4 ms·

IBM improves delivery of nanomeds that kill bacteria where antibiotics fail

61 points by jaxonrice 14y ago

kevingadd 14y ago
The mention of HIV in an article talking about bacteria confuses me. Do bacteria and the HIV virus share some physical/biological property that makes it possible for them to be targeted and destroyed via the same mechanism?
graeham 14y ago
Original press release here, but it doesn't mention HIV http://www.ibn.a-star.edu.sg/images/cms_press/press_82.pdf http://www.ibn.a-star.edu.sg/images/cms_press/press_82.pdf My interpretation is that the hyrdagel-based "nanomeds" have the main advantage that they break-up biofilm colonies, which have a higher (100-1000x) drug resistance than free floating bacteria. It seems to be operating through mechanical rather than biological methods, but the exact mechanisms aren't described well in either article.
- roc 14y ago
  Would switching from a chemical/biological to a mechanical form of attack against bacteria be expected to produce an evolution of mechanically resistant bacteria? Be they variants that don't have the same properties that cause the nanogel to be attracted, or have cell walls that are too strong to be disrupted by the nano-stuctures, etc? I guess my question is: are we talking about a 'final weapon' sort of thing, where any potential 'defense' would require ditching some attribute that makes bacteria feasible in the first place? Or are we just talking about a new weapon, one that we fully expect to eventually wane in effectiveness and thus will have to continue iterating upon?
  - icegreentea 14y ago
    From my quick skip of relevant literature (there's a butt load of research in antibacterial hydrogels), we really aren't in any position to answer that question yet. The mechanism described in the press release is actually speculative. Many of the papers raise that mechanism as a possibility, but they'll also note that there are many human cells that have a cell membrane at least as electronegative as bacteria, and that they witness antibacterial effects against relatively neutrally charged bacteria membranes as well. One example can be found here [1]. Try flipping through the mechanism and cytotoxicity (how dangerous it is to human cells) sections. Basically, this is all exciting new research, but there really are no hard answers yet. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650250/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650250/
wcoenen 14y ago
Why is parkinson even mentioned? It is not a disease that is caused by infection. Same question for HIV. It's a virus so it doesn't have a membrane which this gel is supposed to attack. Same question for toenail infections. This is caused by fungi, not bacteria. Lots of marketing hype here. I don't believe a word of it.
- vidarh 14y ago
  I got the impression that when mentioning HIV and toenail infections etc., he's talking about the overall technique of a "nanomedicine" delivery via a hydrogel that "self assembles" when it comes into contact with water. The specific instance of that which they are currently focusing on appears to be targeting only bacteria, but since the method is focused on mechanical destruction of the cells, presumably they might be hoping that they can adapt the technique to detect and destroy other things as well.
- gus_massa 14y ago
  In the original press release from the laboratory they discuss using this against fungus and bacteria. So probably the toenail infections is correctly mentioned, but HIV and Parkinson is only hype.
lostlogin 14y ago
The real hard bit is to break is the idea that every bacterial disease needs antibiotics NOW. If used sparingly, those that were given a medication may actually benefit from it. But it's likely easier to create a new breed of medications than it is to reset expectations.
dlazerka 14y ago
"We can kill 100 percent of the bacteria" Didn't read further. There's no such thing as "100%" in medicine (even pure alcohol does not). They're not scientists.
- NolF 14y ago
  It's possible that alcohol kills 100% of the exposed bacteria, but we can't be sure due to measurement limitations, so that's why the bottles will say 99.99%.
super-serial 14y ago
That's great it kills bacteria... but what about the text spelling applications? I want a vial of that stuff, and then if someone asks me a question I don't like... I'll say "here, this gel will give you the answer." Then I'll walk away, and the gel will slowly form into the letters "Fuck You."

61 points by jaxonrice 14y ago

The mention of HIV in an article talking about bacteria confuses me. Do bacteria and the HIV virus share some physical/biological property that makes it possible for them to be targeted and destroyed via the same mechanism?

graeham 14y ago

Original press release here, but it doesn't mention HIV http://www.ibn.a-star.edu.sg/images/cms_press/press_82.pdf http://www.ibn.a-star.edu.sg/images/cms_press/press_82.pdf My interpretation is that the hyrdagel-based "nanomeds" have the main advantage that they break-up biofilm colonies, which have a higher (100-1000x) drug resistance than free floating bacteria. It seems to be operating through mechanical rather than biological methods, but the exact mechanisms aren't described well in either article.

roc 14y ago
Would switching from a chemical/biological to a mechanical form of attack against bacteria be expected to produce an evolution of mechanically resistant bacteria? Be they variants that don't have the same properties that cause the nanogel to be attracted, or have cell walls that are too strong to be disrupted by the nano-stuctures, etc? I guess my question is: are we talking about a 'final weapon' sort of thing, where any potential 'defense' would require ditching some attribute that makes bacteria feasible in the first place? Or are we just talking about a new weapon, one that we fully expect to eventually wane in effectiveness and thus will have to continue iterating upon?
- icegreentea 14y ago
  From my quick skip of relevant literature (there's a butt load of research in antibacterial hydrogels), we really aren't in any position to answer that question yet. The mechanism described in the press release is actually speculative. Many of the papers raise that mechanism as a possibility, but they'll also note that there are many human cells that have a cell membrane at least as electronegative as bacteria, and that they witness antibacterial effects against relatively neutrally charged bacteria membranes as well. One example can be found here [1]. Try flipping through the mechanism and cytotoxicity (how dangerous it is to human cells) sections. Basically, this is all exciting new research, but there really are no hard answers yet. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650250/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650250/

wcoenen 14y ago

Why is parkinson even mentioned? It is not a disease that is caused by infection. Same question for HIV. It's a virus so it doesn't have a membrane which this gel is supposed to attack. Same question for toenail infections. This is caused by fungi, not bacteria. Lots of marketing hype here. I don't believe a word of it.

vidarh 14y ago
I got the impression that when mentioning HIV and toenail infections etc., he's talking about the overall technique of a "nanomedicine" delivery via a hydrogel that "self assembles" when it comes into contact with water. The specific instance of that which they are currently focusing on appears to be targeting only bacteria, but since the method is focused on mechanical destruction of the cells, presumably they might be hoping that they can adapt the technique to detect and destroy other things as well.
gus_massa 14y ago
In the original press release from the laboratory they discuss using this against fungus and bacteria. So probably the toenail infections is correctly mentioned, but HIV and Parkinson is only hype.

lostlogin 14y ago

The real hard bit is to break is the idea that every bacterial disease needs antibiotics NOW. If used sparingly, those that were given a medication may actually benefit from it. But it's likely easier to create a new breed of medications than it is to reset expectations.

dlazerka 14y ago

"We can kill 100 percent of the bacteria" Didn't read further. There's no such thing as "100%" in medicine (even pure alcohol does not). They're not scientists.

NolF 14y ago
It's possible that alcohol kills 100% of the exposed bacteria, but we can't be sure due to measurement limitations, so that's why the bottles will say 99.99%.

super-serial 14y ago

That's great it kills bacteria... but what about the text spelling applications? I want a vial of that stuff, and then if someone asks me a question I don't like... I'll say "here, this gel will give you the answer." Then I'll walk away, and the gel will slowly form into the letters "Fuck You."