Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday September 15 2018, @01:28AM   Printer-friendly
from the advanced-debugging dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Gram-negative bacteria like the Klebsiella pneumoniae... have an outer membrane that makes them impervious to many drugs, but a new compound from Genentech can breach the border and cripple them.

[...] A team led by evolutionary biologist Peter Smith at Genentech, the biotech pioneer in South San Francisco, California, began with a class of natural compounds called arylomycins. Various arylomycins can penetrate the outer membrane of gram-negatives, but they have trouble binding to their target, an enzyme embedded in the inner membrane that juts into the space between the inner and outer walls. So Smith and colleagues chemically modified an arylomycin to "systematically optimize" it such that the drug could more easily reach that space—and bind to the enzyme.

The molecule they created, dubbed G0775, was at least 500 times more potent than a naturally found arylomycin against some of the biggest gram-negative bacterial threats to humans, including Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii. What's more, it remained potent against all 49 isolates of multidrug-resistant forms of these bacteria that the researchers obtained from patients. In a coup de grâce, when tested against a notoriously drug-resistant strain of K. pneumoniae that has defied 13 different classes of antibiotics, G0775 walloped the bacterium in lab dish experiments, they report today in Nature. "We're really excited," Smith says. "We've made the necessary changes to the molecules so that they can hit the real deal."

G0775 also showed in mice it could stymie infections from six strains of four different gram-negative bacteria. It also hasn't exhibited any potential toxicities in mammalian cells. But the road to antibiotic approval is littered with compounds that later proved toxic in larger animals or during early human trials—or that simply failed to retain their potency.

doi:10.1126/science.aav4019


Original Submission

Related Stories

New Compounds Found Which Illuminate and Kill Drug Resistant Gram Negative Bacteria 10 comments

University of Sheffield and Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) scientists have discovered several new related (dinuclear RuII) compounds which visualize and kill gram-negative bacteria, such as E. coli (note - no word on whether it works on synthetic E.coli)

Bacteria are classified generally by what type of staining works on them using a method developed in the 1800's by Hans Christian Gram. 'Gram-negative' bacteria retain a stain color that shows them as a pinkish red coloring, these bacteria have cell walls that make it difficult to get drugs into them and many gram-negative bacteria have become significantly or even completely resistant to available drug treatments.

A new drug in the difficult gram-negative space is particularly important. Drug resistant bacteria already cause the deaths of over 50 thousand people a year in the US and EU alone, and as many as 10 million people a year could die worldwide every year by 2050 due to antibiotic resistant infections.

Doctors have not had a new treatment for gram-negative bacteria in the last 50 years, and no potential drugs have entered clinical trials since 2010.

The new drug compound has a range of exciting opportunities. As Professor Jim Thomas explains: "As the compound is luminescent it glows when exposed to light. This means the uptake and effect on bacteria can be followed by the advanced microscope techniques available at RAL.

"This breakthrough could lead to vital new treatments to life-threatening superbugs and the growing risk posed by antimicrobial resistance."

The studies at Sheffield and RAL have shown the compound seems to have several modes of action, making it more difficult for resistance to emerge in the bacteria.

Better yet

Mammalian cell culture and animal model studies indicate that the complex is not toxic to eukaryotes, even at concentrations that are several orders of magnitude higher than its minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC).

The researchers plan to test the compounds against additional multi drug resistant bacteria next.

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.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Saturday September 15 2018, @01:44AM (4 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 15 2018, @01:44AM (#735184) Journal

    G0775 also showed in mice it could stymie infections from six strains of four different gram-negative bacteria. It also hasn't exhibited any potential toxicities in mammalian cells. But the road to antibiotic approval is littered with compounds that later proved toxic in larger animals or during early human trials—or that simply failed to retain their potency.

    Dam'd those regulation and red tape.
    I just can't wait for someone to strike them down so I can sell concentrated drain cleaner by the vial.
    Tell yea, it fantastic - no stinkin' bacteria managed or will ever manage to resist it.

    (grin)

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by fishybell on Saturday September 15 2018, @02:52AM

      by fishybell (3156) on Saturday September 15 2018, @02:52AM (#735200)

      Sounds like the same type of weapon.

      An actually new weapon wouldn't just be a compound that works on antibacterial resistant bacteria in the same way that current antibacterials do, but in a slightly different way.

      It needs to be something that works in a fundamentally different way...like concentrated drain cleaner.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 15 2018, @11:17AM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 15 2018, @11:17AM (#735269) Journal

      Dam'd those regulation and red tape.

      Because it's more important to protect some bureaucrats from the risk of bad media exposure than it is to improve the health of seven billion people.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @01:17PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @01:17PM (#735281)

        Tear down those regulation and I promise to send you the first vial of my concentrated drain cleaner antibiotic to cure your sore throat; like, forever, guaranteed.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 16 2018, @12:42AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 16 2018, @12:42AM (#735497) Journal
          Why would I take it? Removal of regulation doesn't remove my interest in staying alive.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @01:52AM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @01:52AM (#735185)

    Why did they use a war analogy rather than talk about healing?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @02:01AM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @02:01AM (#735187)

      Because there's billions of tiny creatures inside you right now. And they want you DEAD.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @02:18AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @02:18AM (#735192)

        I think they just "want" to reproduce.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @11:05AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @11:05AM (#735262)

          So you're saying these bacteria are on Spring Break inside my body, even while I'm slaving away at work all day?

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @02:24AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @02:24AM (#735194)

        Actually, if you study epidemiology a bit, you will come to understand that the more successful creatures do not kill the host or at least do not kill the host too quickly.

        This is because once the host is dead, the "bugs" no longer have a place they can live and reproduce. Yes there are some exceptions to this, but as a rule a successful pathogen "wants" not to kill the host but to keep the host alive so the host is able to infect new hosts.

        Read the excellent book "The Hot Zone" if you want to learn more about this. It's an older book now but the writing is superb and the story is true yet is one
        of the most frightening stories I have ever read.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @07:15AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @07:15AM (#735225)

          no-see-ums are very good at this

        • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Saturday September 15 2018, @01:37PM

          by crafoo (6639) on Saturday September 15 2018, @01:37PM (#735286)

          I'm happy you put "wants" in quotes. Because these pathogens don't have desires or minds, but it is a quick short-hand to describe to some degree what is happening. Although, I think in general this type of description is retarding the public understanding of the world.

          Pathogens that do not kill the host quickly are able to better utilize the resources of the host and multiply, giving them an evolutionary edge. Pathogens that kill the host more quickly are out-competed by the slow killers. Therefore slow-killers are more prevalent in the current environment and distribution of hosts. The pathogens do not "want" anything. Simply, those that kill more slowly have an advantage and therefore are more common. This isn't by design, or due to some intrinsic desire, plan, or purpose. It simply is the most economical way to extract usefulness from the host and to multiply in the most effective way.

          Nature is a cold, ruthless numbers game where the rules are constantly changing and massive amounts of chaos are injected daily.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @03:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @03:05PM (#735302)

          Actually, if you study epidemiology a bit, you will come to understand that the more successful creatures do not kill the host or at least do not kill the host too quickly.

          Counterexample: clostridia. They're soil bacteria, and prefer their nutrient source nicely lying down and getting one with the soil. Cue tetanus, botulism, gas gangrene, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @02:19AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @02:19AM (#735193)

    Antibiotic-resistant bacteria release a powerful new weapon against engineers. Ok, it's a joke but it is also the truth.

    It's a "competition" the bacteria will always win, because the bacteria can mutate far faster than new drugs can be developed, and the drugs actually help select for the most resistant bacteria so the development of resistant strains occurs more quickly. It's sort of like killing off everyone in a city except for the most vicious gang members. What is left when the dust settles is far more dangerous.

    Therefore, it is important to adhere to sterile procedures as much as possible. A German friend of mine tells me that in German hospitals the employees are far more careful than he has observed in US hospitals in similar scenarios. If you know the Germans you will have no trouble believing this is true.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @11:08AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @11:08AM (#735263)

      It's a "competition" the bacteria will always win, because the bacteria can mutate far faster than new drugs can be developed get regulatory approval

      FTFY

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @09:09PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2018, @09:09PM (#735427)

      Yes, the Germans have lots of experience in wiping out entire populations. Of bacteria

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 16 2018, @02:41AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 16 2018, @02:41AM (#735520)

        You miss the point.

        The point is that in the US, many hospitals do not use procedures
        which are stringent enough and propagation of drug-resistant bacteria
        is the direct result. As such, a US hospital is often a place where you
        become significantly MORE sick as a result of simply being in that environment.

        The US health care system is focused too much on making money
        and this comes at the expense of the health of patients.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday September 15 2018, @03:04AM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday September 15 2018, @03:04AM (#735202)

    ...and we starve to death.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
(1)