Slashdot Mirror


Sea Sponge Extract Conquers Resistant Bacteria

Science News has an article on research into a compound found in a particular kind of sea sponge that seems to have the ability to restore antibiotics' effectiveness against resistant bacteria. The hope is that, since the compound is not itself deadly or even harmful to bacteria, it may skew the antibiotic-bacteria arms race in our favor. "Chemical analyses of the sponge's chemical defense factory pointed to a compound called algeferin. Biofilms, communities of bacteria notoriously resistant to antibiotics, dissolved when treated with fragments of the algeferin molecule. And new biofilms did not form. So far, the algeferin offshoot has, in the lab, successfully treated bacteria that cause whooping cough, ear infections, septicemia and food poisoning. The compound also works on... [MRSA] infections, which wreak havoc in hospitals. 'We have yet to find one that doesn't work,' says [one of the researchers]."

132 comments

  1. Respect by kramulous · · Score: 1

    I hope the researchers take care with this and treat it with respect.

    The last thing we need is for golden staph to be in the presence of this algeferin outside the therapeutic window and modify itself accordingly. GS is bad enough already, the last thing we (humans) want is for it modify itself off some oceanic super goo.

    --
    .
    1. Re:Respect by alexborges · · Score: 1

      We cant kill it as-is anyway, so kudos to this guys and keep it comming!

      --
      NO SIG
    2. Re:Respect by rfuilrez · · Score: 1

      And the problem of perpetuating a bacterial-resistance arms race, in which bacteria rapidly develop countermeasures against new antibiotics, may be avoided entirely with the new compound. "Since the substance is nontoxic to the bacterium, its not throwing up any red flags," says Moeller.

      Other than "doing something really funky that were excited about," researchers dont yet know how this compound interferes with bacterial resistance to antibiotics, says Moeller. The compound may sneak by bacterias sensors that trigger new ways to combat antibiotics. Bacteria continually treated with this compound for three months are still susceptible to antibiotics.

      It would appear that bacteria don't modify itself? Obviously the research is still early, but hopefully this is a remedy to the situation that lasts for quite some time.

    3. Re:Respect by wamerocity · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well I propose that we do with it what we did with penicillin in the 50's, and infuse it into livestock feed, thereby ending the battle against bacteria forever. FOREVER!

      --
      "Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"
    4. Re:Respect by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested to see how many of the bacteria it actually kills. If it eliminates all the bacteria then there's very little chance mutation can arise to work against it.

      But you're right, the overuse of antibiotics got us in the mess we're in today.

    5. Re:Respect by Bertie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, they probably thought the bacteria would never come up with an answer to penicillin either.

      They've been around an awfully long time, and there's a reason for that: nothing's beaten them yet. Our attempt at suppressing them has been thwarted in just a few decades - not even a blink of an eye on a biological timescale.

      I wouldn't be crowing about having the little blighters licked just yet.

    6. Re:Respect by Bangmaker · · Score: 1

      If it can kill MRSA that has already entered a person then it is good enough for right now. There will always be more ways to kill it in the future, but we still need help now.

    7. Re:Respect by thermian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, they probably thought the bacteria would never come up with an answer to penicillin either.

      Actually it didn't. Instead what happened was antibiotics were handed out like candy and people weren't made to complete their courses.

      If you stop taking antibiotics before the whole course is complete, any remaining bacteria are those which have some resistance (but in the beginning not enough to survive a completed course). Multiply this by the millions of people who didn't complete their courses over the decades, and you have trouble.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    8. Re:Respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At some minimal concentration, it is not going to be 100% effective. Dump any antibacterial compound into the sewer system, and it will eventually become diluted enough to favor the evolution of resistant bacteria.

    9. Re:Respect by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Those doctors should be struck off for doing so.

      Can people buy antibiotics over the counter in the USA? That's when the real problems start...

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:Respect by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      One thing I've always wondered is how bacteria's limited genetic code relates to antibiotics. Do the bacteria actively resist the antibiotics (implying there would be a point where we have more antibiotics than bacteria can have resistant genes for), or do the antibiotics actively take advantage of a 'glitch' in the bacteria genes (implying that it will be an endless war)? Am I even asking the right questions?

    11. Re:Respect by Puff+of+Logic · · Score: 4, Informative

      All true. However the antibiotic usage in humans is vastly outweighed by the antibiotic usage in livestock. One of my med-school courses cited an instance in...Denmark, I believe it was. The annual human consumption of an antibiotic came to something like 25kg that year. Consumption of an analogous antibiotic in livestock for that same year was something on the order of 25,000kg. Over-prescription of antibiotics for CYA or, more commonly, to patients who aren't satisfied until they've receive an antibiotic for their viral (sigh) infection is certainly a problem. Before we get too worked up over that, however, let's stop feeding the drugs to the damned cows, pigs, and chickens!

      --
      P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
    12. Re:Respect by WEqR0lDRR6I · · Score: 1

      Everything in life can be a glitch from a certain point of view, no life form is "perfect".

      Antibiotics act on the differences(chemical, structural, signal-pathways, etc.) between bacteria and human/animal cells. As long as differences exist, it will be hypothetically possible on a very abstract level to produce antibiotics, but that's assuming we can engineer increasingly complex custom molecules...or find new species to plunder. ;)

    13. Re:Respect by sleigher · · Score: 1

      No you cannot. At least not that I am aware of. You can buy lots of anti-bacterial products though.

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    14. Re:Respect by Niedi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Both exist. Bacteria can evade antibiotics in many ways, some active, some passive.

      The easiest way to actively evade antibiotics is by developing efflux pumps which will pump out a certain drug or class of drugs (Tetracycline, beta-lactame).

      The easiest way to passively evade antibiotics is through modification of the drug target which is a rare thing but can happen since bacteria are quite prone to mutations and also multiply like mad.

