5 ms·
Understandable doubt, but I heard that The Lancet has serious reputation and thought it would not post complete rubbish. These concerns are addressed at least
by avodonosov 4y ago
Understandable doubt, but I heard that The Lancet has serious reputation and thought it would not post complete rubbish.
These concerns are addressed at least to some extent in the paper.
Note also, the title not necessarily means "resistance impossible", it may mean "currently no resistance, even after explicit attempts to evoke it, using methods that for other antibiotics do result in resistance".
I myself am not competent to judge. You may be right in your skepticism.
From the paper:
> The evolution of bacterial resistance to COE2-2hexyl was analysed in S. Typhimurium and MRSA, using either serial dilution or morbidostat-based experimental evolution (see Methods). Serial dilution. No high-level COER mutants (≥50 × MIC) of either S. Typhimurium 14028 or CA-MRSA USA300 were isolated after serial dilution for 21 days; however, low-level COER mutants were recovered in both organisms (8 × MIC and 4 × MIC, respectively) (Supplementary Fig S1a; Supplementary Table S4a and b). Morbidostat. Although high-level CIPR mutants of wild-type E. coli (BW25113) were obtained after morbidostat culture for >3 days (64-128 × MIC),35 no COER mutants were observed under these conditions. Therefore, E. coli mutL (JW4128) and wild-type A. baumannii ATCC 17978 were assessed for COER mutants since both strains possess an inherently higher frequency of mutation (∼10-100-fold), resulting from deficiencies in either methyl-directed mismatch repair or the intrinsic DNA damage-inducible response, respectively.45,46 Only low-level COER mutants (2-4 × MIC) were recovered from either of these hypermutable strains, which is in marked contrast with the high-level CIPR mutants (128 × MIC) observed for A. baumannii35 (Supplementary Fig. S1b; Supplementary Table S4c–e).
Whole genome sequencing of COER mutants revealed mutation(s) in genes encoding essential functions involved in membrane remodelling and secretion (Supplementary Table S4a–e). Examples include: Gram-negative secA and bamA involved in outer membrane protein biogenesis and lptD from the lipopolysaccharide translocation complex47,48; pgsA from the phosphatidylglycerol biogenesis pathway49; and Gram-positive pmtR from the cytolytic peptide toxin transporter pathway.50 Consistent with this observation, a de novo constructed S. Typhimurium secA nonsense mutant (G880∗ (GGA→TGA))—derived from COER mutant analysis from serial-dilution—showed a two-fold increase in COE resistance (Supplementary Table S4a). Taken together, these data suggest that COE2-2hexyl did not evoke significant bacterial resistance, potentially due to specific effects on essential functions involved in membrane remodelling and secretion.
[... they go on in the Discussion section ...]
BTW, the "serial dilution" method name sounds to me like what is illustrated by this famous video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
- zapdrive 4y ago> I heard that The Lancet has serious reputation and thought it would not post complete rubbish. After their complete u-turns on COVID origin theory and hydroxy chloroquine, I would seriously reconsider your statement.
- elil17 4y agoThe Lancet is a peer reviewed journal - their goal is to publish research that meets a high bar in terms of academic rigor and potential impact. They didn't take a u-turn on hydroxychloroquine, they just published multiple papers at different times that don't agree with each other.
- pessimizer 4y agoThey published a massive fraud that they were warned about by many. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/10/surgisphere-sapan-desai-lancet-study-hydroxychloroquine-mass-audit-scientific-papers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/10/surgisphere-sa... edit: more dramatic... The Lancet has made one of the biggest retractions in modern history. How could this happen? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/lancet-had-to-do-one-of-the-biggest-retractions-in-modern-history-how-could-this-happen https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/lancet...
- outlace 4y ago"Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines" < https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831678/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831678/ >. Even the Lancet makes big mistakes sometimes.
- busyant 4y agoI don't mean to bash the reputation of the Lancet nor that of the authors. But here's one thing to keep in mind with respect to this specific research. They examined the ability of two specific strains of bacteria to develop resistance. There are tons of microbial pathogens mixed together and 'promiscuously' swapping genetic material [including those for resistance] out there in the real world. Two specific strains (one for S. typhimurium and one for S. aureus) in isolation are like two water molecules in the ocean. It's a nice start, but it's far from the finish line. Also, keep in mind that the corresponding authors are academics (UCSB). The bar is pretty low with respect to what they have to deliver. I don't mean that as an insult--their job is basic research. Their job is not to make a marketed product. I used to be an "ivory tower snob." I thought university profs were a cut above industry researchers, but it's far more mixed (in my experience) and the research (between industry and academia) is judged by different metrics. In biotech, your research needs to lead to something that actually makes money. Otherwise, nobody cares. Academic research is far more exploratory, which is what I think this paper is an example of.