5 ms·

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

by Eye_of_Mordor 13y ago

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.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    Sure, given that, what does it matter? Don't kill the bacteria now because...what? The old argument was, don't make our current antibiotics useless by breeding 'resistant' varieties. But now, IBM is making 'magic bullet' antibiotic polymers on their 3D polymer printer. So what does it matter that new varieties mutate or whatever, if you can just print up a new polymer to handle it. This is a game-changer. The old ways of thinking are probably obsolete.
- icegreentea 13y ago
  To be fair... the mechanism of penicillin when described for the lay person is remarkably similar to the description that IBM provides. "the polymer attaches to the bacteria's membrane and then facilitates destabilization of the membrane" vs "act by inhibiting the synthesis of the peptidoglycan layer of bacterial cell walls". And the resistance isn't to getting your head blown off. That's thinking too much in the box. It's more like being resistant to having a bullet shot at your head, either by somehow becoming invisible to your assailant's vision, wearing a sufficiently good helmet, or having your vital organs located somewhere else. While I agree that it seems much harder for bacteria to overcome this new approach, it really isn't safe to say that it's not possible. We have no idea about the microbial world. We barely know a fraction of the microbes that swarm around us, we have no idea what defenses, mechanisms and quirks they have that might provide a method of resistace. And since this is a passive process (just some polymer floating around) that somehow does not damage human cells, you can bet that there's someway to spoof that.
  - robotmagician 13y ago
    To be clear (from an undergraduate microbiologist), my thought process behind the claim that IBM's polymer is less likely to promote resistance: Faster-acting agents that cause immediate destruction are much harder to develop resistance to because normal minor variation from mutations is much less likely to produce anything that will save a cell from death. So even if a cell produces a minor variation in its membrane protein it will likely still be killed and the "resistance" gets no chance to develop. For something like penicillin, the bacteria gets quite some time to die (it inhibits synthesis!) and there are many different places in the peptidoglycan synthesis pathway for the cell to develop a resistance. Does that make sense?
    - DonGateley 13y ago
      Indeed it does! Thank you.

> 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.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  Sure, given that, what does it matter? Don't kill the bacteria now because...what? The old argument was, don't make our current antibiotics useless by breeding 'resistant' varieties. But now, IBM is making 'magic bullet' antibiotic polymers on their 3D polymer printer. So what does it matter that new varieties mutate or whatever, if you can just print up a new polymer to handle it. This is a game-changer. The old ways of thinking are probably obsolete.
icegreentea 13y ago
To be fair... the mechanism of penicillin when described for the lay person is remarkably similar to the description that IBM provides. "the polymer attaches to the bacteria's membrane and then facilitates destabilization of the membrane" vs "act by inhibiting the synthesis of the peptidoglycan layer of bacterial cell walls". And the resistance isn't to getting your head blown off. That's thinking too much in the box. It's more like being resistant to having a bullet shot at your head, either by somehow becoming invisible to your assailant's vision, wearing a sufficiently good helmet, or having your vital organs located somewhere else. While I agree that it seems much harder for bacteria to overcome this new approach, it really isn't safe to say that it's not possible. We have no idea about the microbial world. We barely know a fraction of the microbes that swarm around us, we have no idea what defenses, mechanisms and quirks they have that might provide a method of resistace. And since this is a passive process (just some polymer floating around) that somehow does not damage human cells, you can bet that there's someway to spoof that.
- robotmagician 13y ago
  To be clear (from an undergraduate microbiologist), my thought process behind the claim that IBM's polymer is less likely to promote resistance: Faster-acting agents that cause immediate destruction are much harder to develop resistance to because normal minor variation from mutations is much less likely to produce anything that will save a cell from death. So even if a cell produces a minor variation in its membrane protein it will likely still be killed and the "resistance" gets no chance to develop. For something like penicillin, the bacteria gets quite some time to die (it inhibits synthesis!) and there are many different places in the peptidoglycan synthesis pathway for the cell to develop a resistance. Does that make sense?
  - DonGateley 13y ago
    Indeed it does! Thank you.