4 ms·
There is one thing that worries me about this. See humans and pathogens have a common interest. We don't want to be killed. And they don't want to kill us. So h
by im3w1l 5y ago
There is one thing that worries me about this. See humans and pathogens have a common interest. We don't want to be killed. And they don't want to kill us. So how can this be achieved? By using stronger defences in key parts of the body. Pathogens have no incentive to circumvent them, by respecting the boundaries they can infect and spread without killing with all of the issues that come with that. But if we take the best defences and apply them everywhere this balance could be permanently disrupted. Now whether this all applies to these peptides is an open question, but I hope they will consider risk/reward carefully.
- jryb 5y agoWe've eradicated diseases before and nothing happened (e.g. smallpox, polio). Also, the only risk is that the bacteria gain resistance to these peptides. Which isn't even that great of a risk - if humans express these peptides, we've been trying these antibiotics for millions of years. Clearly nothing bad happened.
- im3w1l 5y agoI think you are missing my point. If there is an antibiotic peptide that's only expressed in the brain, then there is no benefit for bacteria to evolve resistance to it. It would make us too sick. Afflicted people would stay home which would reduce spread. Normally diseases evolve the opposite way: to be less and less harmful. This is known as Smith's "law of declining virulence". So they may even evolve vulnerability. If you take that some peptide and and put it inside your whole body, then evolving resistance becomes a high priority. Bacteria who don't do it stop spreading. And once they have evolved resistance there is no going back. You can't send a security update with new brain specific anti-biotics.