IBM improves delivery of nanomeds that kill bacteria where antibiotics fail | Hacker News Reader

IBM improves delivery of nanomeds that kill bacteria where antibiotics fail

venturebeat.com

61 pointsjaxonrice11 comments

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.

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?

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/

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.

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.

In the original press release from the laboratory they discuss using this against fungus and bacteria. So probably the toenail infections is correctly mentioned, but HIV and Parkinson is only hype.

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?

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."

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.

"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.

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%.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com