      The thing that completely stupefies me is how that stuff is supposed to do away with resistances... Maybe it makes them barf their plasmids but still, I have no idea how that is supposed to work. Especially since some plasmids come with their own simple but effective measures against it.
      That option would be pretty easy to verify though.

    15. Re:Respect by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Well in addition to that I hope that this teaches us to respect the Earth's natural resources, the subtle ones as well as the bubbling black and shiny gold ones that we currently fight over like a bunch of heavily armed 5 year olds.

      --
      I hate printers.
    16. Re:Respect by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      Unless it kills 100% of the bacteria, we're back to square one. The ones that don't get killed (natural mutation or just more resistant) will multiply and the new strain will be immune. That's the way evolution works...

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    17. Re:Respect by sjames · · Score: 1

      It might, but so far it looks like they tested with only algeferin in the culture, so naturally it didn't apply any selective pressure. Once mixed with an antibiotic so that the combination actually does apply selective pressure, who knows?

      We can hope that whatever the algeferin does can't be worked around but we just don't know yet.

    18. Re:Respect by digitig · · Score: 1

      It would appear that bacteria don't modify itself? Obviously the research is still early, but hopefully this is a remedy to the situation that lasts for quite some time.

      Do bacteria "modify themselves" anyway? I thought the mechanism was that the bacteria that the technique is least effective on are the ones most likely to pass those characteristics to the next genration. If they've found a way to stop evolution working, this is news!

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    19. Re:Respect by Monkier · · Score: 1

      I think you left out a word:

      Good thing we're not *done* destroying our environment so discoveries like this can continue to be made.

    20. Re:Respect by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Nothing that does not kill the host can do that, methinks.

      --
      NO SIG
    21. Re:Respect by Perf · · Score: 1

      Instead what happened was antibiotics were handed out like candy and people weren't made to complete their courses.

      If you stop taking antibiotics before the whole course is complete, any remaining bacteria are those which have some resistance (but in the beginning not enough to survive a completed course). Multiply this by the millions of people who didn't complete their courses over the decades, and you have trouble.

      20 years ago, the medical authorities proscribed 2 weeks worth of antibiotics. Later, it dropped to 10 days. Now, a 4 day proscription is normal.

      Why?
      I don't get it. It seems to conflict with what you just described.

    22. Re:Respect by shrimppesto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Many of those anti-bacterial products actually do not contain antibiotics. Instead, they contain compounds that are germicidal and kill everything they touch.

      The difference is critical. Antibiotics are compounds that selectively kill bacteria, causing less harm to human cells. They must therefore target some unique aspect of bacterial biology in their killing action; the specificity to which such targeting must take place is the reason why it's so easy for a bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance. "You want to bind to my protein X? Okay, I'll mutate it!" Done.

      Germicidal compounds, on the other hand, kill everything they touch by mechanisms that are not bacteria-specific. An excellent example is rubbing alcohol, which basically rips the bacteria apart. Unfortunately, it also rips YOUR cells apart, which is why you can't give it to somebody to cure their infection.

      Resistance to this latter category is not as much of a problem. It's exceedingly difficult to evolve, say, Purell resistance (active ingredient ethanol); the rare bugs that are resistant (e.g. spores) have been resistant long before Purell was around.

    23. Re:Respect by hercubus · · Score: 1

      good point. some soil scientists found resistant bacteria in the soil of farms just a few months after a particular antibiotic was released for farm use

      and, oh yeah, antibiotics are approved for animal use years before they're approved for human use (in the USA). so by they time a new antibiotic is prescribed to humans its useful life has already been shortened

      bacteria have about done me in several times already. we all have to go sometime but it gripes me that it'll be the greed of the cow people, and their customers of course, that'll speed my otherwise preventable end

      --
      -- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
    24. Re:Respect by bipbop · · Score: 1

      This is anecdotal and perhaps not particularly interesting, but the last three times I've had antibiotics I was given ten days worth. I am in California FYI. And, I do not know the answer to your question, but I am interested.

    25. Re:Respect by BytePusher · · Score: 1

      In response to people's behavior(failure to take complete course) new types of antibiotics were developed, which my doctor calls "front loading." This means you take the antibiotic for four days, but it maintains effective levels in your body for perhaps the next 10. You can typically read all kinds of information that comes packaged with your prescription, such as describes serum levels per dose vs. time, warning signs for allergic reactions, serous side effects, etc.

    26. Re:Respect by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      It's exceedingly difficult to evolve, say, Purell resistance (active ingredient ethanol);

      I drink ethanol...
       
        mafia rpg game

    27. Re:Respect by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Instead what happened was antibiotics were handed out like candy and people weren't made to complete their courses.

      If you stop taking antibiotics before the whole course is complete, any remaining bacteria are those which have some resistance (but in the beginning not enough to survive a completed course). Multiply this by the millions of people who didn't complete their courses over the decades, and you have trouble.

      20 years ago, the medical authorities proscribed 2 weeks worth of antibiotics. Later, it dropped to 10 days. Now, a 4 day proscription is normal.

      Why? I don't get it. It seems to conflict with what you just described.

      Good question. I've just been assuming that "they" are just getting better at making more effective antibiotics.

    28. Re:Respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's now gone so far, that in the Netherlands *anyone* working with livestock will be quarantined upon arrival in a hospital. Guess where that comes from...

    29. Re:Respect by mr_walrus · · Score: 1

      depending on his exam and her chest sounds, perhaps the antibiotic
      prescription was a preventative to avoid her slipping into a
      pneumonia condition from that flu. the prophylactic use of antibiotics
      is fairly normal.

    30. Re:Respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, that's something pretty much anyone involved in biological or medical sciences know. Those subtle ones have been the sources for a lot of our medicines and markers and what not.

      I don't think this will do anything for the public at large, because they are morons who don't read or care about anything outside their little bubble.

    31. Re:Respect by Perf · · Score: 1

      FWIW, my mother does medical transcription and tells me a 4 day dose is the norm nowadays.

