

Sweet revenge against superbugs - prakashk
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150721102757.htm

======
pmalynin
[http://sci-hub.org/10.1038/ncomms8719](http://sci-hub.org/10.1038/ncomms8719)

~~~
marktangotango
I was like, holy cow that's a lot of contributors, but after reading the
contributions section at the end, it really seemed like all those people were
required to carry out a project like this. Is this typical for these types of
studies?

~~~
tstactplsignore
I'd say that number is about average for most important biology papers. There
were ~5-10 life sciences papers in Nature this July with more authors than
that, including this large list:
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7561/full/nature1...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7561/full/nature14618.html)

[1] [http://www.nature.com/nature/research/biological-
sciences.ht...](http://www.nature.com/nature/research/biological-
sciences.html?code=npg_subject_631&year=2015&month=07&page=1)

------
Joky
Am I the only one lured here by the title thinking about _software_ bug? ;)

~~~
tiagomartins
I was also tricked by the naming, thinking it was a software bug. That's what
makes sense.

