Virus Vs Bacteria

No, I haven't, but I can't understand what might be so special about the viral treatment that would prevent strains with immunity to such a vector.

All you need is less than 100% kill rate to generate bacterial strains that are resistant to that particular virus.

My limited understanding on the virus pathway into a cell is that protein receptors on the cell outer wall match that of the virus (this is how such a virus would selectively not attack a eukaryote cell in the body, but kill a bacterium).

Anything that interferes or changes the protein receptor on the target cell will foul the virus from attaching. Slight mutation in the bacterium would ultimately do this and create a new super strain of the original bacteria that is resistant.

Many anti-viral drugs work exactly this way by fouling the protein binders between cell wall and virus and preventing the virus capsid from attaching to the cell wall.

I do not understand how it worked,I can only hypothesize that it mutated to keep up with the changes in the bacteria,or that it somehow tricked the bacteria into not developing resistance.I do not know this to be a fact,however.

The info I refer to is over 20 years old, and may have been in error,or an exaggeration.

I do know that the Russians were far ahead of us in many areas,and some of their science is still classified.Not just in space technology,or supercavitating torpedoes,but in certain medical fields as well.

And anything that would disrupt the pharmaceutical industry's profit margin is not likely to receive any research funding.Prior art would preclude a patent.

The way super bacteria are created is when any agent kills less than 100% of the strain, the surviving bacterium generally have some form of resistance that the others lacked.

The survivors multiply generating a strain that is more resistant than their previous offspring. The process repeats until the agent no longer impacts the strain.

This is nature's way of adapting to change.

Oh if nature were only so simple.

Agreed, but I had neither the time nor the space to go into a whole white paper on the subject. So the condensed version had to do.

A bacteria usually needs about one million cell divisions from a single source to create a permanent genetic change. 80% of the time it will be one to adapt to a different kind of food. Most of the rest of the changes will be to adapt to external toxins.

Quicker adaptations to external forces are usually an already existing historical genetic capability that is re-awakened by a particular external stimilus that initiates a neucleotide signaling process.

What criteria i required to claim 'a permanent genetic change' has occurred? I

.

It seems like impermanence is a salient quality of things sporting genetic material (well, of everything really). It would seem that a change is a change. If it later reverts, it doesn't make the previous less of a change, just a different change.

.

A profoundly important genetic transaction for adaptation/evolution seems to be missing from the explanation you provided. Bacteria utilize horizontal gene transfer to great effect in adapting to novel threats, without necessarily resourcing the genetic solution from material their own species.

Not until now.

Looks like it's being worked on in the US too. I wonder if these people got their FDA approval?

We're definitely going to need something better than antibiotics. We have overused them almost to the point of making them useless. Patients have helped in the creation of superbugs too, by not taking their entire prescription.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=virus-protein-lysin-kills-bacteria

Edit: This is slightly OT, but also cool.

http://news.health.com/2013/09/18/gene-testing-helps-sort-out-bacterial-viral-infections/

nope but I have read on viruses being used in nanowire production......pretty interesting stuff, using the twisted form of a virus to create more surface area(as in batteries having more capacity)http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5775/885

Thanks for the link.

You live and you learn! Up until now, I thought bacteriophage referred to what I now understand is properly called a bacterivore.

.

Variations of '-phage-' typically have to do with 'eating', as in 'esophagus' (not a tough one to swallow), 'pantophagist'(someone who will eat about anything), and 'theophagy' (eating of a god... think sacrament and transubstantiation). So when I previously read about phage therapy having been developed in Russia, I assumed the 'phage' was something like an amoeba. I now know an amoeba is not a bacteriophage but instead a bacterivore.

.

I still find it a little weird that the name chosen for a virus pivots on 'phage'. Viruses are rightly 'eating' anything.

My daughter-in-love used to work with with phages. They say "bacteriovorous" is anything eating bacteria (provided it's a microorganism, or else a cow would be one) e.g. Bdellovibrio bacteriovorous,a bacterium, as some amoebae and other protozoa. There is a video from the Ileava Institute in Tblisi. Haven't checked it myself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjH6m5VuR6I

brgds

Snel

Excellent....gotta love the Ted talks....These phages seem to be a successful approach to several persistent bacterial problems, shows great promise.....