Difference between revisions of "Drug resistance"
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
After World War II, the sulfa drugs were followed by the first of the antibiotics, [[penicillin]] and [[streptomycin]]. The revolutionary impact of these drugs cannot be overstated. Previously there had been an obsession with the threat of germs<ref>[http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX026108.html The history of antibiotics], Robert Bud, 2005, The Wellcome Trust</ref> because infections, once contracted, were often fatal. With the sulfa drugs and antibotics, for the first time in human history, serious bacterial diseases could be cured promptly and effectively. The phrases "wonder drug" and "miracle drug" were widely used. | After World War II, the sulfa drugs were followed by the first of the antibiotics, [[penicillin]] and [[streptomycin]]. The revolutionary impact of these drugs cannot be overstated. Previously there had been an obsession with the threat of germs<ref>[http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX026108.html The history of antibiotics], Robert Bud, 2005, The Wellcome Trust</ref> because infections, once contracted, were often fatal. With the sulfa drugs and antibotics, for the first time in human history, serious bacterial diseases could be cured promptly and effectively. The phrases "wonder drug" and "miracle drug" were widely used. | ||
| − | But pencillin-resistant microbes started to appear in 1947, just four years after it entered widespread use.<ref>[http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/795_antibio.html The Rise of Antibiotic-Resistant Infections], FDA website</ref> By 1952 the ''Times'' was reporting that "more bacteria [are] developing more resistance to 'wonder drugs.'"<ref>"Increased Resistance To 'Wonder Drugs' Seen", United Press, ''The New York Times,'' October 22, 1952, p. 22</ref> | + | But pencillin-resistant microbes started to appear in 1947, just four years after it entered widespread use.<ref name=FDA>[http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/795_antibio.html The Rise of Antibiotic-Resistant Infections], FDA website. States "The increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance is an outcome of evolution." Describes issues with use of antibiotics in livestock feeding.</ref> By 1952 the ''Times'' was reporting that "more bacteria [are] developing more resistance to 'wonder drugs.'"<ref>"Increased Resistance To 'Wonder Drugs' Seen", United Press, ''The New York Times,'' October 22, 1952, p. 22</ref> |
Bacteriologists soon found that E. coli grown in media containing streptomycin not only produced strains capable of resisting streptomycin, they actually in some cases developed strains that thrived on it and ''required'' it for growth. | Bacteriologists soon found that E. coli grown in media containing streptomycin not only produced strains capable of resisting streptomycin, they actually in some cases developed strains that thrived on it and ''required'' it for growth. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
There is controversy over the best policies to keep drug-resistant strains in check. In the 1940s the medical profession began lobbying to make antibiotics available only through prescription to prevent overuse, and educating doctors to be prudent in prescribing them. However, antibiotics are widely added to livestock feed to prevent infection and promote growth, and critics charge that the practice has encouraged the emergence of resistant strains, a charge which the agribusiness industry and the USDA deny. | There is controversy over the best policies to keep drug-resistant strains in check. In the 1940s the medical profession began lobbying to make antibiotics available only through prescription to prevent overuse, and educating doctors to be prudent in prescribing them. However, antibiotics are widely added to livestock feed to prevent infection and promote growth, and critics charge that the practice has encouraged the emergence of resistant strains, a charge which the agribusiness industry and the USDA deny. | ||
| − | The mechanism by which drug resistance emerges was studied by Luria and Delbrück in 1943 and by Lederburg and Lederburg in 1952. Further work established that streptomycin resistance emerges as the result of point mutations, at a rate of about one per billion cells, while isoniazid resistance has a mutation rate of one per million. Mainstream textbooks treat this as established science,<ref>''Zinsser Microbiology,'' 1968, pp. 163-167, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Library of Congress 68-8386</ref> and supporters of the Darwinian theory of evolution often cite it as an example of rapid evolution.<ref | + | The mechanism by which drug resistance emerges was studied by Luria and Delbrück in 1943 and by Lederburg and Lederburg in 1952. Further work established that streptomycin resistance emerges as the result of point mutations, at a rate of about one per billion cells, while isoniazid resistance has a mutation rate of one per million. Mainstream textbooks treat this as established science,<ref>''Zinsser Microbiology,'' 1968, pp. 163-167, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Library of Congress 68-8386</ref> and supporters of the Darwinian theory of evolution often cite it as an example of rapid evolution.<ref name=fda/> Creationists dispute this interpretation. Some acknowledge the general correctness of the traditional explanation but argue that it is not analogous to speciation in higher organisms and has no relevance to the evolution of macroorganisms. Others have hypothesized alternative explanations for the arise and spread of drug-resistance in bacteria. |
==Notes and references== | ==Notes and references== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 17:39, March 25, 2007
Drug resistance is the phenomenon whereby widespread use of an antibacterial drug is followed by the emergence of strains of bacteria capable of resisting the drug.
