New class of antibiotics identified/under development

[PokerGuy]

This is a glimmer of hope for an otherwise very gloomy outlook for antibiotics and medical care in general.

With companies abandoning development of antibiotics in favor of other more profitable meds, there hasn't been any significant new antibiotic option in 30-40 years. With organisms rapidly becoming resistant to currently available antibiotics, without new developments in the field we could essentially go back 100 years in terms of medical options soon, as any little infection could easily become deadly and routine medical procedures would be potentially life threatening.

Enter iChip (can't wait to see if Apple's going to try and sue over that one :biggrin. Two doctors working with NIH and the German government came up with a nifty new way to be able to culture bacteria, making it possible to grow and study strains that were previously out of reach. Using their technique, they were able to study some bacteria and identify a very promising new type of antibiotic - Teixobactin.

Interesting read: http://www.forbes.com/sites/judysto...p-promise-hope-against-antibiotic-resistance/

 

[Brainonska511]

As I said in the OT thread:
I saw that paper in Nature earlier today, but I'm a little skeptical of their claim that resistance will be slow to develop. There are many resistance mechanisms available to bacteria:

1) Efflux pumps which can remove the antibiotic from the cell. <-- these are great for dealing with low-level exposure and giving cells time to adapt in the other methods
2) An enzyme can come along and chemically modify the new drug
3) An enzyme can come along and break down the new drug
4) There could be a mutation in the drug target <---this seems to be the one they are suggesting would be unlikely for resistance to quickly develop

Just looking at the history of antibiotics and the fact that there has been over a billion years of chemical warfare and communication between single-celled organisms. Did you know that in the late '50s (or early 60s), two years after the introduction of streptomycin to fight tuberculosis, there were already reported cases of antibiotic resistance to streptomycin. But one big way they can stave off the resistance problem is using new drugs like this as only a last resort.

 

[abj13]

but I'm a little skeptical of their claim that resistance will be slow to develop.

I'll have to look at the paper too, but to offer the flip side argument, since the discovery of penicillin, there has NEVER been an isolate from a patient of Group A Strep, Group B Strep, or Treponema pallidum (Syphilis) that has been fully resistant to penicillin. Never. In all the years we have flooded patients with penicillins and its derivatives, resistance has never been an issue. Why? Nobody knows. But there's certainly the possibility of certain classes of antibiotics retaining their activity against select bacteria for mechanisms currently unknown.

 

[PokerGuy]

As I said in the OT thread:
I saw that paper in Nature earlier today, but I'm a little skeptical of their claim that resistance will be slow to develop. There are many resistance mechanisms available to bacteria:

1) Efflux pumps which can remove the antibiotic from the cell. <-- these are great for dealing with low-level exposure and giving cells time to adapt in the other methods
2) An enzyme can come along and chemically modify the new drug
3) An enzyme can come along and break down the new drug
4) There could be a mutation in the drug target <---this seems to be the one they are suggesting would be unlikely for resistance to quickly develop

Just looking at the history of antibiotics and the fact that there has been over a billion years of chemical warfare and communication between single-celled organisms. Did you know that in the late '50s (or early 60s), two years after the introduction of streptomycin to fight tuberculosis, there were already reported cases of antibiotic resistance to streptomycin. But one big way they can stave off the resistance problem is using new drugs like this as only a last resort.

Regardless of how quickly resistance to the antibiotic develops or doesn't develop, it's an important development in that it's not only a new class of antibiotic (after 30 years of no new ones), but with this technique I would imagine they will be able to study many other strains of bacteria to identify other new classes of antibiotics. I'm more encouraged by the development of the technique to grow/study the bacteria than the development of a single class of antibiotic.

 

[Brainonska511]

I'll have to look at the paper too, but to offer the flip side argument, since the discovery of penicillin, there has NEVER been an isolate from a patient of Group A Strep, Group B Strep, or Treponema pallidum (Syphilis) that has been fully resistant to penicillin. Never. In all the years we have flooded patients with penicillins and its derivatives, resistance has never been an issue. Why? Nobody knows. But there's certainly the possibility of certain classes of antibiotics retaining their activity against select bacteria for mechanisms currently unknown.

I hadn't seen that earlier issue (remaining sensitivity even after 60+ years of exposure to an antibiotic class). As to the bolded, coming from a perspective where we actually work on trying to determine how some forms of resistance work (at least a tiny, tiny sliver of the problem), this is why we need to keep funding basic research through the NIH. There are simply a lot of things in molecular biology and biophysics that we just don't understand; being able to say how a resistance mechanism works at a molecular level might give some insight into future drug targets (both for cancers, viral infections, and bacterial infections).

 

[Brainonska511]

Regardless of how quickly resistance to the antibiotic develops or doesn't develop, it's an important development in that it's not only a new class of antibiotic (after 30 years of no new ones), but with this technique I would imagine they will be able to study many other strains of bacteria to identify other new classes of antibiotics. I'm not encouraged by the development of the technique to grow/study the bacteria than the development of a single class of antibiotic.

There may not have been new classes, but new antibiotics have rolled onto the scene in the last 30 years that have been quite effective. But yes, I agree, it is good that they have discovered another potential antibiotic class.

In general, as instrumentation becomes more sensitive, you'll be able to isolate smaller and smaller populations within a sample of soil (or whatever), and these are always good things. The biggest hurdle to studying bacteria in the wild is the inability to culture them in the lab.

 

[PokerGuy]

The biggest hurdle to studying bacteria in the wild is the inability to culture them in the lab.

Exactly, and based on my (admittedly modest) understanding of this, it appears the docs came up with a much better way of growing them for study. That's the part that is most interesting to me, not just the identification of one particular new antibiotic. If the technique can be used to effectively study thousands of bacteria that could not feasibly be studied before, then it's a game changer.

 

[kage69]

Go Maine!


If it shows promise with MRSA, hell yes. Almost lost my father in law to that stuff.

 

[PottedMeat]

But one big way they can stave off the resistance problem is using new drugs like this as only a last resort.

aww are you saying we shouldn't pump this by the gallon into our livestock asap?

 

[Brainonska511]

aww are you saying we shouldn't pump this by the gallon into our livestock asap?

Yeah. I think giving antibiotics to animals in low-level doses to promote fattening of the animal is a very bad idea and incredibly short sighted. It's rather incredulous that it's been allowed to continue for so long, given the now glaring problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria (which costs a lot of money and kills a lot of people). Constant, below-lethal levels of exposure to antibiotics promotes the development and spread of existing (and arising) resistance genes in bacterial populations. There is no need to exacerbate the current situation by giving bacteria the evolutionary pressure to become (more) resistant.

However, I believe giving antibiotics to animals that actually have a bacterial infection should still be allowed.

 

[senseamp]

This is absolutely huge if it pans out.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

The science nerd in me thinks this is neat, the health care worker in me thinks let me know when it reaches Phase II/III testing.

The mechanism to culture it is more exciting IMO.

 

[hal2kilo]

Hopefully this isn't being over optimistic. There has been very little good news on the antibiotic front.

Hopefully they won't let the ag business use it for a feed additive so it won't loose it's effectiveness in too short of time.

 

[PokerGuy]

Hopefully this isn't being over optimistic. There has been very little good news on the antibiotic front.

Hopefully they won't let the ag business use it for a feed additive so it won't loose it's effectiveness in too short of time.

Ag use of antibiotics on a large scale with animals for reasons other than curing a bacterial infection is extremely stupid IMO and should be banned.