6 ms·

IBM Research produces staph-killing polymers that leave healthy cells alone

113 points by suchitpuri 13y ago

jrockway 13y ago
In addition to the potential use for systemic delivery of drugs, scientists suggest that additional applications for these polymers could include adding them to every day personal and cleaning solutions. Oh, good idea! Let's also put it in the drinking water and feed it to livestock! Nothing like that has ever caused resistance problems in the past!
- troels 13y ago
  "They try to mimic what the immune system does: the polymer attaches to the bacteria's membrane and then facilitates destabilization of the membrane. It falls apart, everything falls out and there's little opportunity for it to develop resistance to these polymers." But yeah, caution might be a good idea.
  - ProblemFactory 13y ago
    Developing resistance is not individual bacteria "going to the gym" and training to be stronger. To develop resistance, all that is needed is a random genetic mutation that makes a few of the bacteria cells less susceptible to the polymer. The polymer kills all other cells, and the resistant strain grows in numbers and takes their place.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
      Then it quits working (unlikely if the polymer attaches to vital cell membrane mechanisms but anyway). So what? Make a new polymer. That's the point; this can attack whatever. Its no longer a terrible problem if disease cells change or new ones appear. And what's the alternative? Don't attack the cells? Let people get sick and die now, because in the future this mechanism which we aren't using might be obsolete? What's the logic there?
      - rfrey 13y ago
        To be fair, I didn't see anybody suggest that. This conversation tributary was about using the polymer as broadly as antibiotics are used now, in agriculture etc.
      - shiven 13y ago
        So what? Make a new polymer. ORLY? Sorry to sound condescending but your glib comment shows an utter lack of awareness about discovering or designing novel drugs. It is never as simple as changing a line of code to get a new molecule that will kill the now resistant bugs and have no new adverse effects on the host. Drug resistance is a huge problem today and threatens to grow bigger, where pathogens become resistant to drugs (known to be generally safe) and the arsenal of medicines is empty or has investigational drugs of unknown safety. And what's the alternative? Don't attack the cells? No. The alternative, in the short term, is to avoid indiscriminate use of drugs that still work, by testing the infecting bugs for pre-existing resistance markers and then using drugs that are orthogonal to co-evolving resistance mutations. In the longer term, discovering wholly new classes of drugs, like this polymer, but testing for safety and adverse side-effects, is going to be our best hope. Again, the caveat against indiscriminate use applies.
        JoeAltmaier 13y ago
        This is absolutely not 'a new drug'. This wasn't made through the tedious try-1000-things-and-see-what-sticks. This was a DESIGNED polymer, made explicitely through chemistry to attack a particular animicule. The old antibiotics are done; the CDC calls the age of antibiotics 'over'. There is no longer any use in stonewalling or holding back on chemistry through some fear that it will ruin the status quo. The status quo is 'nothing works'. This is a game-changer. The old arguments, the old ways of thinking, are probably obsolete. \ So cut out the 'glib' stale arguments and read the article again; come up with a cogent point.
        rustynails 13y ago
        You do know what an Eco-system is, don't you? Where things are linked in non-obvious ways, and changes almost certainly initiate other changes. This silver bullet mentality is prone to disaster. The bacteria may evolve, starting an arms race, leading to stronger bacteria, or possible fragmentation that makes management or synthesis time-consuming, difficult or may strengthen other nasties. Do you really know what the impacts are likely to be? I'm sure you don't, which is why caution is essential. Flippant "silver bullet" speculation not-withstanding.
- ZirconCode 13y ago
  Iodised Salt? It possibly can be a good thing, yes we should be cautious, but I think it's rash to judge it negatively from the very start.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  No issue with resistance. Its this kind of unthinking FUD that muddies the conversation. Can we talk about what this polymer actually does?
  - troymc 13y ago
    Could you please explain, for the layman, why resistance isn't an issue?
    - eplanit 13y ago
      You are asking a layman for a layman's explanation.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    Life evolves to improved fitness. The polymer works by destabilizing the cell membrane. A mutation which reduces the efficacy of that mechanism would, in fact, promote resistance to the method. Whether or not the polymer design could be modified to adapt to that change (and what the costs of this might be) are an open (and very interesting) question. However: it's virtually certain that widespread and indiscriminate use would promote resistance to the existing design and method.
    - ChuckMcM 13y ago
      This is true, except the polymers in question work not on a cell activity principle but on a chemical disassembly potential [1]. This would be analagous to humans evolving to the point where you could not kill one by shooting it in the head with a bullet. It could happen, people with their central nervous system in some part of the body other than the brain would survive a bullet to the head, and there are bullet to the head survivors, for whom brain structure may play a role, but it isn't a huge risk associated with shooting people in the head. [1] "They try to mimic what the immune system does: the polymer attaches to the bacteria's membrane and then facilitates destabilization of the membrane. It falls apart, everything falls out and there's little opportunity for it to develop resistance to these polymers."
- DanBC 13y ago
  Has anything developed resistance to regular household bleach?
  - sp332 13y ago
    Drinking bleach won't cure your staph infection though.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      Yes, this is kind of the point I'm making, poorly. Some things like anti biotics are misused and that's caused resistance. But handwashing with certain microbicides doesn't create colonies of resistant bacteria on our wrists (where the microbicide is diluted) because these microbicides have a different action. Thus, putting this polymer in all sorts of places is less likely to lead to resistance problems.
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      Actually, it probably will. It'll also cure you though. Effective antibacterials / antimicrobials / antitumor treatments have differential effects. Preferably harsher on what you're trying to get rid of than on you. Though the description of chemotherapy as "killing you slightly less effectively than it kills the cancer" has a lot of truth to it.
  - jrabone 13y ago
    No, apart from the inherent bleaching properties of sodium hypochlorite, the pH of bleach is extremely high - even extremeophiles can't tolerate pH 13-14. Unfortunately neither can human skin, and diluting bleach is a trade off between effectiveness and safety.
  - adventured 13y ago
    Resistance, maybe: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-11/cp-hhb110708.php http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-11/cp-hhb110708.... "The researchers found that hypochlorous acid, the active ingredient in bleach, causes the unfolding of proteins in bacteria in much the same was that heat stress or fever does. Those denatured proteins then clump together irreversibly into a mass in living cells, similar to what happens to proteins when you boil an egg, according to the researchers. "The bacteria aren't totally defenseless, however. Under those circumstances, a protein chaperone called heat shock protein Hsp33 springs to action, protecting proteins from the aggregation effect and increasing the bacteria's bleach resistance. Protein chaperones are generally defined as proteins whose function is to help other proteins."
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- cwp 13y ago
  True, caution is warranted. But I think you missed a key point in the article. Unlike antibiotics, these polymers disintegrate. The article isn't clear on the mechanism–is it part of destroying a bacterium, decay over time or what?-but the implication is that they can be targeted to kill specific bacteria, without then escaping in to the wild to apply selection pressure on bacteria that aren't threatening somebody's life. It's not like these researchers are unaware of drug-resistant bacteria. The whole point of the statement you quote is that adding them to cleaning agents won't breed resistant bacteria. They may be wrong, but they're not stupid.
moocowduckquack 13y ago
This is very very cool.
WasimBhai 13y ago
Very rudimentary understanding of Cancer so if someone from a field is here please do comment: can this technique also be used for destroying Cancerous cells?
- eru 13y ago
  It's very easy to destroy cancerous cells. The real art form is to find a mechanism that kills the cancer sufficiently faster than the patient.
- mnw21cam 13y ago
  Not a biologist (but used to work next to some for a few years). But... This molecule can distinguish between normal cells membranes and bacteria membranes. That's quite easy. Most of the difference between cancer cells and normal cells is in the nucleus, not the membrane, and most anti-cancer drugs target the stage where the nucleus replicates. So, my tentative response is "No". Having said that, the potential ingenuity of the human race is beyond what I can image right now.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Doubtful. That is the problem with cancer cells - they are indistinguishable from others. I think the current bleeding edge in cancer research are ways to disable the cell mechanism that turns off the immune system near the cells.
  - Fede_V 13y ago
    The relationship between the immune system and cancer is incredibly complicated. There is, however, some fascinating research dealing with using pathogens that somehow preferentially infect cancer areas of the patient, to stimulate the immune system in that area: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/44/44ra57.abstract http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/44/44ra57.abstract is a paper that talks about it. It's pretty neat!