    32. Re:Respect by oneTheory · · Score: 1

      Our bodies aren't exactly defenseless...

    33. Re:Respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Treating things before there is even a problem is one of the reasons we're in this mess.

    34. Re:Respect by HiThere · · Score: 1

      What it sounds like it's supposed to do is digest the compounds that the bacteria secrete to allow films of them to enclose a surface or an area. Like the surface of your teeth (to pick perhaps the most common example for people to be aware of). Once they can't stick together, they can't exchange signals that say, e.g., how numerous they are. Bacterial action frequently changes drastically when the population density increases. Also, if the film is dissolved, then they will have a harder time sticking to their target. A good thing from our point of view.

      OTOH, if this isn't topically applied, it sounds like it could create a rather extreme form of diarrhea.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    35. Re:Respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty trivial to buy them off the internet, including last-resort ones like Ciprofloxacin (which has an elevated potential of causing serious or even fatal side-effects.)

  2. Flight of the dodo . by Ostracus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Science News has an article on research into a compound found in a particular kind of sea sponge that seems to have the ability to restore antibiotics' effectiveness against resistant bacteria. The hope is that, since the compound is not itself deadly or even harmful to bacteria, it may skew the antibiotic-bacteria arms race in our favor. "

    Good thing we're not destroying our environment so discoveries like this can continue to be made.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:Flight of the dodo . by Elite_Warrior · · Score: 1

      Actually we are destroying it. If the fuel(biological) consumption remains at the same rate sea temperature are going to be higher(2 to 4 degree Celsius)that will destroy good amount of marine ecology.

    2. Re:Flight of the dodo . by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1

      You might need to get your sarcasm detector recalibrated.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    3. Re:Flight of the dodo . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hope is that, since the compound is not itself deadly or even harmful to bacteria, it may skew the antibiotic-bacteria arms race in our favor.

      This doesn't make sense. That's not how evolution works. Bacteria evolve to to find the most efficient (or sufficient) means of reproduction. Obviously anything that lowers their capacity to reproduce, directly damaging or not, will be evolved around.

    4. Re:Flight of the dodo . by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Obviously anything that lowers their capacity to reproduce, directly damaging or not, will be evolved around.

      They've had plenty of time to out-evolve it "in the wild", when it was being used as part of the sponge's self-defense mechanism. Given that that hasn't happened, why would you expect it to occur now?

    5. Re:Flight of the dodo . by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 1

      Part of what drives evolution is a continual arms race between organisms that want to kill other organisms, and organisms that don't like to be killed. Right now this sponge has the upper hand over bacteria (that, admittedly, may not have killing the sponge as their primary goal but probably don't make life any easier) but that's no guarantee that bacteria won't evolve around it and gain the upper hand again, like what happened with people + antibiotics vs. bacteria.

    6. Re:Flight of the dodo . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They've had plenty of time to out-evolve it "in the wild", when it was being used as part of the sponge's self-defense mechanism. Given that that hasn't happened, why would you expect it to occur now?

      You're so cuuuute! :)

      Lets sit down for a moment, and try and come up with a reason why the bacteria wouldn't 'out-evolve' a chemical that occurs in sea sponge.

      I got one! Maybe the bacteria don't give a crap about infecting 'sea sponge' and find infecting the other millions of species 'good enough'. Seriously, if you could pick something to infect and kill, would you honestly pick 'sea sponge'? :p

    7. Re:Flight of the dodo . by mail2345 · · Score: 1

      Then use something that evolves faster than them.

    8. Re:Flight of the dodo . by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Well bacteria don't exactly get to choose their hosts. They have to make the most of their circumstances and if that means infecting a sea sponge then so be it.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    9. Re:Flight of the dodo . by alexborges · · Score: 1

      That, or they perish.... forever.

      Plenty species disapear!

      --
      NO SIG
    10. Re:Flight of the dodo . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rare enemy effect?

    11. Re:Flight of the dodo . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Well bacteria don't exactly get to choose their hosts. They have to make the most of their circumstances and if that means infecting a sea sponge then so be it.

      Then again, while there are species around that are much easier to infect than sea sponge, those species will be infected. If you can infect 99% of all species, there is extremely little selective pressure to 'learn' how to infect the other 1%. Widespread use of the chemicals in the 1% will create more selective presure to work around those.

  3. "Yet" by StaticEngine · · Score: 4, Funny

    'We have yet to find one that doesn't work,' says [one of the researchers]."

    Oh, but when they do, then once again the vile bacteria will have the upper... psuedopod.

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Yay! by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Funny
    --
    What?
    1. Re:Yay! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?
      Antibiotic and yellow and porous is he!

  6. phage medicine. by schwillis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's funny that phage medicine has been demostrated to be very effective to treat antibiotic resistant bacteria, yet it's never been adopted in western medicine. But something comes along that works in conjunction with anti biotics and it's hot stuff. Fucking pharmasutical companys.

    1. Re:phage medicine. by Bertie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A quick scour of the web has thrown up some interesting reading on that topic. I never realised bacteriophages were used in medicine at all. Seems like the West's just forgotten about them. Thanks.

    2. Re:phage medicine. by vlm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yet it's never been adopted in western medicine.

      Easy business model to "monetize" something out of a chemical plant... trademarks, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, all to protect the investment.

      How go you do this with "sponge juice"? I'm guessing they'd have to completely switch business models and try to run it like a fishery or fish canning factory or something?

      I would not expect the pharmaceutical industrial complex to rally around this new idea.

      It would be like if someone proved orange juice cures colds, or HFCS causes obesity, there's no way to make money out of that interesting but unprofitable knowledge.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:phage medicine. by JDevers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, but there is plenty of money. The new chemical does NOT kill bacteria, it allows antibiotics to work better. There are already LOTS of chemicals like this (penicillinase inhibitors etc), just none that are nearly this promising and I assure you that a LOT of pharma dollars are spent trying to find new chemicals that allow antibiotics to work better. They would much rather sell medicine that is already developed than spending tens of millions developing something that will only return a few more tens of millions before being rendered worthless. This allows a lot of that past knowledge to be reused.