In 1940, the New York Times hailed the arrival of
- A new wonder-working chemical named sulfathiazole, the latest "relative" of the sulfanilimide group of "magic bullets," which promises to become the greatest weapon against a host of deadly bacterial infections for which no effective measures existed until now.[1]
After World War II, the sulfa drugs were followed by the first of the antibiotics, penicillin and streptomycin. The revolutionary impact of these drugs cannot be overstated. Previously there had been an obsession with the threat of germs[2] because infections, once contracted, were often fatal. With the sulfa drugs and antibotics, for the first time in human history, serious bacterial diseases could be cured promptly and effectively. The phrases "wonder drug" and "miracle drug" were widely used.
But pencillin-resistant microbes started to appear in 1947, just four years after it entered widespread use.[3] By 1952 the Times was reporting that "more bacteria [are] developing more resistance to 'wonder drugs.'"[4]
Bacteriologists soon found that E. coli grown in media containing streptomycin not only produced strains capable of resisting streptomycin, they actually in some cases developed strains that thrived on it and required it for growth.
In the last half of the twentieth century, a situation developed which was often described as an "arms race" between doctors and bacteria. Bacteria kept developing resistance to drugs, but researchers and drug companies kept ahead of them by developing new drugs. Drug company representatives combed the world collecting soil samples and biological specimens, looking for useful antibiotics in nature, while chemists tried to synthesize new antibiotics in the laboratory. The 1960s saw the emergence of a number of synthetic penicillin-like drugs, such as ampicillin, amoxicillin, and cloxacillin. But by the 1990s the development and discovery of entirely new classes of antibiotics appeared to have reached an end; scientists only managed to make improvements within existing classes of drugs.[5] There is widespread concern that the bugs are catching up. The generation now approaching retirement may be the only human generation in history to live its entire life free from the mortal dread of bacterial infection.
There is controversy over the best policies to keep drug-resistant strains in check. In the 1940s the medical profession began lobbying to make antibiotics available only through prescription to prevent overuse, and educating doctors to be prudent in prescribing them. However, antibiotics are widely added to livestock feed to prevent infection and promote growth, and critics charge that the practice has encouraged the emergence of resistant strains, a charge which the agribusiness industry and the USDA deny.
The mechanism by which drug resistance emerges was studied by Luria and Delbrück in 1943 and by Lederburg and Lederburg in 1952. Further work established that streptomycin resistance emerges as the result of point mutations, at a rate of about one per billion cells, while isoniazid resistance has a mutation rate of one per million. Mainstream textbooks treat this as established science,[6] and supporters of the Darwinian theory of evolution often cite it as an example of rapid evolution.[7] Creationists dispute this interpretation. Some acknowledge the general correctness of the traditional explanation but argue that it is not analogous to speciation in higher organisms and has no relevance to the evolution of macroorganisms. Others have hypothesized alternative explanations for the arise and spread of drug-resistance in bacteria.
Notes and references
- ↑ Laurence, William L. (1940), "New 'Sulfa' Drug Widens Germ War," The New York Times, April 4, 1940, p. 19
- ↑ The history of antibiotics, Robert Bud, 2005, The Wellcome Trust
- ↑ The Rise of Antibiotic-Resistant Infections, FDA website. States "The increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance is an outcome of evolution." Describes issues with use of antibiotics in livestock feeding.
- ↑ "Increased Resistance To 'Wonder Drugs' Seen", United Press, The New York Times, October 22, 1952, p. 22
- ↑ A brief history of antibiotics, BBC news
- ↑ Zinsser Microbiology, 1968, pp. 163-167, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Library of Congress 68-8386
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedfda
