Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

From the article we may actually want them to be used for treating animals.

Apparently these molecules are very hard to build resistance against. Bacteria evolve resistances to many ABs from scratch in lab conditions. If more is discovered about the mechanism of these two drugs, one could speculate about a potential resistance gene.

Is it enough to "adapt" existing genes in most microbes, like with Penicilline? Is a novel gene, traveling on a vector, required to defuse it (like with Carbapanemes)? Or is it extremely unlikely that pathogens evolve any way to counter it?

The latter could be because the mechanism of action is not trivially countered. You can compare it with patching vulnerabilities. A vulnerability is sometimes not addressable without crippling a business critical feature.

Then we might want to use these drugs in animals and less in Humans, because we know more about how the old drugs work and their side effects.




The original post said farm animals. You're now apparently conflating that with animal testing, which will take place anyway.

Anyway the OP makes a lot of sense. Resistance is known to increase when antibiotics are used. If we use them less (ie. not on farm animals) then it seems reasonable that resistance development will be lessened and the drugs' useful lifespan will be extended.

Much as I hate to say it, speaking as a veggie, farm animals are a commodity and moderately expendable.


I'm saying we'd want to use them in agriculture because they seem to be harder to build resistance against. Nothing about animal testing.

And I much prefer taking well known antibiotics as long as they work.


> And I much prefer taking well known antibiotics as long as they work.

Agreed, but you may not have that choice for much longer.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: