Bacteria are one of the most successful colonisers of the planet. They can be found in almost all environments we know – from the deepest oceans to acid lakes, and inside and on our bodies. And the history of medicine is the struggle to defeat them.
One of the reasons for the success of bacteria is their rapid growth (some divide every 20 minutes) and ability to quickly mutate and exchange their genetic code (their DNA). These factors facilitate rapid evolution, which today has led to the emergence of drug resistance in bacteria. These bacteria eventually evolve into multi-drug resistant (MDR) bacteria, or “superbugs”, that are almost impossible to control. Some bacterial infections are so difficult to eradicate that amputation is the only option available to physicians.
But the bad news doesn’t end there.
There’s a subset of bacteria called the Gram-negative bacteria. These have an extra barrier around them (an additional membrane) that can block drug entry and that makes them ever harder to kill. Even if a drug can get in, these superbugs are often able to pump the antibiotic back out of the bacteria, or deactivate it with enzymes that render the drug useless.
Antibiotics need to be very safe to use and have minimal or no side effects. Traditionally, most antibiotics were derived from natural products isolated from different fungi and bacteria. There have been a smaller number of antibiotics that have been derived from compounds chemically synthesised in the laboratory.
But discovering non-toxic, novel antibiotics from bacteria and fungi has become increasingly difficult as exhaustive searches for new sources of natural products have been going on for more than 70 years. The alternative – chemically synthesised molecules – have their own problems, as many cannot reach their biological target inside the bacteria due to the barriers mentioned above.
One way to control superbugs is to develop new antibiotics that kill through a different mechanism to existing drugs. But there have been only five new chemical classes of antibiotics launched since 1970 – linezolid (2000) and daptomycin (2003) for systemic infections, mupirocin (1985) and retapamulin (2007) for topical infections, and the recent approval of fidaxomicin (2012) for the treatment of gut infections caused by Clostridium difficile.
Before a new drug is approved, it needs to go through laboratory (pre-clinical) testing and clinical development (testing in humans). Drugs still in testing at these stages, which are not yet approved for sale, form the “antibiotic pipeline”.
Two major organisations, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control have analysed the antibiotic pipeline and concluded there are only a few potential drugs offering significant benefits over existing drugs. More alarmingly, there are very few antibiotics that are able to treat Gram-negative infections, such as NDM-1 bacteria.
This prompted us to analyse antibiotics in clinical development and those launched into the market since 2000. We found that there were an equal number of natural product-derived and chemically synthesised compounds in early clinical development. But, with the exception of just one class of antibiotic called the fluoroquinolones, natural product-derived compounds predominate in late stage clinical development.
There are still only a few compounds in the pipeline able to treat fluoroquinolone-resistant Gram-negative superbugs – Tetraphase’s tetracyclines TP-434 and TP-2758, Basilea’s monobactam-siderophore hybrid BAL30072 and the Achaogen’s aminoglycoside ACHN-490.
The antibiotic pipeline for the treatment of Gram-positive infections is a little brighter, and many of these compounds look likely to be able to help treat today’s Gram-positive superbugs. But it should be noted that many patients infected with these superbugs, such as MRSA, still die in hospital, especially if the bacteria is circulating the blood (septicaemia).
So where does this leave us?
The introduction of antibiotics more than 70 years ago escalated the conflict between humans and pathogens to code red. Although we seemed to be winning the war for the first 40 years, the rear guard action of superbugs in the last 20 years has left us reeling and, in some cases, defenceless.
It’s hard to fathom why we have accelerated the rise of the superbugs through the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in medicine and agriculture. Unfortunately, this is not a normal war with an armistice or surrender, as these pathogens will be fighting us for eternity.
There are no magic bullets in the antibiotic pipeline that will eradicate all superbugs. Although the discovery of new antibiotics is not a trivial task, as a society we must rise to the challenge and take action to find new and improved antibiotics, in addition to innovative ways to control these bacteria today or risk a future returned to the pre-antibiotic age.
This is the final article in Superbugs vs Antibiotics, a series examining the rise of antibiotic-resistant superbugs. Click on the links below to read the other instalments.
