Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [MIT] Edible CRISPR Could Replace Antibiotics
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[MIT] Edible CRISPR Could Replace Antibiotics - Page 2

post #11 of 68
well, if we look at the biohazard list only viruses are on level 4 threat (non-curable diseases).
and looking at level 3 threats (high lethality diseases) theres only a few bacterias in it, the well known ones are tuberculosis and anthrax.
as for level 2 threats and below (low lethality diseases) most of them are bacterial types.

from what i've heard, solving the viral problems (e.g. ebola) are the current priority, and the means of preventing further outbreaks.
and so far, the only effective means they've developed is using genetically modified viruses.
Edited by epic1337 - 4/18/17 at 2:14am
post #12 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

well, if we look at the biohazard list only viruses are on level 4 threat (non-curable diseases).
and looking at level 3 threats (high lethality diseases) theres only a few bacterias in it, the well known ones are tuberculosis and anthrax.
as for level 2 threats and below (low lethality diseases) most of them are bacterial types.

from what i've heard, solving the viral problems (e.g. ebola) are the current priority, and the means of preventing further outbreaks.
and so far, the only effective means they've developed is using genetically modified viruses.

Well I mean level 4 is basically for level 3 agents that are untreatable, it would make sense that that currently contains viruses as relatively few bacteria are resistant to treatment.

But how many bacteria are going to be re-prioritised once they gain antibiotic resistance?

I mean you say above tuberculosis is classed as a level 3 agent, that's because it's difficult to treat with antibiotics. Now imagine a strain that's immune to them.

Using biosafety classification as a threat analysis in this case doesn't work, because the current strains aren't a threat because of antibiotics. What people are concerned about is what will happen when those antibiotics stop working.
Serigatum
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k @ 4.7Ghz Asus P87 Deluxe EVGA GTX 780 Corsair Vengeance 2400Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Raid0: 2x512GB Samsung 840 Pro 2GB WD Black NZXT Kraken x60 Windows 8 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 NZXT Phantom 820 
Mouse
Razer Ouroboros 
  hide details  
Reply
Serigatum
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k @ 4.7Ghz Asus P87 Deluxe EVGA GTX 780 Corsair Vengeance 2400Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Raid0: 2x512GB Samsung 840 Pro 2GB WD Black NZXT Kraken x60 Windows 8 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 NZXT Phantom 820 
Mouse
Razer Ouroboros 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 68
There should have been a blanket ban on agricultural antibiotic use years ago along with much more stringent medical antibiotic controls. Nobody cares though so meh.
post #14 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by NihilOC View Post

Well I mean level 4 is basically for level 3 agents that are untreatable, it would make sense that that currently contains viruses as relatively few bacteria are resistant to treatment.

But how many bacteria are going to be re-prioritised once they gain antibiotic resistance?

I mean you say above tuberculosis is classed as a level 3 agent, that's because it's difficult to treat with antibiotics. Now imagine a strain that's immune to them.

Using biosafety classification as a threat analysis in this case doesn't work, because the current strains aren't a threat because of antibiotics. What people are concerned about is what will happen when those antibiotics stop working.

good point, the moment they become resistant to all known treatment they'd get reclassified as a level 4 strain.
they often do this for strains of some diseases, namely Influenza A shuffling between level 2 and level 3.

priority of medicine development is always targeted against diseases which has a high chance of becoming a pandemic, or is already an epidemic on certain parts of the world.
which means, to them worrying about what would happen to a bacteria gaining immunity is of a less priority than a virus already running rampant across the globe.


otherwise they'd just go ahead and research and develop an all-cure elixir. biggrin.gif
i mean, its possible with nanobots and such, though getting there is the question.
Edited by epic1337 - 4/18/17 at 3:59am
post #15 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

otherwise they'd just go ahead and research and develop an all-cure elixir. biggrin.gif
i mean, its possible with nanobots and such, though getting there is the question.

The thing is though something like this is, in some respects, an all-cure elixir.

The goal is not to develop new treatments for E. Coli, tuberculosis, cholera or their ilk but to develop an alternative to antibiotics which can be used against any bacteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

priority of medicine development is always targeted against diseases which has a high chance of becoming a pandemic, or is already an epidemic on certain parts of the world.
which means, to them worrying about what would happen to a bacteria gaining immunity is of a less priority than a virus already running rampant across the globe.

Imagine all of them gaining immunity, because currently this is where we are headed.

If there aren't alternatives in place by the time this happens it wouldn't be a pendemic, it would be multiple pandemics of diseases that haven't effected been an issue for generations.