    4. Re:phage medicine. by schwillis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They make money because this doesn't kill the bacteria, it disolves their biofilms and lowers their resistance to anti-biotics, so if they invest in harvesting and processing sea sponges for this substance, and trying to figure out how to synthesize it, they are profiting off the selling of the sea sponges, and an increase in sales of anti-biotics to follow up the treatment.

    5. Re:phage medicine. by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      It's funny that phage medicine has been demostrated to be very effective to treat antibiotic resistant bacteria, yet it's never been adopted in western medicine. But something comes along that works in conjunction with anti biotics and it's hot stuff. Fucking pharmasutical companys.

      You're overselling phage therapies.
      My understanding is that phages are usually specific to a strain or two of [bacteria].

      This new compound is (so far) effective in sensitizing all bacteria.
      If you don't see the difference in value, then there's nothing I can say to convince you.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:phage medicine. by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      antibiotics were heavily in use in the west while the east had to develop alternate methods of attacking bacteria. now that antibiotic resistance is becomming a major problem in the west, bacteriophages may be used more often on *surface ailments*. THe reason being that the body's immune system attacks the phages when used internally.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    7. Re:phage medicine. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      As far as I understand, the problem with bacteriophages is that they're highly specialized. A specific phage virus only work against a few specific strains of bacteria, so you need to figure out exactly what strain of bacteria the person has before you can treat it, which can be difficult in many cases, whereas a broad spectrum antibiotic doesn't require that.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    8. Re:phage medicine. by Guppy · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's funny that phage medicine has been demostrated to be very effective to treat antibiotic resistant bacteria, yet it's never been adopted in western medicine.

      Well, you have to consider the specific issues surrounding phage therapy as well. Two similar-looking strains of bacteria can have very different phage susceptibility profiles -- an issue similar with antibiotic resistance, but my impression is that a strain match is much more of an issue with phage therapy, as each one is like a extremely "narrow spectrum" antibiotic. This is both good and bad, as it avoids collateral damage to "friendly" bacteria, but requires considerable time and expertise to get the match right -- the expertise needed to effectively implement phage therapy effectively is pretty high.

      In an epidemic, you probably are looking at just one strain of bacteria going around, so is less of a problem (I have heard phage treatment works well versus something like, say, Cholera). However, for general cases, you end up needing to have a large library of phages on-hand (this is probably not an issue for centralized medical systems, but won't work well for an independent family doctor or suburban pharmacy). On the positive side, phages constantly co-evolve with their bacterial hosts, allowing you to overcome resistance by updating your library.

      A "cocktail" would allow you to dispense with needing a large library, or having to get as detailed a susceptibility profile each time. However, there is another problem, that this solution makes worse -- your immune reaction against the phages. Very quickly after your initial encounter with a phage, you will likely develop a response against it (and probably relatives of that phage too). So the long-term practicality of phage treatment is an issue too.

    9. Re:phage medicine. by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's my understanding as well. It's typically necessary to culture the patient's infection and then try dozens of bacteriophages against it to find just the right one.

      Still, the technique does seem to have merit and should probably be in use now except that there's no way to monitize it and so it goes unresearched.

    10. Re:phage medicine. by trenobus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Phage therapy involves a lot of labor in isolating a non-symbiotic phage for a particular bacterial strain, and then growing enough of them to give the patient a dose that will not be negated by their immune system. To really be practical, this process would need to be automated.

      Phages are specific, which is a disadvantage economically, as another poster noted. But specificity is an advantage medically, as it means you don't need to wipe out all of the "good bacteria" along with the bad. This is particularly important when the bad bacteria are antibiotic resistant and are in competition with the good bacteria.

      An enlightened society would be developing both antibiotic and phage therapies. But then, an enlightened society would be different from ours in so many ways.

    11. Re:phage medicine. by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Phage therapy has shown itself to be a viable treatment option, especially in Russia and other former Soviet countries where research and development costs were sunk and paid for long ago by the communists. However, there are many drawbacks to phage therapy which can make their use difficult (and particularly so inside the body). First, phages are uniquely in tune with the bacteria they attack, meaning that each phage has to be selected based upon the type of bacteria that they target in the infection. Second, mainting large populations of viable phages on hand requires corresponding large quantities of active bacteria in order to breed more phages for needed treatments, both of which require large factory like digesters and other equipment which is costly and doesn't scale as well as synthetic chemical antibiotics. Third, when infections enter the body the phages will be attacked just like every other invader by the immune system of our bodies, helping the bacteria to continue the infection. Phage therapy is not popular in the west because it is less practical, not because it isn't effective.

    12. Re:phage medicine. by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > but won't work well for an independent family doctor or suburban pharmacy

      No idea about other countries, but German pharmacies get a delivery at least three times a day. Stockpiles of important stuff are distributed across the country. You will get anything _important_ within hours if you need to. And that is without driving to a hospital or something.

      Government regulation in important infrastructure is a good thing.

    13. Re:phage medicine. by mr_walrus · · Score: 1

      broad-spectrum not always good.

    14. Re:phage medicine. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One approach is to use multi-phage mixes. Even if every kind of phage only affects a few kinds of bacteria, a broad-spectrum approach covers many. I'm not sure whether bacteria can form a resistance against phages but a phage tratment could be a first step, followed by antibiotics to kill anything the phages don't manage to get.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  7. Quick! Feed it to the Cows! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    Or the chickens and pigs.

    Good medicine is only for responsible races. I wonder what we'd actually do with a second chance. If we blow it, I'd be tempted to just deliberately poison the water. Oh, wait. . .

