Scientists develop molecule that reverses antibiotic resistance - best shot at ending it to date - Polidicks

[quote=www.sciencealert.com]Scientists have developed a molecule that reverses antibiotic resistance in multiple strains of bacteria at once, making it one of the most promising advances we've had to date in the fight against superbugs. The announcement couldn't come at a better time - in the past week, researchers have reported that a US woman was killed by a superbug resistant to every available antibiotic, and that antibiotic resistance is now spreading faster and more stealthily than they'd expected. In the war against superbugs, we're currently losing.[/quote] [url]http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-just-announced-our-best-shot-at-ending-antibiotic-resistance-to-date[/url]

The irony being that organisms have shown to have the ability to develop resistance to the class of molecule they are using. [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464405/[/url] [QUOTE]A spontaneous PPMO-resistant strain (BAPR1) was isolated by growing B. anthracis Sterne in broth supplemented with 20 μM (RFF)3R-AcpP. BAPR1 was further characterized for its susceptibility to ciprofloxacin and PPMOs. As depicted in Table 2, the MIC results show that BAPR1 was fully susceptible to ciprofloxacin but was mildly resistant (4-fold) to the PPMO (06-0760) used for selection. Furthermore, BAPR1 was 8- fold more resistant to (RFF)3R-FtsZ (07-1161) compared with the parental Sterne strain. (RFF)3R-FtsZ is targeted to a noncoding region upstream of the start codon of ftsZ, which is an essential gene required for bacterial cell division. These results suggest that the mechanism of resistance to PPMOs in BAPR1 is not specific for acpP. In contrast, BAPR1 was fully susceptible to (RFF)3R-GyrA (NG-07-1087). Apparently the mechanism of resistance is not linked to the peptide, but appears to be linked to the sequence of the PMO.[/QUOTE]

Lets just hope this leads way to something more long term then, progress is always welcomed in this field.

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;51709005]At this point if we developed nanobots to fight superbugs I wouldn't be surprised if the superbugs built their own nanobots to fight them.[/QUOTE] When you think about it, with all this adaptation and rapid evolution in the face of our attempts to maintain our high health, bacteria have started to become like the Borg. An ever-adapting foe towards which resistance is seemingly starting to become futile. Though like the Borg, I don't imagine that bacteria could "adapt" to being torn apart by nanomachines with jaws of steel and BIG MEATY CLAWS. Just a hunch, I might be wrong, but I reckon that if superbugs become even more numerous, we'll probably need the pharmaceutical equivalent of Klingon warriors. Microscopic machines that get in close and cut pathogens to subcellular ribbons that our white blood cells can stuff their faces with.

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;51709005]At this point if we developed nanobots to fight superbugs I wouldn't be surprised if the superbugs built their own nanobots to fight them.[/QUOTE] You just have to program the nanobots to cycle their frequency every ten seconds, that's how they beat the Borg for a while in Star Trek.

[QUOTE=James xX;51708666]The irony being that organisms have shown to have the ability to develop resistance to the class of molecule they are using. [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464405/[/url][/QUOTE] Fuuuuck.

[QUOTE=James xX;51708666]The irony being that organisms have shown to have the ability to develop resistance to the class of molecule they are using. [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464405/[/url][/QUOTE] we just have to make molecules that have the ability to reverse their resistance to our molecule that reverses their resistance to our antibiotics!

No wonder the Martians lost.

[QUOTE=PelPix123;51709667]bacteria [I]are[/I] nanobots, they'd just change themselves to fight them[/QUOTE] Life can only adapt so much tbqh

[QUOTE=James xX;51708666]A spontaneous PPMO-resistant strain (BAPR1) was isolated by growing B. anthracis Sterne in broth supplemented with 20 μM (RFF)3R-AcpP. BAPR1 was further characterized for its susceptibility to ciprofloxacin and PPMOs. As depicted in Table 2, the MIC results show that BAPR1 was fully susceptible to ciprofloxacin but was mildly resistant (4-fold) to the PPMO (06-0760) used for selection. Furthermore, BAPR1 was 8- fold more resistant to (RFF)3R-FtsZ (07-1161) compared with the parental Sterne strain. (RFF)3R-FtsZ is targeted to a noncoding region upstream of the start codon of ftsZ, which is an essential gene required for bacterial cell division. These results suggest that the mechanism of resistance to PPMOs in BAPR1 is not specific for acpP. In contrast, BAPR1 was fully susceptible to (RFF)3R-GyrA (NG-07-1087). Apparently the mechanism of resistance is not linked to the peptide, but appears to be linked to the sequence of the PMO. [/QUOTE] Mhm yeah I know some of these words.

[QUOTE=PelPix123;51709667]bacteria [I]are[/I] nanobots, they'd just change themselves to fight them[/QUOTE] Bacteria can't really evolve an effective defense against mechanical destruction.

[QUOTE=TestECull;51710544]Bacteria can't really evolve an effective defense against mechanical destruction.[/QUOTE] You say that now. I bet you won't be so cheeky when scientists publish the first enhanced images of bacteria flying Gundams through the blood stream, though!

Well, nanobots would effectively have a 100% destruction rate of the bacteria present ideally. So no bacteria would be left to adapt. Hardcore.

At that point you would have nanobots you cant expel from your body and they would eventually become microshrapnel

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51711097]At that point you would have nanobots you cant expel from your body and they would eventually become microshrapnel[/QUOTE] having microshrapnel in my blood sounds metal as fuck

[QUOTE=shotgun334;51711116]having microshrapnel in my blood sounds metal as fuck[/QUOTE] Blood Metal.

are nanobots feasible for mass public use in hospitals?

[QUOTE=Firetornado;51711124]are nanobots feasible for mass public use in hospitals?[/QUOTE] Probably not seeing as they aren't really much of a thing yet. There are small-scale specialised drug delivery systems in use currently though, stuff like using micelles as a delivery system for drugs, with research looking into expanding their usefulness, but even then it's still a long way from anywhere near nanobots for medical use. At least in my opinion, antibiotics are going to be around for a long time still, and will likely still be one of the main defenses against bacteria even after any advances in alternatives.

This sounds great to use secretly against a country's population to weaken them versus diseases and such, as a bio weapon, no?

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;51711177]This sounds great to use secretly against a country's population to weaken them versus diseases and such, as a bio weapon, no?[/QUOTE] How do you mean?

Watch congress shut off the funding for this.

So it's essentially a sort of antisense therapy that targets the NDM-1 mRNA. Considering the low level of sequence homology between the different metallo-ß-lactamases I'm not sure how useful this will be clinically. [editline]23rd January 2017[/editline] My bad, they targeted a conserved region upstream of the actual gene itself. I don't know how well conserved these sequences are between different MBLs, if they are then that's good, otherwise this is pretty much only useful for NDM-1.

Let's get this out of the way, the title (I know it's from the linked article) is complete hyperbole. You can't "end" antibiotic resistance. Using drugs to fight infections is an arms race; one that we will not doubt lose one day. You can extend the lifetime of usefulness of particular antibiotics which is what is happening here. It's a noble goal and one that has been achieved before (beta-lactamase inhibitors to restore penicillin activity). Good luck to the researchers. We'll take anything we can get.