Part one: Washing our hands of responsibility for hospital infections
Part two: Superbugs, human ecology and the threat from within
Part three: We can beat superbugs with better stewardship of antibiotics
Part four: The hunt is on for superbugs in Australian animals
Part five: The last stand: the strongest of the superbugs and their antibiotic nemesis
Part six: Unblocking the pipeline for new antibiotics against superbugs
Part seven: A peek at a world with useless antibiotics and superbugs
Part eight: Trading chemistry for ecology with poo transplants
Tom Hennessy
Retired
Lactoferrin produced in the mucous of our bodies , when empty it is antibacterial , antifungal and antiviral.
Read moreLactoferrin is an iron binding protein , it is the 'first line of defence' of the immune system in that it stops the invader at the door.
"Lactoferrin probably exerts its effect at the level of viral adsorption"
Lactoferrin 'swoops in' and scoops up all available iron , so the virus or bacteria cannot acquire the iron and 'take' and proliferate in the body.
"Antimicrobial and antiinflammatory…
Tom Hennessy
Retired
An example of another virus , similar to hepatitis , shows the body is unable to clear it WHEN the iron is elevated.
Again evidencing the 'upper limit' of , SAFE iron stores.
"Elevated iron stores may put women at risk for persistent HPV infection"
Tom Hennessy
Retired
Another example of a 'safe upper limit' of iron is the prevention of parasite infestation by a low iron diet.
"If there is not enough iron available to the parasite, its multiplication may be reduced and infection attenuated"
"Leishmania chagasi: effect of the iron deficiency on the infection in BALB/c mice."
Tom Hennessy
Retired
Many of the antibiotics in use target iron and iron chelators are being repositioned as antibiotics. IE: hydroxyurea
"They say that targeting or inhibiting the bacteria's ability to obtain iron is a promising area of research that may create novel options for therapy against infection."
Comment removed by moderator.
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
Hi Mark and Matthew, it's a pity your excellent article isn't available in every medical clinic. So many of the public don't even understand the basic difference between bacteria and viruses.
A question or two. Is it true that there is an energy cost to bacteria that are antibiotic resistant and that if they are removed from an antibiotic environment, they will revert to a more benign form?
Has there been any attempt to find a group of more benign bacteria to literally flood antibiotic resistant bacteria from a site?
Apologies if these questions are naive, my knowledge of bacteriology is limited but I've often wondered what would happen if (where appropriate) bacteria could be used to fight bacteria?
Final question. Is there any likelihood that bacteriophages may play a role in the future in combating resistant bacteria?
Mark Butler
Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at University of Queensland
Hi Blair,
Thanks for the questions. Yes, there is an energy cost for resistance but most bacteria are able to harbour the resistance genes and continue to live. Bacteria can shares genes intra and inter species so resistance is often passed on this way (e.g. NDM-1 is plasmid-encoded).
Fighting bacteria with other bacteria is probably not a good idea as we have many "good bacteria" that are very important, especially in the gut.
As for bacteriophages, they are used to treat patients in Georgia in Eastern Europe (e.g. Phage Therapy Center) and some companies (Intralytix) are undertaking research in this area.
Regards,
Mark
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
Hi Mark,
Is gene transfer from resistant bacteria to beneficial bacteria more likely than the other way around?
My question referring to using lots of beneficial bacteria to outnumber resistant bacteria was based on the assumption that it would restrict the availability of energy resources to the resistant bacteria. I'm assuming an absence of antibiotics in the system.
Does the mismatch in numbers tend not to work in laboratory testing or in real-world situations? If not, what is it about the resistant bacteria that helps them override the imbalance?
Thanks again.
Firozali A.Mulla
PhD
IT has made us look like a fool here what is happening Bayer comes with Aspirin we say it is bad for ulcer so we remove this from the shelves. Then the hert patients want the viscosity of the blood so we tell ok bring it back but 75mg per patient per day. How much water how much coffe how much sleep we still have no ide on this but we need these anyway. So is the the dope from Afghanistan? No idea but we need these or the students will make these in the lab Too bad we just have no control on anything I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA
Comment removed by moderator.
Comment removed by moderator.