    -FL

  8. Salmonella by vuo · · Score: 5, Informative

    It would be perfect against salmonella. Salmonella is extremely hazardous to public health, because it can reside dormant in the intestinal biofilm for practically indefinite periods (up to 25 years), and the carrier remains infectious all the time. A single bacterium can cause a potentially fatal illness, so in some jurisdictions, anyone who works with food is tested for salmonella. Unfortunately the only way to positively remove salmonella from a carrier is ciprofloxacin, an antibiotic generally considered an antibiotic of last resort. Its serious, potentially disabling side-effects include permanent damage of peripheral nerves, the intestine and spontaneous tendon rupture. A way to dissolve the bacteria from the biofilm would probably make them easier to eradicate with less dangerous antibiotics.

    1. Re:Salmonella by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      A way to dissolve the bacteria from the biofilm would probably make them easier to eradicate with less dangerous antibiotics.

      Except for the very likely problem of when you dissolve biofilms, you create Yet Another Problem. OK, so somebody has found a novel compound that screws up bacterial metabolism. Let me, just of a moment, pop into cynic mode:

      We have lots and lots of chemicals, simple and complex, that trash biofilms. And bacteria. Generic bleach at high concentrations comes to mind. Of course, you don't want to stick that in your veins.

      The hard part is coming up with something you can put inside a human being (or test eukaryote of your choice, be it politician, lawyer or c. eleagans) and have it kill the bacteria and not the host.

      /end cynic mode. Carry on.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Salmonella by shrimppesto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's probably not quite fair to call ciprofloxacin an antibiotic of last resort, considering how widely it has been used for the past decade or so. Its side effects are indeed serious and debilitating; however, these side effects are also extraordinarily rare, which explains why ciprofloxacin has been prescribed for everything from UTIs to sinusitis without half the population rupturing their tendons.

      This is not to say that such side effects should be ignored, but rather that they should be considered in the analysis of risk vs. benefit. Owing to their rarity, it is quite often the case that the benefits far outweigh the risks.

      Overused? Yes, definitely, no doubt about it. But there are still many scenarios under which ciprofloxacin use can be justified, and many scenarios in which it is still the #1 drug of choice.

    3. Re:Salmonella by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone suffering through the side effects of quinolone anti-biotics (Cipro and it's ilk) they should absolutely be used as a last resort. The side effects maybe rare (and the more I find out about them the more I doubt that assertion) but they are very, very bad. And doctors almost flat out refuse to attribute anything to quinolone side effects.

      Cipro is used far too often as a first line antibiotic when something like augmentin or amoxicillian would do just fine with fewer potential problems. If primary care physicians didn't give out cipro like candy I wouldn't be in the state I am today. Doctor's truly are "practicing" a subtle science and having big pharma pushing drugs on them every damn day of the week doesn't help.

  9. Great news by Bertie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now can we be a bit more careful with it this time? No attempts to coat the planet in a thin layer of the stuff, please. The loss of the best weapons against disease we've ever found is not a fair price to pay for cheaper meat. Hopefully we've learned that lesson, although every time I see a doctor prescribe antibiotics just to get someone out of their surgery, I despair a little.

  10. US Hospital procedures are also to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Aa few years ago I sat outside the entry doors to an ICU where a relative was lying. I sat there for many days, and many hours.

    I observed every single nurse stop and scrub at the scrub station which was located near the ICU entry doors. I observed maybe
    one doctor out of thirty doctors scrub at the station. Most doctors walked right through the doors and did not scrub.

    You can draw your own conclusions about this, but it seems obvious that things weren't being done in a consistent manner,
    and I've been told by some European doctor buddies that this
    sort of lax behavior in matters of sterile procedures is NOT tolerated in German hospitals.

    So, magic bullets are great, but what we really need, in the US at least, is a change in the way the medical "profession" behaves. After what I saw with my own eyes, I can't say the conduct I observed was what I'd call professional, and it will be a cold day in hell before I allow myself to be admitted as a patient in the hospital at UNC-Chapel Hill.

    1. Re:US Hospital procedures are also to blame by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      It sounds like your subject line isn't quite right: what you actually meant to say was "lack of enforcement of US hospital procedures are also to blame", since we can guess (by the nurses' behavior) that hospital policy is to scrub, it just wasn't being enforced.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:US Hospital procedures are also to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It sounds like your subject line isn't quite right: what you actually meant to say was "lack of enforcement of US hospital procedures are also to blame"

      I am the original poster. You may be correct in your inference about the hospital policy. Or, maybe the nurses just care more. I honestly don't know what the hospital policy is. However, I believe that given the fact that a patient is already in bad enough shape to be in the ICU in the first place, it shouldn't require enforcement for doctors to take 30 seconds and scrub. As some of you may know, the Hippocratic Oath is a serious thing, and "first, do no harm" is not some kind of joke.

      By the way, not a single doctor I saw went through those
      doors running, so that indicates to me that they weren't skipping the scrub because an emergency was in progress - they were skipping the scrub for some other reason, and I cannot imagine
      their behavior could be justified when lives are on the line. If you surmise I didn't think too much of their behavior, you would be correct. I doubt very much that UNC is the only hospital in the US with such behavior, but that doesn't in any way excuse it.

    3. Re:US Hospital procedures are also to blame by shrimppesto · · Score: 1

      I assume that by "scrub" you mean handwashing?

      You are correct that enforcement of standards is problematic in the US. You are also absolutely correct that it cannot be justified. However, the issue is not as superficial as it seems -- try washing your hands every 30 minutes for an entire day, and you will see for yourself the reason so many doctors are reluctant to do it.

      In better news, the advent of foam hand cleaners (which actually have been shown to have better disinfectant properties than soap & water) has increased handwashing compliance dramatically, and efforts are continuing in this area. Some hospitals have excellent "foam compliance" rates; others do not. Unfortunately, the only thing prompting a hospital to work toward better compliance right now is their own good will, which is not good enough -- not in the least because working toward better compliance costs a lot more money than one would think, and no one has much of that right now. Regulatory agencies need to be involved; efforts to improve care need to actually receive funding; and, both incentives and consequences need to be present in order to promote such change. Atul Gawande's book entitled "Better" provides an excellent summary of the problems standing in the way of such much-needed changes in medicine. We need to fix these problems.

