3 ms·
From the paper (published in an Open Access journal at https://peerj.com/articles/5801.pdf https://peerj.com/articles/5801.pdf): "Neither reducing the use of a
by steve19 8y ago
From the paper (published in an Open Access journal at https://peerj.com/articles/5801.pdf https://peerj.com/articles/5801.pdf):
"Neither reducing the use of antibiotics nor discovery of new ones may prevent the postantibiotic
era. This is because bacteria may be exposed to other non-antibiotic chemicals
that predispose them to evolve resistance to antibiotics more quickly"
Can someone who understands this stuff explain to why this is the case. Surely bateria will only evolve resistance to the specific mechanism the antibiotic/herbicide uses to attack the bacteria? Are Roundup and antibiotics using the same mechanism to kill batericia?
Doesn't antibiotic resistance come at a cost? Would not a new antibiotic that uses a new mechanism of killing bacteria be effective regardless of herbicide use?
- strainer 8y agoThe quote accurately begins: "Neither reducing the use of antibiotics nor discovery of new ones may be sufficient strategies to avoid the post-antibiotic era." This can have a different meaning from your slightly abbreviated version - the "may" has more ambiguity and in context means they may fail. Your shortened version more suggests the strategies cannot succeed. The authors must themselves understand this stuff to a good extent and follow their assessment "this is because..." Your questions are to a different statement "couldnt they succeed like this...?" Maybe
- steve19 8y agoI did NOT abbreviate, tamper or shorten the quote. I copy and pasted from the article. See "CONCLUSIONS" on page 15. The author(s) appears to have abbreviated themselves in the conclusion.