- Fomite 13y ago
  The problem is bacteria have all kinds of targets on them that our cells don't. Drugs to attack fungi, let alone cancer, are far more difficult because we're both eukaryotes and share many, many molecular targets. The really hard part is to kill a cell that looks like our cells, but not our cells.
smegel 13y ago
I always wondered if there would ever be a post antibiotic mechanism to kill bacteria/viruses, along the lines of nanobots perhaps. Nice to see progress is being made in this regard...the human race may be depending on it!
- smackay 13y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage
Eye_of_Mordor 13y ago
> adding them to every day personal and cleaning solutions ... is the best way to breed resistance...
- trentmb 13y ago
  At the risk of sounding snarky, why does fluoride still work for oral hygiene?
  - Fede_V 13y ago
    Fluoride is not used to kill pathogens, but because it is a substance that is good for your teeth, that a lot of people do not get in sufficient quantity otherwise. Consider it the equivalent of putting vitamin pills in foods, not putting antibiotics in meat.
  - zvrba 13y ago
    Because it gets embedded into the tooth's enamel. Fluorid-enriched enamel is more resistant to acids produced by bacteria. (i.e. fluoride doesn't affect bacteria, it makes teeth more resistant to byproducts of bacteria's feeding on sugars.)
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  The polymer doesn't work in a way that resistance is likely or even possible. They spill the bacterias guts. Its like getting resistance to head-blowed-off - not going to happen.
  - Eye_of_Mordor 13y ago
    Possible according to the article: "little opportunity for it to develop resistance to these polymers"
  - jeltz 13y ago
    I would not be so sure of that until long term tests have been done to bacteria populations. All it would take is a random mutation which makes it harder for the polymer to attach to the bacteria.
trumbitta2 13y ago
Everything able to replace, as a cheap and therefore widely used biocide, this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isothiazolinone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isothiazolinone which is responsible for my allergy and awful dermatitis, it is a good thing.
DodgyEggplant 13y ago
Nobel prize
dakrisht 13y ago
Great research from IBM here. Antibiotic resistance is a prevalent problem in our society today, with doctors prescribing antibiotics to everyone for everything (to no fault of their own - because of patient demand). Nanotechnology combining with advanced materials will lead to a better understanding of pathogens and ultimately how to eradicate them. These are great steps towards solving many real and serious issues facing society today. It's certainly refreshing to see different disciplines coming together to move us forward. These [polymers] are years away from clinical use, but this is a glimpse into the not too distant future.
- ams6110 13y ago
  doctors prescribing antibiotics to everyone for everything (to no fault of their own - because of patient demand) This happened when resistance wasn't well understood. I don't think it happens nearly as much now. I've had doctors tell me "antibiotics won't help what you have, stay in bed and you should feel better in a few days"
jrabone 13y ago
This sounds like an excellent material to make central lines out of, given the current rates (~5%) of infection by antibiotic resistant S. Aureus and friends.
- Fomite 13y ago
  We're already making central lines out of antimicrobial materials, like ionic silver.
- DonGateley 13y ago
  What are central lines?
ta_goomast 13y ago
I'm baffled by how this is both high-tech and totally bonkers, being able to produce a polymer specifically targeting specific harmful bacteria is quite an achievement by itself but it is dwarfed by the ability of IBM to do away with the laws of physics, making matter just disappear is an incredible feat. I wonder if this polymer just turns invisble or if it cease to exist without leaving any other compounds, residues or energy.
- troymc 13y ago
  They claim that it's "biodegradable." I don't know the details, but I'm guessing the polymer breaks apart into smaller, benign pieces over time? I wonder if that means they have to make it right before using it, and what, exactly, triggers the breakdown.
danmaz74 13y ago
"that move quickly to target infected cells in the body": does it make sense to write this when you talk about bacteria? It looks to me like the author confused them with how viruses work: With bacteria you don't target "infected cells", you target infectious agents, the bacteriums.
Grae 13y ago
How long until we stop targeting bacterial cells and start targeting healthy human cells? I'm surprised no one's commented yet about the weaponization prospects for these polymers.
DonGateley 13y ago
What of the huge population and variety of bacteria that are symbiotic and in some cases necessary for good health such as gut bacteria? How would this technology target only bad bacteria? Is it so customizable that variants can be generated for specific pathogen species?

