Researchers have found a way to modify vancomycin — a last-ditch antibacterial — and "supercharge" it to create vancapticins which are far more effective against antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections:
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria – superbugs – cause 700,000 deaths worldwide each year, and a UK government review has predicted this could rise to 10 million by 2050.
[University of Queensland's] Dr Blaskovich said the old drug, vancomycin, was still widely used to treat extremely dangerous bacterial infections, but bacteria were becoming increasingly resistant to it.
“The rise of vancomycin-resistant bacteria, and the number of patients dying from resistant infections that cannot be successfully treated, stimulated our team to look at ways to revitalise old antibiotics,” Dr Blaskovich said.
“We did this by modifying vancomycin’s membrane-binding properties to selectively bind to bacterial membranes rather than those of human cells, creating a series of supercharged vancomycin derivatives called vancapticins.”
The rebooted vancomycin has the potential to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE).
[...] “Drug development is normally focused on improving binding to a biological target, and rarely focuses on assessing membrane-binding properties.
“This approach worked with the vancapticins, and the question now is whether it can be used to revitalise other antibiotics that have lost effectiveness against resistant bacteria.
“Given the alarming rise of multi-drug resistant bacteria and the length of time it takes to develop a new antibiotic, we need to look at any solution that could fix the antibiotic drug discovery pipeline now,” Professor Cooper said.
Having been treated for an infection with vancomycin, I can attest it's a scary feeling when, after three days' treatment, the infection commences to spread! Fortunately, an increased dose turned the tide, but it was touch-and-go for a while. Sadly, is this just another step in the cat-and-mouse battle of increasing bacterial resistance?
Journal Reference:
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Saturday January 06 2018, @09:36PM (2 children)
Don't know about the REAL definition of homeopathy, but i know there are a lot of non-drug remedies that work.
Instead of a puffer, i use Buckleys mixture: it keeps my breathing clear.
Tonic water instead of drugs keeps my restless leg syndrome away: the quinine is a musle relaxant (since i've gone gluten free, it is much better as well: only if i eat gluten do i need tonic water). I asked my doctor if there was something that could cure it that would be better than a pill where the side-effects were worse than the symptoms and she told me about it. Works wonders.
There are lots of non-drug cures. But homeopathy.... i have heard weird things about THAT definition.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 06 2018, @10:16PM
I'm not doubting you, but just out of curiosity, what other things do you believe? For instance, which of the following do you think are at least reasonably likely? JFK conspiracy, moon landing faked, vaccination causes autism, 911 was an inside job, there's a pill that can turn water into gasoline but the oil companies have suppressed it, free energy, aroma therapy, acupuncture, chiropractic therapy, Area 51 contains aliens, astrology, it's possible to communicate with the dead.
I'm sure it's not the majority, but perhaps several, or one or two?
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Sunday January 07 2018, @11:17AM
The problem with homeopathy in it's dictionary sense (dilute, dilute, dilute...) is that some people truly believe it will do something akin to an active ingredient and take it for things that *need* actual pharmaceuticals and/or medical treatment. For things that the body will sort out on their own without medical help, or can't be treated with anything except time, then homeopathy is harmless - and actually arguably better than taking antibiotics when they are not required; it's essentially just the placebo effect. By prescribing it for those minor ailments where it appears to do something, then it just establishes the idea that homeopathy works and increases the risk of people relying on it when it absolutely can't fix the problem. By using something one step up from a placebo with some kind of active ingredient - like vitamins - you avoid that situation, and potentially do some good by topping up things that the body may have depleted in the process of fighting the ailment.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!