Slashdot Mirror
Panda Blood May Hold Potent Assailant Against Superbugs
An anonymous reader writes "Pandas have long been the face of conservation efforts by environmental activists, but a recent finding may boost even further the need for pandas to evade extinction. Researchers have discovered a powerful antibody in panda blood that could serve as the next frontier in the fight against increasingly prevalent superbugs. The compound is called cathelicin-AM. Discovered when researchers analyzed the creatures' DNA, it has been found to kill fungus and bacteria. It is believed that the antibiotic is released to protect the animal from infections in the wild and, in studies, it has been found to kill both standard and drug-resistant strains of microbes and fungi. The compound also worked extremely quickly, killing off strains of bacteria in just an hour, while conventional antibiotics needed six."
Gypsy tears work way better, and at a fraction of the price.
So it turns out Panda DNA contains great biological secrets? No wonder they often refuse to mate in captivity, and when they do the offspring dies quickly. They're afraid we'll see them bestowing the magic on their young, and their secret will be out.
Mmm, Finger Ling-Ling Good!
Humanity (collectively) has consistently proven itself to be incapable of long-range action (planning and forethought), even the rumor that fresh panda-blood will cure *anything* will be the nail in the coffin for these bamboo eating cuddly freaks.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
It may be that Pandas are not common enough for most microbes in the area to evolve immunities to its defenses. It's roughly comparable to turtle shells: they work against run-of-the-mill predators, but a few predators have evolved solutions for getting at the turtle meat and have made it a staple of their diet.
Another analogy is a sports team that uses a non-traditional offense: too few teams are prepared for it such that it's effective. However, if it becomes wide-spread or championship-bound teams use it, then the competition has the chance or motivation to learn how to work around it, and the "special" offense loses its punch and is no longer special. It thus creates a kind of round-robbin rotation of strategies over time.
Or as Shark Lincoln once said, you can fool some of the predators all the time, or all the predators some of the time, but you can't fool all of the predators all of the time.
Table-ized A.I.
Cathelicin-AM is an antimicrobial peptide not an antibody.
I just skimmed the paper (abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22101189), but it seems that the group was the first to find out that pandas produce this type of antimicrobial peptide (they are produced by other mammals and it seems that the sequence is similar to that of dogs). The peptide seems to be effective against multiple types of bacteria (Gram positive and Gram negative) and a couple strains of fungi. The researchers only tested the peptide in vitro, so it probably isn't known if purified peptide will be effective in vivo (they reported that it showed little lysis of human red blood cells though).
TL/DR: Don't pressure your doctor into giving you panda blood when you get sick.
Plus there's this: Panda walks into a bar, sits down, and orders a sandwich. He eats the sandwich, pulls out a gun, and shoots the waiter dead. He stands up to go and the bartender yells, "What the hell? You shot my waiter and now you're leaving without paying for that sandwich." The panda yells back over his shoulder, "I'm a Panda. Look it up." Sure enough, the bartender's Merriam-Webster said, "A tree-dwelling marsupial of Asian origin, characterized by distinctive black and white coloring. Eats shoots and leaves."
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Ok, so we've isolated the compound. Why do we need the Pandas now?
To prepare for the next big Pandemy, of course!
Ezekiel 23:20
Most of all, though - this isn't especially new or restricted to Pandas. Peptide cathelicidins are apparently found in every species they've been looked for, including at least some plants. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/68054804/ for a summary search on this.
It remains to be seen if this is a particularly potent member of the general class or just another more or less interesting data point.
The summary and medicaldaily article are fairly horrid, so here is the abstract of the research article. The full article is also available for those who have access.
Misstatements of the posted summary/article,
1) Discovery is of a new antibiotic (an antimicrobial peptide), not antibody.
2) Statement in the article: "They cause much less drug resistance of microbes than conventional antibiotics.", referring to antimicrobial peptides is a ridiculous statement not substantiated by anything.
3) The "kinetics" of the antimicrobial activity, as published, is not particularly useful for determining efficacy in the clinic. Since the drug they compared against, clindamycin, is completely different in every way from their peptide, it doesn't really say anything at all. They probably screened a number of antibiotics for this "test" and cherry-picked this result to highlight their find.
4) Use of the term "conventional antibiotic" is misleading. This is a new member of a class of antibiotics (antimicrobial peptides) that are relative newcomers to the field, but is otherwise just another antibiotic. It is not a new mechanism of action, biosynthetic origin, class of molecule, or anything like that. In other words, it is about as conventional as they come, but perhaps useful because we do and will continue to need new antibiotics.
For anybody who is interested, here is an open access article on the subject of newly discovered mammalian antimicrobial peptides as potential new antibiotics.
Humanity (collectively) has consistently proven itself to be incapable of long-range action (planning and forethought), even the rumor that fresh panda-blood will cure *anything* will be the nail in the coffin for these bamboo eating cuddly freaks.
Humans have driven quite a few species to extinction, but with regards to Pandas? They would have been extinct already had it not been for us. There are two wildly successful evolutionary traits that a species can have: it can be tasty to humans (cattle, chicken, pork are not going excting anytime soon. That may suck for the individual, but the species survival is guaranteed), or it can be cute to humans (dogs and cats aren't going to go extinct anytime soon). Pandas fall into the second category.
That creature's sole diet consists of a bamboo that grows in a very limited area, so they can't expand their habitat. The bamboo is very low in nutrients, so they need to eat constantly. The female's window of reproduction lasts only two days a year. Assuming they find a partner in that small window, male pandas often can't succeed in copulating. They don't instinctively know how to mate, and early captivity pandas who never saw mating in the wild, would try to hump females ears and feet. They actually show videos of mating pandas to pandas in captivity to help them out with that. Also to try to get them in the mood. They have an extremely low interest in sex. So, we feed viagra to those captive pandas (I shit you not). Also, their penis size is disproportionally small, which results in difficulties with insertion (yes, that small. It's 1/4 of an inch).
Assuming a successful pregnancy and birth, it turns out the female only has enough milk for one cub, because unlike other bears, they do not have fat stores that can be converted into large quantities of milk. So the female will choose one of the cubs, and allow any others to die. In captivity, if multiple cubs are born, the cubs are fed some cow milk to supplement their diet, and they switch off the cub with the mother periodically, so the mother thinks she's only taking care of one. The cubs are born toothless and blind, and in the wild the mother leaves the cub alone, defenseless, for 3 to 4 hours every day so she can go feed.
It is amazing that the species survived this long. The most fascinating thing about this article is that pandas actually have something which is evolutionarily advantageous. And you don't need to worry, they're not going anywhere. Now they're not just cute, they're also useful. We'll continue helping this weird creature breed as a result. Now at least I think there's a good reason to do so. My previous stance was that anything this ill-fitted to survive really shouldn't. Extinction of species is perfectly natural. The only thing we need to be careful of is to not cause those extinctions ourselves. We've essentially gotten powerful and numerous enough to do some serious damage, so we need to watch our hunting numbers, or the destruction of entire habitats. Pandas are one example that is simply not our fault, though.