Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nasal Bacteria Pump Out a Potential New Antibiotic That Kills MRSA

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: Nasal Bacteria Pump Out a Potential New Antibiotic That Kills MRSA

#61

Post by jryan49 »

iofj wrote: post #13

This does nothing to solve the real problem. The issue isn't (or wasn't) that we couldn't cure MRSA at all, it was a gradual evolution. In the 1960's we had 5 working drugs that would kill essentially any bacteria. And then we had 4. We discovered new ones, at one point I believe up to 7. But resistance made it go down pretty much by one per decade, but each next one ended faster. And then it hit zero, in 2012 I beli…

When the bacteria evolve they also have a chance to lose past immunities, especially if we back off some of the old ones.

Re: Nasal Bacteria Pump Out a Potential New Antibiotic That Kills MRSA

#62

Post by zuzzurro »

iofj wrote: post #13

This does nothing to solve the real problem. The issue isn't (or wasn't) that we couldn't cure MRSA at all, it was a gradual evolution. In the 1960's we had 5 working drugs that would kill essentially any bacteria. And then we had 4. We discovered new ones, at one point I believe up to 7. But resistance made it go down pretty much by one per decade, but each next one ended faster. And then it hit zero, in 2012 I beli…

We are basically applying selective breeding in order to create the bacteria that will wipe the humanity out, and we are doing a very good job at that..

Re: Nasal Bacteria Pump Out a Potential New Antibiotic That Kills MRSA

#63

Post by refurb »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #9
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to choose a system. If we don't want naturally-occurring compounds patented, but we want them researched for potential drug use, we need more public funding. Otherwise, we have to offer researchers and drug manufacturers an incentive to take risks with exploring these compounds. Barring lugdunin from being patented while providing no public funding would incentivise this group to withhold publication until t…

At least if they'd kept their findings secret, researchers could independently be researching the same thing. Now independent researchers won't want to touch lugdunin because they'll need to license the patent, however they won't know whether licensing the patent is worthwhile until they do their research. This will prevent further research, not encourage it.

As someone who used to work in drug development, I disagree.

Patents don't prevent compounds from being explored in research. If this is anything like other discoveries, companies will start looking at lugdunin very closely.

What is it's mechanism of action? Can the structure be optimized? What else could it be used for?

Other antibiotics have been patented and that didn't stop companies from doing the research and tweaking the structure to make it even better.

Re: Nasal Bacteria Pump Out a Potential New Antibiotic That Kills MRSA

#64

Post by refurb »

taneq wrote: post #31
Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least if they'd kept their findings secret, researchers could independently be researching the same thing. Now independent researchers won't want to touch lugdunin because they'll need to license the patent, however they won't know whether licensing the patent is worthwhile until they do their research. This will prevent further research, not encourage it.

Worse, other commercial researches will be wasting their time with busywork to find a non-patented analog which they can claim for themselves, instead of working on new things.

Why is finding a non-patented analog a bad thing? A lot of our medical discoveries are incremental advancements brought about work on analogs.

Maybe a company will find a new mechanism of action when they look at analogs? Maybe a less toxic version? Maybe the lead compound fails but the backups work?

Re: Nasal Bacteria Pump Out a Potential New Antibiotic That Kills MRSA

#65

Post by refurb »

DrScump wrote: post #44
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like drug discovery ought to be taxpayer-funded, then, as a project that is in the public interest but difficult to monetize without jeopardizing the public interest.

I think that even private-sector-developed drugs rely on publicly-funded research. Worst is when American companies charge U.S. customers higher prices than overseas consumers for drugs that were developed using USA-taxpayer-funded research.

You really think it's bad to charge a lower price to lower income countries? A drug company should just charge people in Egypt the same as the US?

Re: Nasal Bacteria Pump Out a Potential New Antibiotic That Kills MRSA

#66

Post by refurb »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #28
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to choose a system. If we don't want naturally-occurring compounds patented, but we want them researched for potential drug use, we need more public funding. Otherwise, we have to offer researchers and drug manufacturers an incentive to take risks with exploring these compounds. Barring lugdunin from being patented while providing no public funding would incentivise this group to withhold publication until t…

> we need more public funding. Otherwise, we have to offer researchers and drug manufacturers an incentive... I'll take researchers for $1,000, Alex. Not a knock to drug manufacturers who are simply acting as they should under the current profit-driven system, but I think we'd be far better off if more of this existential-level stuff (like health) were government functions, or at least government sponsored and not-fo…

If we applied that same logic to space exploration, Space X wouldn't exist.

