, if ingested
Bro, who in the actual fuck was talking about ingesting it? Certainly not me. Bleach kills germs too, but please don't ingest it. Are you Trump's medical advisor? This line of thinking is awfully familiar? Hmm...
Well, there was a global pandemic that started a couple of years ago that has largely been cured using a completely new way to make vaccines.
Vaccines that turned out to be remarkably ineffective considering the overall promise of mRNA tech. They can neither prevent nor eradicate the disease and serve, at this point, as a prophylactic measure, though perhaps a reasonable one given the lack of alternatives if a person is at risk. That is,
Re: (Score:1)
If so, you're debating skills are terrible. Jesus even fucking Biden...
No u!
Re: (Score:2)
Your definition of "cure" seems tailor made to support your rambling argument. Apparently for you "cure" means 100% effective in all stages of a disease and able to create perpetual immunity. Silver and copper use as heck don't fit that bill either...and frankly nothing else does either.
Re: (Score:1)
Your definition of "cure" seems tailor made to support your rambling argument.
Let's say I'm wrong on all counts. HepC is a total slam dunk along with four rare cancers and Breast Cancer.... Let's say you're right I'm wrong and they are TOTAL CURES. Hmmkay. In 60 years? That still isn't shit. No rambling argument needed.
Silver and copper use as heck don't fit that bill either...and frankly nothing else does either.
Also, cluebat: the conversation has evolved past the well known antiseptic qualities of Copper and Silver any fool could Google... Do try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say I'm wrong on all counts. HepC is a total slam dunk along with four rare cancers and Breast Cancer.... Let's say you're right I'm wrong and they are TOTAL CURES. Hmmkay. In 60 years? That still isn't shit. No rambling argument needed.
Yeah, total garbage that we could cure Hepatitis C, a disease which has probably plagued humankind for thousands upon thousands of years (but only isolated in 1989), or any cancers which have plagued humankind for millions of years. I imagine you would turn up your nose at the work done on HIV/AIDS...turning a disease which was a near universal death sentence in the 1980s into what can be considered to largely be a chronic condition.
Given that penicillin was only discovered in 1928, we are really only looki
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, total garbage that we could cure Hepatitis C
Straw man. I never said it was garbage, I said it was treatable in 90% of cases and one could be re-infected (ie.. what cannot happen when you have an immunity). I gave specific facts, while you are just spouting made up bullshit then jousting at it. What I am saying is that almost-curing 6 diseases in 60 years is kinda a shit record. I'm still saying it. It's bupkis compared to the level of need across thousands of diseases and disorders.
Given how long it took to begin the era of antimicrobial therapy, I'd say we're working pretty fast.
I'd say you were a polyanna and you are reaching... hard. The pace o
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Penicillin does? Penicillin is neither 100% effective nor does it confer immunity. Let's check our local antibiogram shall we...hmm...CNS positive streptococcus pneumoniae...70% of isolates vulnerable to penicillin.... enterococcus faecium...only 25-35% of isolates vulnerable to penicillin. MRSA...yikes...0%. Sure seems less than 100% effective to me. Heck, I had recurrent strep throat as a kid 3-4 times. By your definition, penicillin wasn't "curing" much of anything in that case since I didn't gain immuni
Re: (Score:1)
Penicillin does? Penicillin is neither 100% effective nor does it confer immunity.
When penicillin came out it was (as in PAST TENSE) 100% effective for a whole range of bacteriological diseases. Did you not know that? I thought you were some kind of well-informed medical-science-guy. That's pretty common knowledge. Also, why are you bringing this up now? I specifically said "since the 1950's". Penicillin is much less effective, now. We need newer antibiotics which might treat things like MRSA. Penicillin was very effective, now it's not because it's been a long time. That's not hard to
Re: (Score:2)
When penicillin came out it was (as in PAST TENSE) 100% effective for a whole range of bacteriological diseases.
That is simply not true. Penicillin hugely reduced the numbers of deaths and amputations caused by bacterial infections but, even when it was first used, it was never 100% effective. Yes, it was _very_ effective but so was the initial covid vaccine before the virus mutated so if you don't count that because it became less effective over time then, to be logically consistent, you should not count penicillin either and then, following that logic you'd end up having to conclude that medicine has done nothing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bless your heart for still hanging on to hope that you can actually talk to or reason with this guy. God speed!
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, you keep telling yourself that. *pat pat pat*
Re: (Score:2)
Vaccines that turned out to be remarkably ineffective considering the overall promise of mRNA tech. They can neither prevent nor eradicate the disease...
Eradicate no but only diseases with very slow mutation rates and no non-human reservoirs can be eradicated neither of which are the fault of the vaccine. As for effectiveness the initial Covid vaccine was one of the most effective vaccines ever developed and while the virus mutated to the point that it could get around some of that protection the vaccine still gave significant protection against serious infection.
as long as they don't turn out to have any terrible long term side effects
Vaccines don't have hidden long-term side effects. All they do is stimulate the body's immune
Re: (Score:2)
Rare or not, Myocarditis and blood clotting are a way to sustain a long term injury or experience death,
Yes, they are, but the keyword you seemed to have missed in my post is "hidden". These are not hidden side effects that pop up years later, they happen within weeks of the vaccine being given. Hence, they are known about and taken into account when trying to decide whether the vaccine is safe or not. There is literally no medical procedure that is free of risk, the question you need to ask yourself is whether the risk of the procedure is less than the risk of the disease or condition that it treats and for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Long before there was penicillin there was silver but the invention of the miracle drug brought about an amnesia regarding silver.
Silver is still used in some limited situations. The handrails at your hospital may have been cleaned with a solution that leaves a trace of silver to help prevent the spread MRSA. There are nasal sprays and other forms of silver for your personal use if you know where to find them. I've heard that silver is used extensively to prevent infection in burn victims.
Research continues but scientists don't fully understand how silver kills germs; this is a step forward: https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com]
When I was a kid I blew my face off with a rocket engine (2nd degree burns). My mother diligently changed the bandages every day and applied the prescribed Silvadene cream. I had not a single infection and not a single scar.
Silver is good stuff.
Not so fast (Score:2)
Great news for veterinarians (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The role of bacteria in nature is to digest and decompose damaged and dead organic material.
If an organism has more bacteria than usual it is because something (malnutrition, toxin, physical or emotional trauma, emf) has damaged tissues. The bacteria arrive to clean up the damage.
Bacteria don't clean up the damage. They simply seize upon an opportunity to feed and reproduce. Sometimes this is a good thing. Often it is not. Even in cases like you describe where bacteria respond to tissue damage, the bacteria often impair the body's ability to repair the damage. So you end up with a circular process: damage brings bacteria, and bacteria maintain the damage so that it does not heal. While the bacteria may not be the root cause of the damage, they still must be controlled if heali
Re: (Score:2)
Until then, doctors are best avoided.
Yeah, you do that. Teach your friends and family too.
Will make the world a better place.
Re: (Score:2)
its been working well so far! fit and healthy here, not fat and addicted to junk food. phones, video games, and big pharma poisons like most americans and probably yourself.
Fortunately I'm not American, and we have a better health care system here anyway.
Re: (Score:1)