Drug-resistant bacteria have been in the news recently and I was struck by the nightmarish features of some strains:
 |
| Extended-spectrum β-lactamase |
 |
| Neisseria gonorrhoeae |
Another factor is that drug companies have stopped finding new anti-biotic drugs -- or at least the pace of discovery has slowed. Pharmaceutical companies used to scour the earth (literally) to find new anti-bacterials. Microbes are a ruthless lot, killing each other in competitive and ceaseless turf wars. Naturally-occurring antibiotics were found in bacteria that serve to kill competitors. But like "easy" oil, many "easy" antibiotics discoveries have already been made. Only a few harder-to-discover examples and new classes of antibiotics have been found recently.
Genomics gave new hope and promise. With knowledge of a bacterium's genetic code and hence its protein sequences, myriad synthetic drugs could block or inhibit crucial bacterial proteins. At least testing was easy (in theory). This hope did not pan out. In the meantime, many drug companies switched focus to more pressing (and lucrative) cures. The pipeline is dry.
17 comments:
This is no war. We're all merely habitat for bacteria. Sometimes they just get a little out of control and despoil their own environment.
Looks like vintage porn.
Looks like vintage porn.
We need Ritmo to wax nostalgically and eloquently.
Drug-resistant bacteria are the result of intelligent design.
Drug-resistant bacteria are the result of intelligent design.
Antibiotics are evolving too.
Good thing for Ritmo - those things wont grow near a bleached nether orifice.
The common cold still renders me humbled and useless. Of course the common cold is a virus, not bacteria.
One problem it seems is that often people run for the anti-biotic when they get a cold. That's a big no-no.
I wonder how the testing of phages to treat bacterial infections is going.
@YH: Here's an intelligent design: link
We evolved only to note the beauty of bacteria.
This is apparent with sourdough.
I don't know what is going on in there so I must imagine it by observing its behavior that I take to be collective behavior.
I neglect the culture so a full day elapses without feeding and they're already adapted brilliantly. They close down without dying but they must be revived back to full activity. While some stay active. Just barely.
If I make bread at that point I will get a disappointing result. Good taste but not lift.
If I am attentive and feed twice a day, every twelve hours, discard excess and keep the sample small, then only the fastest survive until it's all fast and active, and that happens within just two feedings.
Then speed it up more, feed and discard three times a day, regular at eight hours (at this point also a question, who's zooming whom?) the culture becomes faster and active. I am assuming only the fastest within the culture survived.
So when I neglect again. Only the from among the fastest survive. And through all that the ones that shut down early survive culling with active yeast, both dead, and active, and shut down are both culled and saved. And I wonder, what havoc have I wrought with my careless ways? I never have been steady with this whole nurturing thing.
The pipeline is dry.
Sounds like somebody is not bullish on bacteria.
The pipeline is dry.
Sounds like somebody is not bullish on bacteria.
You sure it wasn't just a comment misplaced from the premature ejaculation thread?
Or, for that matter, from the Hillary! thread.
Still must try to culture wild yeast...now! Be right back.
False alarm.
Talking about your yeast infection is much more icky than anal bleaching. Just sayn'
Post a Comment