|
Shbobdb posted:Again, ~15 years ago the field of quorum sensing found a number of potential antibiotics that seemed to have minimal side effects in mammalian systems. There were some synthetic antibiotics that were designed around that time too. None of them made it to clinical trials, so who knows? This is incredibly disingenuous. It is easy to find all sorts of compounds that will kill (or at least inhibit growth of to some degree) bacteria and not kill eukaryotic organisms. Things like quorum sensing are good targets in one sense because no direct analog exists outside of bacteria, but in several other senses make lovely targets. Quorum sensing targets in particular tend to result in very narrow-spectrum targets, and result in resistance very quickly because they aren't necessary for bacteria replication, you inhibit growth of the organisms in certain conditions, but you quickly (on timescales that I can create in my lab) form subpopulations that have re-optimized their communication and regulation to ignore the compound. None of these have made it to clinical trials yet because most of them just don't work well enough long enough to even give feasible results in rodent models. edit: The number of papers that come out that show some 2-log reduction in IP infections of Salmonella in mice model on short time scales with a test compound is amazing, and it is great, but essentially every one of those compounds is worthless on its own, would need a great deal of medicinal chemistry work to come up with an analog that works better, and almost all of those still won't come close to being functional enough to actually clear a real infection with real-world strains. OnceIWasAnOstrich fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Feb 9, 2017 |
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 13:45 |
|