Phaycops said:
Yeah, but it's still just another antibiotic, which doesn't really solve the overarching problem of oh, I dunno, antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
An aside, if you will.....
There was a really interesting article in New Scientist a couple weeks ago that was discussing alternatives to antibiotics. Basically, bacteria that are bad for people communicate with one another, and only when there's enough of them do they "attack." They use what are called "quorum sensing" chemicals to determine if there's enough of their own kind present to warrant becoming -- oh, I don't remember the word, so we'll just say "bad for their host." If the bacteria all "attacked" whenever they invaded the host, that wouldn't be a very good survival strategy because our own immune systems can kill off small numbers of even very bad-for-you bacteria. So what some researchers are saying is that we may be able to manipulate quorum sensing to keep bacteria from attacking so that our own immune systems can kill them. Interestingly, aside from the normal scientific opposition (does it really work, how reproducible are the results, how feasible is this considering quorum sensing may be species-specific, etc.), some of the main opposition has come from pharmecuetical companies (or those associated with them). Their main concern is that it won't "catch on" with the public, because it isn't an antibiotic, it doesn't kill the bug, it just keeps it from being bad for you. They think people simply will not use them unless it's absolutely neccessary. I think it's an interesting interplay of biology and group psychology. Or that it just goes to show 
Yes - but how else should we cure people? We do still need new antibiotics. And judicial use of the ones that we have now.
Quorum sensing is real, in certain bacteria. It is how they sense the density of the culture, and decode when to start switching on stationary phase genes. Basically, it is the bugs built in defense mechanism against overcrowding itself.
It has been proposed as a target for combatting bacteria in that if one can fool the bugs into thinking they have saturated their growth medium (in this case, that would be you) one can indeed stop them from growing. At that point, it is hoped that the bodies natural defense mechanism would kick in and clear the last of the invaders out. It is also nice in that different bacteria use distinct (at least their are several known) quorum sensors, and so the drug could be tailored to a specific (group of) organisms. Also, since we (humans) do not use quorum sensors (AFAIK
) - less toxic side effects.
Another advantage over traditional antibiotics is that it doesn't kill the cells. How is that an advantage, I hear you ask... Well, some bacteria (take E. coli 0157 for example - the "hamburger bug") release more toxins when they are hit with antibiotics, leading to increased mortality. Thus, if they could be killed "gently", there is less damage to the host (again - you).
Of course, IMHO, vaccines are the way to go...
[pgwenthold
Pubmed covers a lot of the chemical, as well as clinical literature. I don't have ready access to CAS though...]
