4 ms·

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

by 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/

by graeham 14y ago

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/