/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6510271]

So i assume nearly all bacteria will antibiotics resistant in 40 years.
How fucked we are?

[Anonymous No.6510272]

>>6510271
Do you know what happens when you assume?

[Anonymous No.6510283]

>>6510272
obligatory

[Anonymous No.6510295]

>be
I overly suggest

[Anonymous No.6510300]

>>6510283
do people say "check and mate" in real life? as an actual chess player it strikes me as weird

[Anonymous No.6510303]

>>6510300
Only in pick-up lines

[Anonymous No.6510311]

>>6510303
Boo get off the stage

[Anonymous No.6511514]

>>6510271
No there are still possibly thousands of organism that we haven't cataloged or researched properly yet. Eventually someone will find or synthesize something.

[Anonymous No.6511517]

>>6510283
fuck off rand(all)

[Anonymous No.6511528]

I think really fucked with the rate of international travel, compounded with sickly people on the move, more economic refugees, dark skins showing up in the northern hemisphere is bad news since their immune systems are usually weak. Another Black Death around the corner, amazed it hasn't happened yet really. So much feedstock for the virus, bacteria, germ that picks the lock.

[Anonymous No.6511560]

>>6511528

Our security and surveillance systems stop a lot of shit. If we didn't have that stuff, the outbreaks we have would be retarded awful. Foot and Mouth would have devastated the UK if counter measures hadn't been taken.

So yeah, outbreaks will have the capability to be bad, but our capacity to respond and prevent will improve as well.

[Anonymous No.6511736]

>>6510271
Don't worry, we will certainly all be isolated from one another by then.

A sort of self imposed house arrest; enjoy!

[Anonymous No.6511737]

>>6510271
Combination therapy and bacteriophage therapy are becoming increasingly popular. This won't be an issue for much longer.

[Anonymous No.6511758]

>>6510271
>2054
> not having a cyborg immune system which can simply be informed remotely what kind of cells or proteins it should make in order to take on the invader (or more generally, a remote-controlled biochemical factory (artificial cell) inside your body)

Muh biotechnology.

[Anonymous No.6511803]

So, can cells be adapted to bacteriophages?
Also, does bacteriophages even have any result on a bacteria with a glycocalyx?

[Anonymous No.6512339]

>>6511737
>forgetting fecal therapy
probiotic approaches are superior

the bacteria just want to live

[Anonymous No.6512345]

>>6510271
That shit doesn't even make sense. You'd claim treating bacteria with antibiotics would made them antibiotic resistant, but if they weren't treated at all they would still be because that's how that group of bacteria are. Treating them would only make the ones that were antibiotic resistant all along more noticeable.

I guess it's once again a misunderstanding of how evolution works. Has it been proved that antibiotics do induce changes in the bacteria that favors the expression of antibiotic resistant genes anyway?

[Anonymous No.6512352]

>>6512345
I am tempted to point out the error in your drivel, but I choose to refrain from doing so.

[Anonymous No.6512371]

>>6512352
For what purpose?

[Anonymous No.6512379]

No. Use an antibiotic until resistance builds then switch to a new one. Resistant strains will die off and resistance will begin to build to the new antibiotic. repeat. The problem is they just keep using it then mix in a cocktail etc. Just stop using x antibiotic for some time and resistant strains will decrease.

Also to be resistant you have to have the proper genes. Expressing those genes takes energy. There will always be some antibiotic (discovered or undiscovered) that will work. Since a microbe can't contain every resistant gene, or express every gene at the same time it's just a matter of finding the proper antibiotic

I doubt a species can evolve to be some super resistant impenetrable organism. It's a give and take process. You gain some things but have to give up others. There will always be a way to deal with microbes we just have to discover it in time.

[Anonymous No.6512380]

>>6512352
>but I choose
Does this mean you posses free will?
Check and mate, athiests.

[Anonymous No.6512387]

>>6511528
>since their immune systems are usually weak
[citation needed]
did you mean that different populations are resistant to different forms of diseases?

[Anonymous No.6512390]

>>6510271

USE THE FUCKING CATALOG!

>>6508815

[Anonymous No.6512395]

>>6512345
changes in the frequency of existing alleles aren't the only way evolution happens. Mutations can arise that are advantageous to bacteria in the context of antibiotics that likely wouldn't have risen to fixation otherwise.

[Anonymous No.6512398]

>>6511737
of course, bacteria couldn't possibly adapt to phages

[Anonymous No.6512402]

>>6512395
Mutations can arise, but are the mutations directly caused by the use of the antibiotics?

[Anonymous No.6512408]

>>6512402
>are the mutations directly caused by the use of the antibiotics?
no, but they would probably have died off in the absence of antibiotics. In the presence of antibiotics they have a reproductive advantage and rise in frequency

[Anonymous No.6512416]

>>6512408
That would imply antibiotics create a favorable environment for the bacteria. Then again, why don't they use antibiotics in the enriched culture media?

[Anonymous No.6512420]

>>6512379
>Resistant strains will die off and resistance will begin to build to the new antibiotic. repeat
I don't have a source, but I remember hearing in class that this isn't actually the case. The resistant strains don't die off as readily as you might expect, they just keep piling on resistances to new things. Like I said I have no source and I could be wrong, but the answer may not be so simple

[Anonymous No.6512427]

>>6512416
>That would imply antibiotics create a favorable environment for the bacteria
I think you misunderstand my point. The presence of antibiotics creates a favorable environment for those bacteria that happen to have the resistant allele because they have a reproductive advantage over those bacteria that lack said allele.

[Anonymous No.6512431]

>>6512427
And that would imply the non resistant bacteria kill the resistant bacteria in some way.