      Going back to the topic of antibiotic resistance, I think it is necessary to point out that antibiotic overuse is NOT a phenomenon that is limited to the United States. In fact, over the past decade, fluoroquinolone (a class of antibiotics) usage rates in Europe have far exceeded their (already excessive) usage in the United States (hard to believe, but true) -- and lo and behold, fluoroquinolone resistance is now emerging everywhere. Even worse are the many countries in which antibiotics are readily available over-the-counter; worse yet is the EXTENSIVE (mis)use of antibiotics in the agricultural industry. Responsibility for the problems we face are by no means limited to the United States.

      Some patients must take part of the blame as well. As another commenter mentioned, not finishing antibiotics is a major reason behind the development of resistance. Pediatricians are also constantly pressured by parents to prescribe antibiotics, with parents threatening to take their kids elsewhere. Similar pressures are also seen in adult practice -- prescribe someone with a mild pneumonia five days of azithromycin, and you would be surprised how often the patient asks for (by name) a two-day course of levofloxacin instead (simply put, a 'more potent' antibiotic). To be fair, doctors also have a responsibility not to give into these requests, and persuasive communication is something that medical schools are trying to place more and more emphasis upon. In any case, one cannot deny the effect that these patient requests have.

      No drug is a magic bullet, because bacteria evolve; this is Darwinian evolution, and we can't stop it. It is curious that the media treats antibiotic resistance as a new problem, when it is in fact a problem that has existed ever since we began to use antibiotics. It will take a major paradigm shift in the way we combat microbes in order to arrest this progression of new drugs and new bugs resistant to new drugs. However, until we understand more about the mechanism of the agent described in the article, it will be difficult to say if this is truly such a dramatic paradigm shift.

    4. Re:US Hospital procedures are also to blame by RichiH · · Score: 1

      You are right, this would not be tolerated, over here.

      Another thing which, thankfully, is different in Europe is that we don't put disinfectants into deodorants(!) and other crap. Way to build resistant strains. Hopefully, you keep them over there ;)

    5. Re:US Hospital procedures are also to blame by renoX · · Score: 1

      >> and I've been told by some European doctor buddies that this sort of lax behavior in matters of sterile procedures is NOT tolerated in German hospitals.

      Note that this doesn't apply everywhere in Europe: France has a high (compared to other European countries) number of illness caught in hospitals (unfortunately for me as I'm French).

  11. Wrong name by MoellerPlesset2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The compound is called ageliferin.

    1. Re:Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The compound is called ageliferin.

      +5 Informative? Slashdot's mods are gullible today.

    2. Re:Wrong name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is the journal Science too I guess.

  12. Tartar control by hyc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if this stuff will dissolve dental biofilms. Would be cool to finally have a simple, 100% effective treatment that totally prevents plaque, gum disease, cavities... Tho I suppose if it's that good, the ADA will bury it.

    --
    -- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
    1. Re:Tartar control by RebelWithoutAClue · · Score: 1
      --
      "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Tartar control by RichiH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hope you are kidding. If you are not, you are part of the problem. You accept that people will die because there is no treatment for X because you are too lazy to brush for two minutes? Way to go, buddy.

      And yes, _I_ am being serious.

    3. Re:Tartar control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious-- and nonsensical.
      What the hell are you talking about?
      Where in the OP, exactly, did he say that if this couldn't be used for dental care he would burn the world's supply?

    4. Re:Tartar control by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > Where in the OP, exactly, did he say that if this couldn't be used for dental care he would burn the world's supply?

      Assuming this is not the weakest trolling I have seen in 2009, who is talking about using up any theoretical supply? Sea sponges need clean water, but if you provide that, you can grow _lots_ of them if you want to.

      Bacteria are the most adaptable and resilent form of life on earth. They adapt. Faster than _anything else_. You use something to kill them which gentle enough to simply kill off all life, i.e. is safe to use on humans, and you train them to survive it in the long term. This is why using those last-resort measures which pop up way too seldom on everyday stuff is, in the literal sense, killing other people down the road.

      And don't get me started on using antibiotics against a common flu or something. And _those_ people are the ones who are most likely to stop taking the tablets as soon as they feel better, not until the packet runs out. If you wonder why _that_ is a bad thing, read the other threads.

  13. Yay for Mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Found another life form to abuse for our own benefit. Aren't human beings just great?

    1. Re:Yay for Mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, feel free to stop abusing other life forms for your own benefit.

      Good luck surviving without food, BTW.

    2. Re:Yay for Mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this world is hell, we'd be a race of pit fiends.

    3. Re:Yay for Mankind by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Probably still a better fate for them than cleaning utensils.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:Yay for Mankind by sunwolf · · Score: 1

      Right? I hope SETI comes up with something soon. I can't wait to find out what they taste like!

  14. I, for one, welcome our new spongy overlords by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 0

    you knew it was coming

  15. Adam? by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Let me guess, to get more of it, we need to implant the sponges in little orphan girls?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  16. FWIW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bacteria don't pave psuedopods - they lack the internal structure and size of eukaryotes like amoeba. What they do have are flagella and the type III secretory proteins they evolved from (think microscopic syringes).

    1. Re:FWIW by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Well then they'll have the upper type III secretory protein.

      Smart ass.

      --
      I hate printers.
    2. Re:FWIW by StaticEngine · · Score: 1

      Somewhere, Gary Larson is weeping.

  17. An abridged history of the future by Repton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    T+10 years: government bodies approve sea-sponge-enhanced antibiotics for use on humans.

    T+12 years: patients start telling their doctor: "My friend told me regular antibiotics don't work. I want sea-sponge antibiotics!

