Trip down the memory lane (or scroll down Wikipedia like me), how many researchers have put their valuable time and money on discovering new antibiotics? But the microbes are very powerful to overmaster our discoveries, as many of us know that they evolve resistance to almost all of these precious medicines. The best example is the famous Staphylococcus aureus (‘friendly’ called as the staph. See figure). After all, this is part and parcel of evolution – it is their life or death (or, survival or extinction) war – for the microbes. Whatever new targets on the bacteria or the compounds we discover against these targets, the microbes WILL evolve resistance. However, we cannot stop working on the discovery. But are we on the right path? At least this question is for those pharmaceutical companies that would like to follow the neo-conventional path – the in silico approach on the drug discovery. If you are wondering what I am talking about, here it is in simple words: Using computer programs to ‘predict’ the action of the novel compounds (as their chemical structures) on the microbial targets. The targets can be the genetic machinery of the microbes like DNA, RNA and ribosome (the protein-kitchen) or less-genetic, like the cell membranes.
To make it much clearer, the conventional way of the pharmaceutical companies to ‘discover’ and/or market the new antibiotic is, the researchers have to find the source, mostly natural or nature inspired chemicals. Yes, here is the problem. Natural products have many chemicals in them. Upon various methodological, clever scientific experiments the researchers find an active compound from the natural product and claim that that is responsible for the medicinal property. Partly true! But how many researchers or companies are willing to compare the effect of the ‘active’ compound with the natural extract, which has both the active and pro-active compounds? For example, studies have shown that the famous curcumin from Curcuma longa (turmeric) is active against many pathogenic instances. Upon comparing the pure curcumin and the whole turmeric, the effect seems to be much better with the whole turmeric.
Also, the experimental conditions in majority do not consider the wholesomeness of the biological system they are targeting. What we call as in vitro study is trying to mimic the natural soup with different kinds of chemicals and buffering them to a certain pH. But is that all what we have to consider? Here I should bow my head before those scientists who (also) consider the so called in vivo approach, where they include the actual biological entity to study the effect of whatever they try to discover or explain. But the above-mentioned neo-conventional approach on novel antibiotics cannot promise a ‘better’ antibiotic down the time. There is a natural rush for the companies to release the product as a pioneer, but how many think about the true effects? Does not it sound like Monsanto’s killer seed idea? Of course, I agree that they are after all business oriented to a major extent. In that case, why should not we re-think about the approach and make it a sensible, effective and yet much profitable? I know, already it takes at least a decade to get a whole picture of a potential drug compound, whether it can be taken to trials or ditch it to a ditch. And yes, time is ticking! We are already in the red-hot region of the demise of the existing antibiotics, including the ones used as last resort. But then, what could be the alternative?
Coming back to the day without antibiotics, now I think you can guess the seriousness and why I hastily write this. Yes, we need to re-think the approaches, and re-design the ethical and political ‘rules’ to make it reasonably faster and having minimal loss to the epidemics and pandemics. What are they? Do you want to think about it? May be all of us should…
I have some in the list. I will wait until a considerable number of people comment on it with varied ideas. Then we can try to put everything together. Who knows? WE may be able to ‘enlighten’ the policy makers and the money makers too – as researchers or in general, SCIENCEPHILIACS!
See you soon!