[Anonymous No.6512438]

>>6512420
>Find different ways to kill them that don't hurt you
Can't be that hard

[Anonymous No.6512442]

>>6512431
how does that imply that? I don't follow.
In circumstances where there is no antibiotic, the resistant mutation may come at some slight cost, making it disadvantageous, which would cause the mutation to disappear from the population. However, when antibiotic is present, the same mutation would be advantageous because the bacteria without it would die, thereby allowing the resistant strain to propagate. The bacteria don't need to directly harm their competitors to have an advantage.

[Anonymous No.6512445]

>>6512438
well, thats what the researchers are doing, I never contested that, I just said that the old treatments won't become effective again after not using them for a while.

[Anonymous No.6512448]

>>6512438

what of silver?

[Anonymous No.6512449]

>>6512442
>In circumstances where there is no antibiotic, the resistant mutation may come at some slight cost
Why? What is killing those bacteria? What is the cause of the slight cost?

[Anonymous No.6512452]

>>6512449
It could be something very slight, for example it might cause the reproductive rate to decrease by a small percent, or it could make them slightly less efficient at absorbing food. Adaptations generally come at some cost, but if the benefit of the adaptation outweighs the cost it will prosper.

Also bacteria don't necessarily have to die to have a disadvantage, they just have to be less good at increasing their relative numbers.

[Anonymous No.6512454]

>>6512448
wouldn't that also harm the host?

[Anonymous No.6512458]

>>6512452
>it might cause the reproductive rate to decrease by a small percent, or it could make them slightly less efficient at absorbing food.

The abscence of antibiotics would cause that? Come on, man. Think your arguments over.

[Anonymous No.6512471]

>>6512458
At this point I'm not sure if you're just trolling me, but I like explaining these things and improving my communication skills so whatever.

>The abscence of antibiotics would cause that?
no. I never said that, and I never meant to imply it.

Lets do a simple example:
Strain A is "wild-type". I doesn't have the antibiotic resistant mutation.
Strain B has antibiotic resistance.
Strain A has a reproductive rate of 10 divisions per hour
Strain B has a reproductive rate of 9.5 divisions per hour.

In the absence of antibiotic, Strain A's population will increase at a higher rate than Strain B's. Strain A will have a larger population than Strain B, and Strain B may likely die out due to constraints on overall population size.

When antibiotic is present, Strain A will all die off, leaving only Strain B. Even though Strain A has a higher reproduction rate, it doesn't matter because they all die.

[Anonymous No.6512477]

>>6512454
long term exposure to high quantities causes argyria. i'm no expert so perhaps a fellow anon could enlighten us.

[Anonymous No.6512486]

>>6512471
Alright, that makes some sense now.

In conclusion, the resistant strain dies because it has less food available thanks to all the non resistant ones taking all the space there? Then a possible treatment would be administrating another bunch of bacteria with quick reproductive cycle to make the resistant ones "starve".

But the resistant mutation doesn't necessarily give them slower reproduction rates, do they?

[Anonymous No.6512492]

>>6512486
>But the resistant mutation doesn't necessarily give them slower reproduction rates, do they?
it does give them the slower reproduction rates. In my example they would be diverting energy away from reproducing and investing it in antibiotic resistance. that's where the reduced division rate comes from.

I'd love to stay, but I have to go graduate from college. Later

[Anonymous No.6512791]

>>6512486
it's also thought that antibiotic resistance could be combated simply by not using antibiotics in some cases, as the organism no longer has a fitness advantage and is replaced by the 'normal' strain that is not resistant. however, this differs depending on the mechanism of resistance and is far from experimentally verified.

[Anonymous No.6513053]

Semi synsinthetic penicillins are produced via reactions to the molecule after it is produced in a mould culture. What this means is for example in bacteria with beta-lactamase (that exist now) which destroys typical penicillin, a substituent can be attached through a reaction to block the enzyme.

Now there are cuurently 1000's of known working semisynthetic antibiotics, with many more potential substiuents. This essentially means that we can keep developing antibiotics to beat the resistant types, and by the time they have resistance to the new drug we could probably even use the old drugs again.

Also, administration of two differing semisynthetic antibiotics or more destroys the cell in consequetive steps giving us even more of an edge, with huge combinations of mechanisms for killing the bacteria.

I doubt humans ever as a whole have to worry about bacteria being entirely resistant to antibiotics.

[Anonymous No.6514147]

>>6512486
>Then a possible treatment would be administrating another bunch of bacteria with quick reproductive cycle to make the resistant ones "starve".
That's exactly the basis behind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_bacteriotherapy

[Anonymous No.6514198]

>>6511528
boy, does you comment reveal your broad ignorance of the subject at hand!

[Anonymous No.6514775]

>>6512380
no, he was pre destined to chose not doing something, that's why he ended up not doing it

[Anonymous No.6515133]

>>6510271
You know that during most of human history we didn't had antibiotics right?

[Anonymous No.6515135]

>>6510271
There's a number of drugs developed that directly target the DNA of the bacteria

[Anonymous No.6515136]

>>6512398
Phages adapt too and you toss thousands of phages so even if it is immune to one kind there are other thousands that can kill it. We can't do this with antibiotics because it would fuck you up.

[Anonymous No.6516470]

>>6510283

[Anonymous No.6516477]

>>6516470
LOL x'D ...
omG so funnie! its lik thet comic XKCD!!!1! xD ecept itsa PRADIE! OMFGLOL
is tere a tumblr lol!?
ASDF LOL! XD

[Anonymous No.6516499]

Why, instead of treating the disease, can we not treat the body? Can we not introduce information to cells that preform immunologic functions such as the NKT cell?

>cell now learns how to pewpewpew