Comments on: IBM researchers create nanomedicine to kill bacteria where antibiotics fail

By: IBM vastly improves delivery of nanomeds that kill bacteria where antibiotics fail | Social Network Background Check

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:18:30 +0000

[...] 2011, IBM researchers and a research group in Singapore showed off a new kind of synthetic, biodegradable nano particle that doctors could use to attack bacteria cells that are resistant to antibiotics. Now, the same [...]

By: The Capitals™ – Capitalists' Magazine | IBM vastly improves delivery of nanomeds that kill bacteria where antibiotics fail

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:15:19 +0000

By: IBM vastly improves delivery of nanomeds that kill bacteria where antibiotics fail | 5 For Business

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 06:46:18 +0000

By: IBM vastly improves delivery of nanomeds that kill bacteria where antibiotics fails | Global Headline News

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 05:19:43 +0000

By: IBM vastly improves delivery of nanomeds that kill bacteria where antibiotics fails | VentureBeat

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 05:02:49 +0000

By: IBM vastly improves delivery of nanomeds that kills bacteria where antibiotics fails | VentureBeat

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 05:02:47 +0000

By: Futuristic Science in the Present - The best Online College Courses - Online College Courses

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 22:49:00 +0000

[...] Nanomedicine [...]

By: Mastitis and MRSA « News From Ithaca

Mastitis and MRSA « News From Ithaca — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:52:32 +0000

[...] up with bacteria as they adapt to resist new drugs, and some researchers are experimenting with entirely new types of antibiotics that selectively destroy cells by destroying their membrane walls, a mode of action that would be [...]

By: .com

.com — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:24:33 +0000

The best nike dunk shoes for you, a professional nike running shoes online store. You can find favorite pair of shoes just www.takeshoes.com

By: some_guy_01

some_guy_01 — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 11:59:46 +0000

Hey Deantak, as a researcher in this field, I must say this is some pretty poor reporting on this subject. I realize you normally write on topics that are computer oriented (such as video games apparently), but it's pretty frustrating to see you use a phrase like “The nano particles are physically attracted to infected cells like a magnet”. You're using a physics simile to describe a physical process! This could (and probably should) be taken literally in a scientific article, which of course, and you already know since you describe the proper electrostatic interaction later, is completely wrong. It is not attracted like a magnet at all, why not just say it is attracted to the membrane, people will understand.Furthermore, attacking the membrane is believed to be a fairly common method of antimicrobial attack for numerous, naturally created proteins – created by your body and every other multicellular organism as well – that act as moderately effective antibiotics. So that is really nothing new, they've just created a new molecule for doing it (apparently anyway). Also, cell targeting is a HUGE topic in nanoscience, especially the idea of targeting cells for drug delivery, so again, nothing new. Then you throw in my favourite line, “The bacteria can’t adapt to this kind of physical attack.” This is just a terrible statement; you don't need to know much about evolution to think that given enough time (and perhaps not even that much time), bacteria could – and likely will – adapt to almost any type of attack. Some methods might hold out longer and some bacteria might take longer to evolve than others, but I can already think of an easy way for bacteria to adapt their membrane charge so that this particle will no longer be attracted to it “like a magnet”. The claim is also that there is basically zero collateral damage with these magical particles; well there is truth to the idea that they are likely to be much more attracted to a charged bacterial cell than the (generally) uncharged animal cells, I doubt they wouldn't do any damage at all to animal cells. So how much damage do they do? There is also the question of dose, how much of this stuff is necessary to do the job properly? Is there potential to do harm to any other part of the body? So on and so on…This field is much more complicated than suggested above and most “promising new molecules” don't end up working in the end, most of these strong claims are made in an effort to continue being funded. I concede that a drug of this type may in fact work, and it may be the next major antibiotic, but probably not. I'm also not saying you need to be an expert in the field to report on the subject (or any subject for that matter), but you're supposed to be the one conveying these ideas to others, so it seems a moderate understanding would be in order.

By: Jeremy Cummings

Jeremy Cummings — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 00:53:14 +0000

Biodegradable means that a material decomposes over time due to biological activity. If a substance is decomposed by sunlight it is known as photo-degradable.

By: Leland

Leland — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 05:45:27 +0000

Yes! I just wish the time scale for rolling out stuff like this was under a year, instead of the multi year tour-de-force that is usually required.

By: deantak

deantak — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 18:31:29 +0000

it falls apart inside the body, due to the water content, i believe.

By: Tom Foremski

Tom Foremski — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 17:42:48 +0000

Fascinating, but I'm wondering what “biodegradable” means in this context, usually it means bacteria or other environmental fctors like sunlight will degrade a material.