    T+17 years: sea-sponge resistent bacteria start to emerge because of patients not completing their courses.

    --
    Repton.
    They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    1. Re:An abridged history of the future by retchdog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fortunately, patents expire in seventeen years so there's no loss here!

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  18. Good News For Diabetics by hardburlyboogerman · · Score: 1

    and myself included.I have suffered with 2 MRSA infections in the past year.
    Hope they can get this to the public ASAP.

    --
    Geek Hillbilly
  19. Ttreated? by fava · · Score: 1

    The subhead states "Bacteria treated with compound lose their resistance"

    My question is what is treated?

    If treated means "immersed in a strong bath of the compound for 2 weeks" then the compound may not be very practical. If treated means "a small dose included with the antibiotic" then the treatment is very practical.

    The fact that the article was not very specific suggests its not the latter.

  20. Well of course they can soak any thing up... by freeasinrealale · · Score: 1

    ...they ARE sponges after all....

    --
    A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
  21. But the bottom line is by dangle · · Score: 1

    that it is not clear that intelligence is the best solution to the question as to how to best propagate life. We've spend generations understanding how bacteria help and harm us, and have created more and more intellectual defenses and offenses to protect us from their harmful effects. Nevertheless, their unintelligent brute force efforts have always bested our best efforts (or we have acted to undermine our own successes). We may think that we are the dominant form of life on this planet, but billions upon billions of microorganisms would beg to differ.

    1. Re:But the bottom line is by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      They would beg to differ, except they can't beg since they aren't self-aware. I'll take my not so prolific yet sentient existence any day.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  22. Biofilms by Guppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, besides the mis-spelling of "ageliferin" (for those wondering why Google's not bringing up much)...

    This is pretty big, but it's not coming out of nowhere. I'm not too familiar with this particular compound, but it appears to be a bio-film breaker -- most (but not all) of which work by disrupting quorum sensing. What's exciting about this particular example is both its potency and apparent non-toxicity.

    If suitable for use in humans, you can expect this to dramatically improvement treatment of various types of infections involving biofilm-forming bacteria -- you find these a lot in Cystic Fibrosis patients, immunocompromised patients, and various infections of catheters and implanted items and such.

    1. Re:Biofilms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well ... this MAY be a good idea to test this first, as several problems spring to mind :
      1) Bacterias are not all-bad, as can be seen by looking at the "intestinal flora" ...
      2) Anti-bacterial resistance developed over time, through over-prescription; will ageliferin-resistance do the same ?
      3) This stuff is CORAL-produced ... since they seem to go extinct at an incredible rate, HOW WILL they be produced ?
      4) LONG-TERM side-effects (10+ YEARS ... or, the time it takes for the body to be grown anew) : have these corals been historically used in any way ? If not, I'll wait before voluntarilly sticking some in MY body (NO, 2 years DO NOT constitute L-T testing) !!

    2. Re:Biofilms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get this straight: The bugs have learnt to wear a condom to prevent them being killed by antibiotics, and this sponge compound is a condom or raincoat breaker.

      Something tells me future bugs will invest in thicker condoms- and tell their kids not to go out unprotected.

      Maybe another solution is to find the compound, that makes the raincoat 'airtight' so the bug stews and suffocates - a biofilm cancer agent with a programmed finite life.

  23. Gross Ignorance by Cyanara · · Score: 1

    I was once killing time outside a chemist in a shopping centre. In doing so I started reading a pamphlet advertising a new probiotic, as I figured they might be useful to me. However, as it turned out, the pamphlet went to great lengths to explain that any competent doctor would (successfully) treat a person with the flu with antibiotics. The idea of ingesting live organisms from a company that fails high school biology has me pretty worried to say the least.

    1. Re:Gross Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are so-called "anti-viral antibotics" that work on influenza.

      Unlike almost all viruses, there are antiviral antibiotics which can block "growth" (actually reproduction) of influenza viruses. They are most helpful very early in a case of flu; once you have a few million of the bugs in you the antivirals don't do much good.

      There are four antiflu antivirals available at present. Two of these -- amantidine and rimantadine -- prevent the virus particles from taking off their outer coats (really!). Since the virus can't infect a cell without shedding the outer coat, it can't reproduce. These medicines work only on influenza A viruses. The other two -- zanamivir and oseltamivir -- block an enzyme called neuramidase (the N in the antigen code, by the way)on the surface of the virus, which reduces the number of new virus particles released by an infected cell. Since both influenza A and influenza B have neuramidase on their surface (they have to, to do their thing) both A and B can be blocked by zanamivir or oseltamivir.

      All of these medicines, when properly used within the first 48 hours of illness, can reduce the severity of flu inefction, as well as how long you stay infected (by about 24 hours, but every little bit helps). They will also lessen the chance that someone else may get the flu from you. Three of these medicines (the odd one out is zanamivir, which has to be inhaled -- the others are pills or capsules that you swallow) have been shown to block transmission of the flu from person to person. This would be very helpful if we indeed run into a flu pandemic.

      http://www.drreddy.com/shots/flu.html

  24. UNPatent by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    I hereby unpatent adding algefarin to toothpaste to reduce bacterial films in plaque and tartar. hah - take that.

    --
    meh
  25. Clean bacteria are more susceptable to penicillin by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    So, after the bacteria got a sponge bath, penicillin can kill them. Poor things. Taking a shower can be dangerous.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  26. Algeferin = 0 hits in NCBI Entrez by clayski · · Score: 1

    Whoa - This compound they are claiming all these properties for - algeferin - is apparently unknown to the Scientific Literature. What we are debating here is one poster at a regional conference by a graduate student, that shows a sponge extract inhibits a few types of bacteria in laboratory cultures.

    1. Re:Algeferin = 0 hits in NCBI Entrez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See previous posts stating the correct spelling is ageliferin.

