Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday November 28 2016, @11:24AM   Printer-friendly
from the little-fleas-have-lesser-fleas-upon-their-backs-to-bite-them... dept.

Researchers at Imperial College London and the University of Nottingham have found a novel way of killing harmful bacteria that cause infection — setting predator bacteria loose to eat the harmful ones.

Experiments showed a dose of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus acted like a "living antibiotic" to help clear an otherwise lethal infection.

The animal studies, published in Current Biology , suggested there would be no side effects.

[...] Dr Michael Chew, from the Wellcome Trust medical research body, said: "It may be unusual to use a bacterium to get rid of another, but in the light of the looming threat from drug-resistant infections the potential of beneficial bacteria-animal interactions should not be overlooked.

"We are increasingly relying on last-line antibiotics, and this innovative study demonstrates how predatory bacteria could be an important additional tool to drugs in the fight against resistance."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @01:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @01:29PM (#434016)

    My understanding is that phage treatment tends to be a non specific blend of biologically diverse phages -- ie something that is against the philosophy of the FDA (take a single well researched checmical in exact known dose etc). My knowledge is a couple of years out of date, but from what I remember a phage treatment in principle is no problem to get approval for but the standard mystery blend isnt going to pass muster.

    Some thing with bacteria, given a single well known strain I cant see approval being much of a problem, bearing in mind the massive pain it is to get *anything* approved that is.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @03:25PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @03:25PM (#434063)
    The trouble is phage viruses and to an even greater extent bacteria mutate as they grow. You might have infected one strain of bacteria or phage into somebody but some time later the patient is now colonised with a mutated strain that is different enough to be called a new strain.
    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday November 28 2016, @07:43PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 28 2016, @07:43PM (#434171) Journal

      FWIW, viruses typically mutate at a much faster rate than bacteria. This is because their genetic system is essentially missing proofreaders. And that's because the replication isn't being done by their own mechanics, but rather by a subverted host. So the cost of a false replica is less, and they also didn't build the machine. There may be exceptions, I'm no microbiologist, but I haven't heard of any.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @02:52AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @02:52AM (#434320)

        Phage do mutate faster than bacteria, but bacteria have an adaptive response (CRISPR) that can compensate for the difference. Also, many phage can go into a dormant state and protect bacteria from being infected with similar strains of the virus