
IBM improves delivery of nanomeds that kill bacteria where antibiotics fail - jaxonrice
http://venturebeat.com/2013/01/23/ibm-vastly-improves-delivery-of-nanomeds-that-kills-bacteria-where-antibiotics-fails/#p5d5RLQJhPaVt56O.02
======
graeham
Original press release here, but it doesn't mention HIV
<http://www.ibn.a-star.edu.sg/images/cms_press/press_82.pdf>

My interpretation is that the hyrdagel-based "nanomeds" have the main
advantage that they break-up biofilm colonies, which have a higher (100-1000x)
drug resistance than free floating bacteria. It seems to be operating through
mechanical rather than biological methods, but the exact mechanisms aren't
described well in either article.

~~~
roc
Would switching from a chemical/biological to a mechanical form of attack
against bacteria be expected to produce an evolution of _mechanically_
resistant bacteria?

Be they variants that don't have the same properties that cause the nanogel to
be attracted, or have cell walls that are too strong to be disrupted by the
nano-stuctures, etc?

I guess my question is: are we talking about a 'final weapon' sort of thing,
where any potential 'defense' would require ditching some attribute that makes
bacteria feasible in the first place? Or are we just talking about a _new_
weapon, one that we fully expect to eventually wane in effectiveness and thus
will have to continue iterating upon?

~~~
icegreentea
From my quick skip of relevant literature (there's a butt load of research in
antibacterial hydrogels), we really aren't in any position to answer that
question yet. The mechanism described in the press release is actually
speculative.

Many of the papers raise that mechanism as a possibility, but they'll also
note that there are many human cells that have a cell membrane at least as
electronegative as bacteria, and that they witness antibacterial effects
against relatively neutrally charged bacteria membranes as well. One example
can be found here [1]. Try flipping through the mechanism and cytotoxicity
(how dangerous it is to human cells) sections.

Basically, this is all exciting new research, but there really are no hard
answers yet.

[1] <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650250/>

------
wcoenen
Why is parkinson even mentioned? It is not a disease that is caused by
infection.

Same question for HIV. It's a virus so it doesn't have a membrane which this
gel is supposed to attack.

Same question for toenail infections. This is caused by fungi, not bacteria.

Lots of marketing hype here. I don't believe a word of it.

~~~
vidarh
I got the impression that when mentioning HIV and toenail infections etc.,
he's talking about the overall technique of a "nanomedicine" delivery via a
hydrogel that "self assembles" when it comes into contact with water.

The _specific_ instance of that which they are currently focusing on appears
to be targeting only bacteria, but since the method is focused on mechanical
destruction of the cells, presumably they might be hoping that they can adapt
the technique to detect and destroy other things as well.

------
kevingadd
The mention of HIV in an article talking about bacteria confuses me. Do
bacteria and the HIV virus share some physical/biological property that makes
it possible for them to be targeted and destroyed via the same mechanism?

------
super-serial
That's great it kills bacteria... but what about the text spelling
applications?

I want a vial of that stuff, and then if someone asks me a question I don't
like... I'll say "here, this gel will give you the answer." Then I'll walk
away, and the gel will slowly form into the letters "Fuck You."

------
lostlogin
The real hard bit is to break is the idea that every bacterial disease needs
antibiotics NOW. If used sparingly, those that were given a medication may
actually benefit from it. But it's likely easier to create a new breed of
medications than it is to reset expectations.

------
dlazerka
"We can kill 100 percent of the bacteria"

Didn't read further. There's no such thing as "100%" in medicine (even pure
alcohol does not). They're not scientists.

~~~
NolF
It's possible that alcohol kills 100% of the exposed bacteria, but we can't be
sure due to measurement limitations, so that's why the bottles will say
99.99%.