113 points by suchitpuri 13y ago

In addition to the potential use for systemic delivery of drugs, scientists suggest that additional applications for these polymers could include adding them to every day personal and cleaning solutions. Oh, good idea! Let's also put it in the drinking water and feed it to livestock! Nothing like that has ever caused resistance problems in the past!

troels 13y ago
"They try to mimic what the immune system does: the polymer attaches to the bacteria's membrane and then facilitates destabilization of the membrane. It falls apart, everything falls out and there's little opportunity for it to develop resistance to these polymers." But yeah, caution might be a good idea.
- ProblemFactory 13y ago
  Developing resistance is not individual bacteria "going to the gym" and training to be stronger. To develop resistance, all that is needed is a random genetic mutation that makes a few of the bacteria cells less susceptible to the polymer. The polymer kills all other cells, and the resistant strain grows in numbers and takes their place.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    Then it quits working (unlikely if the polymer attaches to vital cell membrane mechanisms but anyway). So what? Make a new polymer. That's the point; this can attack whatever. Its no longer a terrible problem if disease cells change or new ones appear. And what's the alternative? Don't attack the cells? Let people get sick and die now, because in the future this mechanism which we aren't using might be obsolete? What's the logic there?
    - rfrey 13y ago
      To be fair, I didn't see anybody suggest that. This conversation tributary was about using the polymer as broadly as antibiotics are used now, in agriculture etc.
    - shiven 13y ago
      So what? Make a new polymer. ORLY? Sorry to sound condescending but your glib comment shows an utter lack of awareness about discovering or designing novel drugs. It is never as simple as changing a line of code to get a new molecule that will kill the now resistant bugs and have no new adverse effects on the host. Drug resistance is a huge problem today and threatens to grow bigger, where pathogens become resistant to drugs (known to be generally safe) and the arsenal of medicines is empty or has investigational drugs of unknown safety. And what's the alternative? Don't attack the cells? No. The alternative, in the short term, is to avoid indiscriminate use of drugs that still work, by testing the infecting bugs for pre-existing resistance markers and then using drugs that are orthogonal to co-evolving resistance mutations. In the longer term, discovering wholly new classes of drugs, like this polymer, but testing for safety and adverse side-effects, is going to be our best hope. Again, the caveat against indiscriminate use applies.
      - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
        This is absolutely not 'a new drug'. This wasn't made through the tedious try-1000-things-and-see-what-sticks. This was a DESIGNED polymer, made explicitely through chemistry to attack a particular animicule. The old antibiotics are done; the CDC calls the age of antibiotics 'over'. There is no longer any use in stonewalling or holding back on chemistry through some fear that it will ruin the status quo. The status quo is 'nothing works'. This is a game-changer. The old arguments, the old ways of thinking, are probably obsolete. \ So cut out the 'glib' stale arguments and read the article again; come up with a cogent point.
        rustynails 13y ago
        You do know what an Eco-system is, don't you? Where things are linked in non-obvious ways, and changes almost certainly initiate other changes. This silver bullet mentality is prone to disaster. The bacteria may evolve, starting an arms race, leading to stronger bacteria, or possible fragmentation that makes management or synthesis time-consuming, difficult or may strengthen other nasties. Do you really know what the impacts are likely to be? I'm sure you don't, which is why caution is essential. Flippant "silver bullet" speculation not-withstanding.
ZirconCode 13y ago
Iodised Salt? It possibly can be a good thing, yes we should be cautious, but I think it's rash to judge it negatively from the very start.
JoeAltmaier 13y ago
No issue with resistance. Its this kind of unthinking FUD that muddies the conversation. Can we talk about what this polymer actually does?
- troymc 13y ago
  Could you please explain, for the layman, why resistance isn't an issue?
  - eplanit 13y ago
    You are asking a layman for a layman's explanation.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  Life evolves to improved fitness. The polymer works by destabilizing the cell membrane. A mutation which reduces the efficacy of that mechanism would, in fact, promote resistance to the method. Whether or not the polymer design could be modified to adapt to that change (and what the costs of this might be) are an open (and very interesting) question. However: it's virtually certain that widespread and indiscriminate use would promote resistance to the existing design and method.
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    This is true, except the polymers in question work not on a cell activity principle but on a chemical disassembly potential [1]. This would be analagous to humans evolving to the point where you could not kill one by shooting it in the head with a bullet. It could happen, people with their central nervous system in some part of the body other than the brain would survive a bullet to the head, and there are bullet to the head survivors, for whom brain structure may play a role, but it isn't a huge risk associated with shooting people in the head. [1] "They try to mimic what the immune system does: the polymer attaches to the bacteria's membrane and then facilitates destabilization of the membrane. It falls apart, everything falls out and there's little opportunity for it to develop resistance to these polymers."
DanBC 13y ago
Has anything developed resistance to regular household bleach?
- sp332 13y ago
  Drinking bleach won't cure your staph infection though.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Yes, this is kind of the point I'm making, poorly. Some things like anti biotics are misused and that's caused resistance. But handwashing with certain microbicides doesn't create colonies of resistant bacteria on our wrists (where the microbicide is diluted) because these microbicides have a different action. Thus, putting this polymer in all sorts of places is less likely to lead to resistance problems.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    Actually, it probably will. It'll also cure you though. Effective antibacterials / antimicrobials / antitumor treatments have differential effects. Preferably harsher on what you're trying to get rid of than on you. Though the description of chemotherapy as "killing you slightly less effectively than it kills the cancer" has a lot of truth to it.
- jrabone 13y ago
  No, apart from the inherent bleaching properties of sodium hypochlorite, the pH of bleach is extremely high - even extremeophiles can't tolerate pH 13-14. Unfortunately neither can human skin, and diluting bleach is a trade off between effectiveness and safety.
- adventured 13y ago
  Resistance, maybe: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-11/cp-hhb110708.php http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-11/cp-hhb110708.... "The researchers found that hypochlorous acid, the active ingredient in bleach, causes the unfolding of proteins in bacteria in much the same was that heat stress or fever does. Those denatured proteins then clump together irreversibly into a mass in living cells, similar to what happens to proteins when you boil an egg, according to the researchers. "The bacteria aren't totally defenseless, however. Under those circumstances, a protein chaperone called heat shock protein Hsp33 springs to action, protecting proteins from the aggregation effect and increasing the bacteria's bleach resistance. Protein chaperones are generally defined as proteins whose function is to help other proteins."
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
cwp 13y ago
True, caution is warranted. But I think you missed a key point in the article. Unlike antibiotics, these polymers disintegrate. The article isn't clear on the mechanism–is it part of destroying a bacterium, decay over time or what?-but the implication is that they can be targeted to kill specific bacteria, without then escaping in to the wild to apply selection pressure on bacteria that aren't threatening somebody's life. It's not like these researchers are unaware of drug-resistant bacteria. The whole point of the statement you quote is that adding them to cleaning agents won't breed resistant bacteria. They may be wrong, but they're not stupid.