  27. What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So,

    When the bacteria eventually develop a resistance to this, now we're going to wipe out an entire species of sponges?

    I just love how we solve one technical problem by shooting ourselves in the foot in other arenas (environmental protection).

  28. Re:No Respect for Your Neighbors by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Alright, I'll bite.

    An unstated argument here is that people distributing medicine and those who don't take their full course are somehow at fault.

    Erm, that's because it is their fault. Nothing unstated about it. When getting antibiotics, the vast majority of people get either the full course or nothing at all - there's no in-between. If you choose not to take the full course after receiving it, it's your fault.

    Of course there are plenty of people who can't get the drugs at all - but that's not germane to this conversation as such people are not contributing to drug-resistant bacteria.

    Does it really make moral sense that farm animals are over treated and people end up with half treatments?

    It must be fun building up so many straw men. That's the only reason I can figure that you have for doing it so often.

    Do you think that people really want to have less than proper medicine?

    Yes. As is evidenced by the fact that so many people think that because the "feel fine now" they don't have to finish their course of meds.

  29. Good Bacteria ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'We have yet to find one that doesn't work,' says [one of the researchers]."

    If it works on all bacteria, what are the chances our hundreds (or is it more than that) of 'good bacteria' don't get destroyed in the process ?

    Is the effect of the ageliferin reversible ? Is there a potential for it to be made specific to one type of bacteria (which would mean we would need to culture the bacteria we want to destroy anyway) ?

    And finally, are the answers to these questions in the article ? Just woke up, too early for me to read it...

  30. When you don't believe in evolution.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why not just use it against anything and everything, it's not like it's going to evolve anyway, right?

  31. I want my EVE! by KodePhreak · · Score: 1

    w00t we can make plasmids now!

  32. Fight life with life by carvalhao · · Score: 1

    That's what nature has been doing forever (or for 6000 years, depending on your reliance on books). If you want to fight something that is always evolving, do it with something that evolves at least at the same rate.

    As we humans are limited in our evolution rate by inconvenient things like life span, we have to fight bacteria with something similar like... hum... virus that kill bacteria and are already extensively used in Eastern Europe and Asia?

  33. The answer to all this is under our noses by cjtech1 · · Score: 1

    OK, so what are we going to do? Rape the sea for sponges? Or let the pharamceutical co's use more oil for the production of a compound that IS destined to fail? carvalhao sort of has the right idea, but I think using potentially harmlful virus to attack bacteria is the wrong way to go. He/She is right about the changing aspect of it though. But, why not have something that is different every year and yet is essentially the same? When MRSA started making headlines I did some searching to find out more. I came across a website that links to another with worldwide research. The first is "The Very Essence" (some links below to relevant articles) and it cites PubMed.gov (which collects medical research articles from around the world.) The thing that gets me is that BigPharma (not a big fan) finds things that work, finds a way to duplicate what they think is the KEY ingredient, manufacture it by manipulating the chemical structure of crude oil, and sell it for a fortune. Then they turn around and say that the natural remedies don't work! Anyway, I am starting to get my bile up so I will stop before I blow a blood vessel. http://aromatherapy4u.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/what-does-a-mrsa-skin-infection-look-like-and-what-can-we-do-to-prevent-the-spreading/ http://aromatherapy4u.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/strains-of-mrsa-and-making-scents-about-the-superbug/ http://aromatherapy4u.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/mrsa-whats-the-truth-and-what-should-we-do-to-protect-ourselves/ http://aromatherapy4u.wordpress.com/?s=mrsa

  34. not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let us know when you survive being totally immersed in it and having your body fluids become a significant percentage ethanol.

  35. Re:sarcastic prick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Irony: when someone flames a post and they, not the parent, are modded flamebait.
    Do the mods even know what these words mean, or do they just see '-1' and hit a button?

  36. Timeline of a discovery by XNormal · · Score: 1

    I searched for the words "bromoageliferin" and "biofilm" on Google Scholar to see the distribution of articles by year.

    1997, 1 article, Japan
    2007, 1 article, US
    2008, 6 articles, US

    The anti-biofilm activity of this and other substances derived from sponges was discovered by Japanese researches. The application they were looking for was the prevention of biofouling in shipping, power stations cooling systems, etc.
    In 2007, the use of bromoageliferin analogues against antibiotic resistant strains was tested in NCSU.
    In 2008, a NOAA researcher rediscovered it, apparently independently.

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  37. In a related story - by HW_Hack · · Score: 1

    Off shore drilling and mining have caused a beneficial sea sponge to go extinct.

    --
    Its not the years, its the mileage .....
    1. Re:In a related story - by cjtech1 · · Score: 1

      umm, could you send me a link to the article? Thanks!

  38. Re:No Respect for Your Neighbors by twitter · · Score: 0, Informative

    When getting antibiotics, the vast majority of people get either the full course or nothing at all - there's no in-between.

    You seem so sure of this, why? Are you friends with people in Brazil and India? Don't you think it a little strange that people don't finish taking medicine their doctor gave them? A more reasonable explanation for half taken medicine is half full wallets and other things you have no experience of. People can't afford to complete the course or have some awful thing happen that gets in the way. The developing world is where you more often see anti-biotic resistant bacteria emerging, not the first world where animal overuse is happening. Face it, IP laws are what's wrong with the picture.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  39. Re:No Respect for Your Neighbors by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1
    Ah, nice. Answer just the one part of the post you (think) have an answer to, ignore the rest of it, make a statement without verifiable fact to back it up, and throw in an invalid and incorrect assumptions about the poster.

    Fine argumentative technique. Good day sir, I had a feeling I was wasting my time in the first place, but chose to give you the benefit of the doubt. No worries, it won't happen again.

  40. Re:No Respect for Your Neighbors by renegadesx · · Score: 1

    but chose to give you the benefit of the doubt

    You must be new here

    --
    Make SELinux enforcing again!
  41. Beware of the trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0