This article from ScienceDaily.com talks about a new antibiotic that binds to bacterial DNA and kills bacteria within 2 minutes.
quote:
The compound [Fe2L3]4+ is an iron triple helicate with three organic strands wrapped around two iron centres to give a helix which looks cylindrical in shape and neatly fits within the major groove of a DNA helix. It is about the same size as the parts of a protein that recognise and bind with particular sequences of DNA. The high positive charge of the compound enhances its ability to bind to DNA which is negatively charged. When the iron-helicate binds to the major groove of DNA it coils the DNA so that it is no longer available to bind to anything else and is not able to drive biological or chemical processes.
quote:
New research at the University of Warwick, led by Dr Adair Richards and Dr Albert Bolhuis, has now found that the [Fe2L3]4+ does indeed have a powerful effect on bacteria. When introduced to two test bacteria Bacillus subtilis and E. coli they found that it quickly bound to the bacteria's DNA and killed virtually every cell within two minutes of being introduced - though the concentration required for this is high.
While I'm sure this could have some amazing short term effects, how is this really any better than the antibiotic drugs we currently use? I concede that it will probably be harder for bacteria to develop resistance to the [Fe2L3]4+ because it does not target any specific sequence, it's not inconceivable that bacteria would. I mean, one way bacteria develop resistance currently is to simply pump the drug out of the cell before it does too much harm. Bacteria already have all sorts of ion pumps, I can't imagine there wouldn't be a way to pump out this one. I think it's also worth pointing out that being so effective at killing bacteria may actually be HARMFUL because it applies a very very high selection coefficient to the bacterial population which will result in much faster evolution.
I don't think we will ever find the magical antibiotic bullet, but the game we're playing now, constantly fighting to stay one step ahead without really considering the evolutionary consequences can't last for long.
I guess my topic for debate is: assuming "they" are able to develop this into an effective therapy, do you think it will succumb to the same fate that most antibiotics have? And, more generally, do you think the pharmaceutical companies will ever get it in their heads that the game they're playing is futile?
Edited by Stagamancer, : No reason given.
We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely