Clothes That Kill

StriderA writes "Robert Engel, of Queens College at The City University of New York, and colleagues have developed a new defence against bacteria and fungi. It seems that they have created tiny molecular daggers that actually seek and destroy the fatty bacteria. Applications to include battling athletes foot to military uniforms that kill anthrax."

Comments

Why does this all boil down to terrorism?

[spotted_dolphin]

Is the only way a new biotechnological development can be 'marketed' is through it's use against bioterrorism? It would be nice to see more support of how this works.
How does this affect our own natural microflora? What is the mode of specificity for these 'blades'? Killing off our own bacteria can make us more susceptible all the other pathogens floating around.
And I didn't think that all bacteria had a fatty coating. What about those which have high carbohydrate coatings? I thought the coat was part of the cause of their pathogenicity.
The concept's cool, but I'd like a little more data.

Antiseptic surfaces, and sweat

[wowbagger]

This could be used not only for fabrics but for any surfaces that can have the "daggers" bonded to them, creating long-lasting antiseptic surfaces.

However, for clothing I have a question - how would the oils in sweat affect the surface? Would they occupy all the "daggers" and prevent the microbes from being penetrated?

Stand back!

[dar]

I've got a T-shirt and I'm not afraid to use it!

This antiseptic obsession

[MaxwellStreet]

Why does it seem that everywhere you look there's another antibacterial product?

As though antibiotics are the key to healthier living or something.

There are lots of benign bacteria out there, who inhibit the growth of more dangerous strains by consuming their resources. (Competitive inhibition is the 'real' term.) Add to the fact that the antibacterial agents are leaching into the environment, thereby ensuring that only resistant bacteria thrive.

What we're ending up with is a world in which the only bacteria are resistant to anything we can throw at them - making it harder and harder to treat the problems that they cause.

In addition, exposure to immunological challenges like benign bacteria helps to keep our immune systems strong.

I can see where these fabrics can be useful in military or hospital situations, but society's obsession with antibacterial wipes and soaps and gels (and now clothing) is only going to harm us long-term.

Re:This antiseptic obsession

[arvindn]

Ah, but this clothing isn't chemically antibiotic, it's physically antibiotic.

Well, in a limited sense. You realize, of course, that the dagger stuff is just by way of analogy.

(From the article):
The "blade" is a carbon chain up to 16 atoms long, populated only by hydrogen atoms. It has a strong affinity for fatty surfaces.

That sure sounds like chemical action to me.

However, the reaction is not specific to some compound in the microbe:

When bacterial or fungal spores approach the fabric, their negatively charged fatty membranes are attracted to positive charges on the nitrogen-rich rings and to the fat-seeking blades.

So since it is not selective, you're right: there is no chance of creating resistant germs. There's no way the critters can stop having fatty membranes altogether.

How to get funding 101

[MerlynEmrys67]

Works for government funding, or VC funding as well... Find out what the hot topic of the day is... Storage Area Networks, Killing Anthrax... Find a way of writting those things into your proposal regardless of whether it makes sense ??? Profit Interestingly enough Anthrax doesn't do much damage to skin contact, you have to BREATH it into your lungs, a fancy set of clothes won't stop that unless you are wearing it as a mask, and if you are doing that I'd just assume wear a NBC suit that will protect me from the really dangerous stuff on the battlefield