4 ms·

Amazing. Also neat that we may actually learn to treat human infections better after this discovery. "Erik Frank. Laurent Keller also adds that these findings

Amazing. Also neat that we may actually learn to treat human infections better after this discovery. "Erik Frank. Laurent Keller also adds that these findings 'have medical implications because the primary pathogen in ant’s wounds, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, is also a leading cause of infection in humans, with several strains being resistant to antibiotics'." Love imagining leading scientists from big pharma rushing to investigate the compound cocktails ants are using to make the next blockbuster drug.

danielheath 3y ago
And here I thought their anty bodies were enough to fight disease.
- Xeamek 3y ago
  What?
  - leosanchez 3y ago
    Antibody
  - burrish 3y ago
    ant-y-body
- collyw 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- HaZeust 3y ago
  Nice.
vibrio 3y ago
This is a pedantic note, but in general Pharma does not care about antibiotics drug development - It’s an economic desert. If it was a cancer or serious rare disease drug, they’d be grinding up buckets of ants yesterday.
- RmTheGame 3y ago
  Well rare disease is also an economic desert. Its only because of Government regulation big pharma started to care about these. Mainly the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 with provided tax incentives as well as subsidized research. There is also the Rare Disease act of 2002 but that IMO is less signifigant. Don't forget that for rare diseases affecting children the government awards fast track vouchers. These allow you to shorten the approval time of another drug (or sell it for a few hundred million for another company to do the same. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Drug_Act_of_1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Drug_Act_of_1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Diseases_Act_of_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Diseases_Act_of_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_review
  - vibrio 3y ago
    I totally agree. Although I'm not sure similar vouchers for antibiotics would be sufficient for the same success, as there are also logistical, financial and scientific advantages that have enabled rare disease drug development. Many rare disease being targeted are monogenic, providing a very 'clean' scientific mechanism, and higher success rates. The clinical studies can be small well defined population as pre/neonatal genetic testing is now routine, and supportive Foundations are often instrumental. Financially, insurers/payers have been amenable to huge per-patient prices in rare diseases because of low volume and often impressive efficacy. Developing antibiotics has lower technical success rates. The medical need is more acute and distributed across more broad populations with much of them poor making patients 'harder to find'. Any novel antibiotic are typicaly held in reserve until after generation of resistance to all the current drugs, limiting volume. Commonly, physician and patient over-/mis-usage of antibiotics generates resistance, generating a limited 'valuable' life span of the drug. There are many governmental/regulatory incentives being developed, and at least one industry-backed fund (AMR action fund) supporting early research but it’s still a challenge to build business plans for this.

danielheath 3y ago

And here I thought their anty bodies were enough to fight disease.

Xeamek 3y ago
What?
- leosanchez 3y ago
  Antibody
- burrish 3y ago
  ant-y-body
collyw 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
HaZeust 3y ago
Nice.

vibrio 3y ago

This is a pedantic note, but in general Pharma does not care about antibiotics drug development - It’s an economic desert. If it was a cancer or serious rare disease drug, they’d be grinding up buckets of ants yesterday.

RmTheGame 3y ago
Well rare disease is also an economic desert. Its only because of Government regulation big pharma started to care about these. Mainly the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 with provided tax incentives as well as subsidized research. There is also the Rare Disease act of 2002 but that IMO is less signifigant. Don't forget that for rare diseases affecting children the government awards fast track vouchers. These allow you to shorten the approval time of another drug (or sell it for a few hundred million for another company to do the same. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Drug_Act_of_1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Drug_Act_of_1983 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Diseases_Act_of_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Diseases_Act_of_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_review
- vibrio 3y ago
  I totally agree. Although I'm not sure similar vouchers for antibiotics would be sufficient for the same success, as there are also logistical, financial and scientific advantages that have enabled rare disease drug development. Many rare disease being targeted are monogenic, providing a very 'clean' scientific mechanism, and higher success rates. The clinical studies can be small well defined population as pre/neonatal genetic testing is now routine, and supportive Foundations are often instrumental. Financially, insurers/payers have been amenable to huge per-patient prices in rare diseases because of low volume and often impressive efficacy. Developing antibiotics has lower technical success rates. The medical need is more acute and distributed across more broad populations with much of them poor making patients 'harder to find'. Any novel antibiotic are typicaly held in reserve until after generation of resistance to all the current drugs, limiting volume. Commonly, physician and patient over-/mis-usage of antibiotics generates resistance, generating a limited 'valuable' life span of the drug. There are many governmental/regulatory incentives being developed, and at least one industry-backed fund (AMR action fund) supporting early research but it’s still a challenge to build business plans for this.