moocowduckquack 13y ago

This is very very cool.

WasimBhai 13y ago

Very rudimentary understanding of Cancer so if someone from a field is here please do comment: can this technique also be used for destroying Cancerous cells?

eru 13y ago
It's very easy to destroy cancerous cells. The real art form is to find a mechanism that kills the cancer sufficiently faster than the patient.
mnw21cam 13y ago
Not a biologist (but used to work next to some for a few years). But... This molecule can distinguish between normal cells membranes and bacteria membranes. That's quite easy. Most of the difference between cancer cells and normal cells is in the nucleus, not the membrane, and most anti-cancer drugs target the stage where the nucleus replicates. So, my tentative response is "No". Having said that, the potential ingenuity of the human race is beyond what I can image right now.
venomsnake 13y ago
Doubtful. That is the problem with cancer cells - they are indistinguishable from others. I think the current bleeding edge in cancer research are ways to disable the cell mechanism that turns off the immune system near the cells.
- Fede_V 13y ago
  The relationship between the immune system and cancer is incredibly complicated. There is, however, some fascinating research dealing with using pathogens that somehow preferentially infect cancer areas of the patient, to stimulate the immune system in that area: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/44/44ra57.abstract http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/44/44ra57.abstract is a paper that talks about it. It's pretty neat!
Fomite 13y ago
The problem is bacteria have all kinds of targets on them that our cells don't. Drugs to attack fungi, let alone cancer, are far more difficult because we're both eukaryotes and share many, many molecular targets. The really hard part is to kill a cell that looks like our cells, but not our cells.

smegel 13y ago

I always wondered if there would ever be a post antibiotic mechanism to kill bacteria/viruses, along the lines of nanobots perhaps. Nice to see progress is being made in this regard...the human race may be depending on it!

smackay 13y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage

Eye_of_Mordor 13y ago

> adding them to every day personal and cleaning solutions ... is the best way to breed resistance...

trentmb 13y ago
At the risk of sounding snarky, why does fluoride still work for oral hygiene?
- Fede_V 13y ago
  Fluoride is not used to kill pathogens, but because it is a substance that is good for your teeth, that a lot of people do not get in sufficient quantity otherwise. Consider it the equivalent of putting vitamin pills in foods, not putting antibiotics in meat.
- zvrba 13y ago
  Because it gets embedded into the tooth's enamel. Fluorid-enriched enamel is more resistant to acids produced by bacteria. (i.e. fluoride doesn't affect bacteria, it makes teeth more resistant to byproducts of bacteria's feeding on sugars.)
JoeAltmaier 13y ago
The polymer doesn't work in a way that resistance is likely or even possible. They spill the bacterias guts. Its like getting resistance to head-blowed-off - not going to happen.
- Eye_of_Mordor 13y ago
  Possible according to the article: "little opportunity for it to develop resistance to these polymers"
- jeltz 13y ago
  I would not be so sure of that until long term tests have been done to bacteria populations. All it would take is a random mutation which makes it harder for the polymer to attach to the bacteria.

trumbitta2 13y ago

Everything able to replace, as a cheap and therefore widely used biocide, this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isothiazolinone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isothiazolinone which is responsible for my allergy and awful dermatitis, it is a good thing.

DodgyEggplant 13y ago

Nobel prize

dakrisht 13y ago

Great research from IBM here. Antibiotic resistance is a prevalent problem in our society today, with doctors prescribing antibiotics to everyone for everything (to no fault of their own - because of patient demand). Nanotechnology combining with advanced materials will lead to a better understanding of pathogens and ultimately how to eradicate them. These are great steps towards solving many real and serious issues facing society today. It's certainly refreshing to see different disciplines coming together to move us forward. These [polymers] are years away from clinical use, but this is a glimpse into the not too distant future.

ams6110 13y ago
doctors prescribing antibiotics to everyone for everything (to no fault of their own - because of patient demand) This happened when resistance wasn't well understood. I don't think it happens nearly as much now. I've had doctors tell me "antibiotics won't help what you have, stay in bed and you should feel better in a few days"

jrabone 13y ago

This sounds like an excellent material to make central lines out of, given the current rates (~5%) of infection by antibiotic resistant S. Aureus and friends.

Fomite 13y ago
We're already making central lines out of antimicrobial materials, like ionic silver.
DonGateley 13y ago
What are central lines?

ta_goomast 13y ago

I'm baffled by how this is both high-tech and totally bonkers, being able to produce a polymer specifically targeting specific harmful bacteria is quite an achievement by itself but it is dwarfed by the ability of IBM to do away with the laws of physics, making matter just disappear is an incredible feat. I wonder if this polymer just turns invisble or if it cease to exist without leaving any other compounds, residues or energy.

troymc 13y ago
They claim that it's "biodegradable." I don't know the details, but I'm guessing the polymer breaks apart into smaller, benign pieces over time? I wonder if that means they have to make it right before using it, and what, exactly, triggers the breakdown.

danmaz74 13y ago

"that move quickly to target infected cells in the body": does it make sense to write this when you talk about bacteria? It looks to me like the author confused them with how viruses work: With bacteria you don't target "infected cells", you target infectious agents, the bacteriums.

Grae 13y ago

How long until we stop targeting bacterial cells and start targeting healthy human cells? I'm surprised no one's commented yet about the weaponization prospects for these polymers.

DonGateley 13y ago

What of the huge population and variety of bacteria that are symbiotic and in some cases necessary for good health such as gut bacteria? How would this technology target only bad bacteria? Is it so customizable that variants can be generated for specific pathogen species?