3 ms·
I sincerely hope they are able to synthesize this, and that the synthetic doesn't lose any effectiveness over the natural compound. It sounds like an amazing b
by djrogers 10y ago
I sincerely hope they are able to synthesize this, and that the synthetic doesn't lose any effectiveness over the natural compound. It sounds like an amazing breakthrough if it works out, as it's much more than a garden-variety antibiotic. FTA:
"It punched holes in the outer membranes of both gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria, it dissolved the biofilms that glue bacteria together, and it sped skin healing."
Getting through the cell walls of gram-negative bacteria alone would make this worth investigating, but the other two added to it are like icing on the life-saving cake.
- marcosdumay 10y agoFTA the mouse trials were done on synthetic peptides already.
- folli 10y agoNot to take anything away from the accomplishment (we definitely need more research on antibiotics), but the wound healing experiment is IMO just sloppy: they compared a infected wound treated using the peptide to an untreated wound. I could imagine that even a basic wound desinfection using rubbing alcohol will have comparative results to this peptide.
- barongrounds 10y agoAs far as I'm aware, alcohol or other disinfectants slow healing as they damage tissue. Flushing with water is much better.
- mabbo 10y agoDepends what question you're trying to answer. If the question is "Is this the greatest antibiotic ever", well, sure you'll want to compare it against a slew of other compounds. But if your question is "does this increase the speed of healing at all?" as a first test before later, more complex experiments, then this seems fine to me.
- busyant 10y agoGram + bacteria have no outer membrane.
- busyant 10y agoGram + bacteria have no outer membrane.