Re: Nasal Bacteria Pump Out a Potential New Antibiotic That Kills MRSA

#67

Post by refurb »

asuffield wrote: post #58
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #17

Now we need a globally agreed system of anti-biotic triage - you can have anti-biotics, but only administered in hospital, signed off by two doctors and with these life threatening conditions. Treat them with care this time round

Antibiotic use in humans has rarely been a problem, it's the way that "restricted" antibiotics are used on lifestock freely and in large quantities that keeps screwing us over.

That's absolutely untrue. It's the use in humans that results in resistance in humans. The connection to livestock is pretty tenuous.

Re: Nasal Bacteria Pump Out a Potential New Antibiotic That Kills MRSA

#68

Post by [deleted] »

asuffield wrote: post #58
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #17

Now we need a globally agreed system of anti-biotic triage - you can have anti-biotics, but only administered in hospital, signed off by two doctors and with these life threatening conditions. Treat them with care this time round

Antibiotic use in humans has rarely been a problem, it's the way that "restricted" antibiotics are used on lifestock freely and in large quantities that keeps screwing us over.

[deleted]

Re: Nasal Bacteria Pump Out a Potential New Antibiotic That Kills MRSA

#69

Post by refurb »

ss248 wrote: post #18
iofj wrote: post #13

This does nothing to solve the real problem. The issue isn't (or wasn't) that we couldn't cure MRSA at all, it was a gradual evolution. In the 1960's we had 5 working drugs that would kill essentially any bacteria. And then we had 4. We discovered new ones, at one point I believe up to 7. But resistance made it go down pretty much by one per decade, but each next one ended faster. And then it hit zero, in 2012 I beli…

"The problem is that we need to let millions of people die of curable diseases constantly" Not the case at all. Biggest use of antibiotics today is in food production(agriculture etc.), not in hospitals. And it's also completely unregulated. "The problem is that evolution is out-researching us" Evolution also has a simple rule: "Use it or lose it". So don't be afraid. There are ways around acquired immunity.

And it's also completely unregulated.

I think the FDA might disagree with you on that point.

Re: Nasal Bacteria Pump Out a Potential New Antibiotic That Kills MRSA

#70

Post by DanBC »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #17

Now we need a globally agreed system of anti-biotic triage - you can have anti-biotics, but only administered in hospital, signed off by two doctors and with these life threatening conditions. Treat them with care this time round

Sometimes you have national organisations that provide advice about antibiotics, and you have doctors wanting to follow that advice, and you have patients who want to follow that advice, but a stupid rule by eg childcare means that everyone caves and prescribes antibiotics when they're not needed.

Here's a particularly frustrating example.

http://bjgp.org/content/early/2016/07/05/bjgp16X686125

> Acute infective conjunctivitis is common among preschool children. Public Health England (PHE) recommends that children with conjunctivitis do not need to be excluded from child care, but childcare providers are required to determine their own sickness policies and prior research suggests that children are often excluded until they are treated or have recovered. How the content of these policies impacts on prescribing decisions has not been quantified.

[...]

> Acute infective conjunctivitis (AIC) is a common condition in preschool children.1 It is usually mild and self-limiting, often with no requirement for treatment or a doctor’s appointment.2 Evidence suggests, however, that parents and guardians are advised by childcare providers (CPs) to take their children with conjunctivitis to their GP for assessment.3–5 Furthermore, some CPs will not permit affected children to return to child care until antibiotics have been prescribed,3,4,6,7 thus parents are obtaining antibiotics to get their child readmitted. A situation in which antibiotics are prescribed for non-clinical reasons is difficult to justify and requires further investigation.

> Although most cases (50–75%) of AIC are bacterial in origin,8 the aetiology is difficult to determine clinically and only 36% of doctors are confident in differentiating between viral and bacterial conjunctivitis.9,10 In bacterial conjunctivitis, there may be some clinical benefit obtained from topical antibiotics;11 however, this benefit is perhaps not seen in children and topical chloramphenicol shortens the duration of symptoms by only 0.3 days.2 Despite this, most clinicians usually prescribe antibiotics for AIC.10

Post reply on HN