Fortunately there are quite a few alternatives being researched. I don't know how the funding stacks up against that for viral infections like Ebola, but given it's potential to impact first world countries I suspect it may actually be higher.
Serigatum
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k @ 4.7Ghz Asus P87 Deluxe EVGA GTX 780 Corsair Vengeance 2400Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Raid0: 2x512GB Samsung 840 Pro 2GB WD Black NZXT Kraken x60 Windows 8 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 NZXT Phantom 820 
Mouse
Razer Ouroboros 
  hide details  
Reply
Serigatum
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k @ 4.7Ghz Asus P87 Deluxe EVGA GTX 780 Corsair Vengeance 2400Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Raid0: 2x512GB Samsung 840 Pro 2GB WD Black NZXT Kraken x60 Windows 8 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Razer Blackwidow Ultimate Corsair AX850 NZXT Phantom 820 
Mouse
Razer Ouroboros 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 68
ELI5 about CRISPR and CAS9, its origin, possibilities, dangers and ethical challenges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY
(love that cannel btw)
post #17 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by poii View Post

ELI5 about CRISPR and CAS9, its origin, possibilities, dangers and ethical challenges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY
(love that cannel btw)

Yes very good channel. CRISPR/CAS9 can have some really useful applications.

The comment about this not working for a virus...some have DNA, some have RNA. From a top level perspective I think the way CRISPR/CAS9 works it might be able to be modified for RNA as well. Follow a sequence and cut.
post #18 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by NihilOC View Post

The thing is though something like this is, in some respects, an all-cure elixir.

The goal is not to develop new treatments for E. Coli, tuberculosis, cholera or their ilk but to develop an alternative to antibiotics which can be used against any bacteria.
its not an all-cure elixir if it doesn't cure all diseases.

that would be dangerous, it'll affect even the symbiotic bacteria within our bodies, those of which are highly beneficial towards a healthy body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NihilOC View Post

Imagine all of them gaining immunity, because currently this is where we are headed.

If there aren't alternatives in place by the time this happens it wouldn't be a pendemic, it would be multiple pandemics of diseases that haven't effected been an issue for generations.

Fortunately there are quite a few alternatives being researched. I don't know how the funding stacks up against that for viral infections like Ebola, but given it's potential to impact first world countries I suspect it may actually be higher.
thats why they have multiple groups doing each of their own researches, e.g. some of which are researching influenza, while others are researching ebola.
of course, smaller groups and facilities will also have less funds in general, thus a slower research and development.

the priority only makes it so that the bigger facilities are going for it since its at the most forefront of threats.
its like weighting the the threat of an incoming asteroid many many years later or the threat of world war 3 speculated to come in a few months.
Edited by epic1337 - 4/18/17 at 5:31am
post #19 of 68
Cures that target Genome is pretty much the holy grail in modern medicine. It allows actual cures rather than just alleviate symptoms, so hoping they do it right, no zombies etc.. smile.gif
post #20 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightbird View Post

Cures that target Genome is pretty much the holy grail in modern medicine. It allows actual cures rather than just alleviate symptoms, so hoping they do it right, no zombies etc.. smile.gif

Unfortunately, because of a death in a gene therapy clinical trial back in 1999, these kinds of medicines require almost two decades to make it to market, which puts off a lot of pharmaceutical companies. The reason for this is a possible 15-year (minimum) study required during clinical trials for delayed adverse effects before the drug can make it to the market. There are some ways of getting around this, but it depends on the tissue that you're trying to target, and how you intend on delivering a chromosome-modifying payload. These CRISPR techs don't modify the host (they modify the gut bacteria because of the nature of the disease they are trying to treat; gene therapies usually treat genetic disorders), so they can bypass the requirement for such a long-term study.

Also, yes, no zombies would be a good thing.
Ummm....
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8320 Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 Gigabyte GTX 660 Ti Windforce 8G Kingston HyperX DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Intel 730 Series Samsung Spinpoint F1 Samsung DVD R/RW Corsair H60 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro X64 BenQ BL2410 Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (Browns) Seasonic M12D 850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Lian Li PC 7H WX Corsair M65 Corsair cloth pad Edifier S330D 
  hide details  
Reply
Ummm....
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8320 Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 Gigabyte GTX 660 Ti Windforce 8G Kingston HyperX DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Intel 730 Series Samsung Spinpoint F1 Samsung DVD R/RW Corsair H60 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro X64 BenQ BL2410 Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (Browns) Seasonic M12D 850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Lian Li PC 7H WX Corsair M65 Corsair cloth pad Edifier S330D 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [MIT] Edible CRISPR Could Replace Antibiotics