
New study links common herbicides and antibiotic resistance - marchenko
https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/news/2018/new-study-links-common-herbicides-and-antibiotic-resistance.html
======
strainer
The knock on effects of biologically active synthetic products are plainly not
yet predictable. Current test and assessment abilities only establish a
tenuous "not guilty yet" legislative status.

How long is it taking to acknowledge that even a relatively inactive material
- plastics - produced without restraint, can devastate ocean life and lead to
who knows what destruction or disease, when some tiny little marvels
eventually adapt to eat them ?

We must prioritise employment of natural materials simply and plainly because
they are less disruptive to biology and more predictable by the knowledge and
observation of their fitness in natural systems and natural history.

Of all our industries mass agriculture should be the most careful and
symbiotic with environment and biology. Medicine, quarantined lab research,
and exceptional problem cases - this is where novel materials and processes
belong. Not sprayed across millions of acres and in our loved ones bellies.

~~~
WalterSear
I agree with you entirely.

Fwiw, however, the top reddit commentor feels that this specific paper is
bullshit science:

 _So, i 'm currently reading through the paper (and i'll leave comments where
appropriate), but the immediate thing I noticed when reading through the
Methods section is that one of the antibiotics they used as a general
comparator is ciprofloxacin (Cip), which is also a herbicide._

 _It 's a dual herbicide/antibiotic, as it inhibits DNA gyrase activity in
both plants and bacteria (we use it fairly often in our plant lab as a growth
inhibitor)._

 _I feel like, if not controlled for, this could mess with their results._

 _Edit: Whoa, that 's a bit strange. In their Culturing Conditions section,
they state they only used Cip with the bacteria and not the other
antibiotics._

 _That is definitely going to mess with your results._

[https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/9nivyf/a_new_study...](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/9nivyf/a_new_study_finds_that_bacteria_develop/)

~~~
strainer
The comment drops a 'pro tip' that they use ciproflaxin in their plant lab as
a growth inhibitor - writes confused criticisms of a study warning of
antibiotic resistance accelerated by synergies with common herbicides - its
beyond irony really.

The CIP only experiment was conducted to test a separate hypothesis and
clearly sub sectioned: " Herbicide-induced changes in MSC can occur without a
change in MIC .... To test this, we measured the frequency at which acquired
ciprofloxacin resistance arose during culture in the combination of Cip +
Kamba + E. coli "

Its no coincidence that various antibiotics have herbicidal qualities - the
study is conducted to gain some information on potential interplay of these
classes of substance.

------
steve19
From the paper (published in an Open Access journal at
[https://peerj.com/articles/5801.pdf](https://peerj.com/articles/5801.pdf)):

"Neither reducing the use of antibiotics nor discovery of new ones may prevent
the postantibiotic era. This is because bacteria may be exposed to other non-
antibiotic chemicals that predispose them to evolve resistance to antibiotics
more quickly"

Can someone who understands this stuff explain to why this is the case. Surely
bateria will only evolve resistance to the specific mechanism the
antibiotic/herbicide uses to attack the bacteria? Are Roundup and antibiotics
using the same mechanism to kill batericia?

Doesn't antibiotic resistance come at a cost? Would not a new antibiotic that
uses a new mechanism of killing bacteria be effective regardless of herbicide
use?

~~~
strainer
The quote accurately begins: "Neither reducing the use of antibiotics nor
discovery of new ones may _be sufficient strategies_ to avoid the post-
antibiotic era."

This can have a different meaning from your slightly abbreviated version - the
"may" has more ambiguity and in context means they _may_ fail. Your shortened
version more suggests the strategies cannot succeed. The authors must
themselves understand this stuff to a good extent and follow their assessment
"this is because..." Your questions are to a different statement "couldnt they
succeed like this...?"

Maybe

~~~
steve19
I did NOT abbreviate, tamper or shorten the quote. I copy and pasted from the
article. See "CONCLUSIONS" on page 15. The author(s) appears to have
abbreviated themselves in the conclusion.

~~~
strainer
I didn't mean to slight you or the authors for the difference. I just noticed
your questions seemed to follow from that ambiguity.

~~~
steve19
No worries. I didn't want anyone think I was deliberately misquoting.

