The problem is that resistance is not limited to one strain. Bacteria have the ability to swap genetic "cartridges" that confer antibiotic resistance to completely different types of bacteria. One strain we can deal with, widespread resistance to known antibiotics is another matter. There's a very real probability that the human race could be severely deciminated, if not completely wiped out. I'm not saying that such a doomsday scenario is unavoidable, but efforts should be made to reduce its likelihood.
Posters to this thread have seemed to miss the fact that a large part of the article was dedicated to environmental issues.
Vancomycin is a naturally occuring drug. If my foggy memory serves me correctly, vancomycin is produced by a fungus located in Borneo. There is likely to be other naturally occuring antibiotics out there that we could lose forever due to the destruction of its location's habitat.
Additionally, we are putting other species at risk through our unmitigated use of antibiotics.
- Deep thoughts... by funkmasterrapB
Woohoo! Someone finally posted something worth reading. Thank you.
If I remember correctly, Vancomycin uses a completely unique, if somewhat brutish approach to inhibiting cell wall formation. Whereas penicillin and similar antibiotics typically block the active sites of enzymes responsible for cell wall formation, Vancomycin physically inhibits cell wall formation by attaching to the partially formed glycopeptide cell wall. This requires fairly large amounts of vancomycin. Unfortunately, vancomycin has some pretty nasty side effects. I believe that's a significant reason why it's a last resort drug.
Resistance against this particular antibiotic is truly scary when you consider the mutations that must have occurred for the bacteria to develop resistance against it. We're not talking single point mutations here. God help us if these sort of fundamental mutations are occuring in other infectious agents.
That's a rather simplistic view of evolution. Evolution of a species does not require survival of the fittest... it only requires survival. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as heriditary diseases. Additionally, how do you define a "bad mutation". Consider the classic example of the relationship between sickle cell anemia and malaria. (For those not in the know, survivors of sickle cell anemia have a high degree of resistance to malaria... you can find the reason for this in most biology text books. ) As I said in another post, death and reproduction are influences on evolution, but they don't cause it. Evolution is however a direct result of mutation, even if a large percentage of those mutations result in mortality.
Death and reproduction have roles in the evolutionary process. That's a far cry from saying that evolution happens primarily through them. Bacteria can evolve without dying or reproducing. However, evolution is a direct result of mutation.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that resistance is not limited to one strain. Bacteria have the ability to swap genetic "cartridges" that confer antibiotic resistance to completely different types of bacteria. One strain we can deal with, widespread resistance to known antibiotics is another matter. There's a very real probability that the human race could be severely deciminated, if not completely wiped out. I'm not saying that such a doomsday scenario is unavoidable, but efforts should be made to reduce its likelihood.
Posters to this thread have seemed to miss the fact that a large part of the article was dedicated to environmental issues. Vancomycin is a naturally occuring drug. If my foggy memory serves me correctly, vancomycin is produced by a fungus located in Borneo. There is likely to be other naturally occuring antibiotics out there that we could lose forever due to the destruction of its location's habitat. Additionally, we are putting other species at risk through our unmitigated use of antibiotics. - Deep thoughts ... by funkmasterrapB
Woohoo! Someone finally posted something worth reading. Thank you. If I remember correctly, Vancomycin uses a completely unique, if somewhat brutish approach to inhibiting cell wall formation. Whereas penicillin and similar antibiotics typically block the active sites of enzymes responsible for cell wall formation, Vancomycin physically inhibits cell wall formation by attaching to the partially formed glycopeptide cell wall. This requires fairly large amounts of vancomycin. Unfortunately, vancomycin has some pretty nasty side effects. I believe that's a significant reason why it's a last resort drug. Resistance against this particular antibiotic is truly scary when you consider the mutations that must have occurred for the bacteria to develop resistance against it. We're not talking single point mutations here. God help us if these sort of fundamental mutations are occuring in other infectious agents.
That's a rather simplistic view of evolution. Evolution of a species does not require survival of the fittest ... it only requires survival. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as heriditary diseases. Additionally, how do you define a "bad mutation". Consider the classic example of the relationship between sickle cell anemia and malaria. (For those not in the know, survivors of sickle cell anemia have a high degree of resistance to malaria ... you can find the reason for this in most biology text books. ) As I said in another post, death and reproduction are influences on evolution, but they don't cause it. Evolution is however a direct result of mutation, even if a large percentage of those mutations result in mortality.
Death and reproduction have roles in the evolutionary process. That's a far cry from saying that evolution happens primarily through them. Bacteria can evolve without dying or reproducing. However, evolution is a direct result of mutation.
No it doesn't dipshit. Evolution happens through mutation.
We evolve at a rate much slower than bacteria. I frankly don't want to wait for 10,000 years before humans evolve enough to resist staph infections.