PLoS Biol covers biofilms, including dispersion

[Guest guest]

It's like a year since I posted that news article stating that DG

Davies had identified a pheromone able to disperse biofilms. He hasn't

published, nor is his name lighting anything up over at uspto.gov - I

searched using:

in/davies and abst/biofilm

in/davies and abst/biofilms

Maybe he hasn't publsihed because he is pursuing commercialization.

Anyway, more gossip emerges in this free PLoS Biol article on biofilms:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document & doi=10.1371/journ\

al.pbio.0050307

" One of the most tantalizing aspects of this molecule is that it

appears to be universal across bacterial species. Although the enzymes

required to degrade the matrix differ between species, the same

signaling molecule triggers the process. Davies' team has identified

the molecule and verified that a synthesized version induces dispersal

even in films that are below the threshold density [for spontaneous,

natural dispersion behavior], and works even in multispecies biofilms. "

Later...

" Although worried about being branded as 'one of those

alternative-medicine types,' Wolcott [physician] has been exploring

anti-biofilm therapies. 'I watched so many people die, in their

forties and fifties, a piece at a time,' he says. 'I'd just had

enough.' Overall, he says, 'biofilm disease kills more people than

cancer.'

" For wounds that don't respond to standard-of-care wound treatment,

including mechanical removal of damaged tissue, Wolcott adds as many

as six or seven agents to kill bacteria and disrupt the biofilms. He

also uses phages, which qualify as natural substances and has

occasionally seen 'wounds that have been present for years go on to

heal up in weeks.' "

Earlier...

" Davies, now an associate professor at Binghamton University, says

that many doctors treat these debilitating wounds as a problem with

the patient, rather than a sign of infection. 'There's no excuse for

it,' he says. "

A little bit of the introductory material in the article was either

imprecise or inaccurate, to my ear, in smallish ways. I'm speaking of

words from the author, not any of the direct quotes from biofilm mega

luminaries.

[Guest guest]

That article is so spot on . I've also noticed if you want to get

on top of these infections, you need to do multiple therapies, often

using as many as 5 agents..This is something that many lyme people

incorporate, especially when there doctors are aggresive, or they

have fame or wealth..

This is the truer disease and it's in the sinus damaging the brain..

tony

>

> It's like a year since I posted that news article stating that DG

> Davies had identified a pheromone able to disperse biofilms. He

hasn't

> published, nor is his name lighting anything up over at uspto.gov -

I

> searched using:

>

> in/davies and abst/biofilm

> in/davies and abst/biofilms

>

> Maybe he hasn't publsihed because he is pursuing commercialization.

>

> Anyway, more gossip emerges in this free PLoS Biol article on

biofilms:

>

> http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-

document & doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050307

>

> " One of the most tantalizing aspects of this molecule is that it

> appears to be universal across bacterial species. Although the

enzymes

> required to degrade the matrix differ between species, the same

> signaling molecule triggers the process. Davies' team has identified

> the molecule and verified that a synthesized version induces

dispersal

> even in films that are below the threshold density [for spontaneous,

> natural dispersion behavior], and works even in multispecies

biofilms. "

>

> Later...

> " Although worried about being branded as 'one of those

> alternative-medicine types,' Wolcott [physician] has been exploring

> anti-biofilm therapies. 'I watched so many people die, in their

> forties and fifties, a piece at a time,' he says. 'I'd just had

> enough.' Overall, he says, 'biofilm disease kills more people than

> cancer.'

>

> " For wounds that don't respond to standard-of-care wound treatment,

> including mechanical removal of damaged tissue, Wolcott adds as many

> as six or seven agents to kill bacteria and disrupt the biofilms. He

> also uses phages, which qualify as natural substances and has

> occasionally seen 'wounds that have been present for years go on to

> heal up in weeks.' "

>

>

> Earlier...

> " Davies, now an associate professor at Binghamton University, says

> that many doctors treat these debilitating wounds as a problem with

> the patient, rather than a sign of infection. 'There's no excuse for

> it,' he says. "

>

> A little bit of the introductory material in the article was either

> imprecise or inaccurate, to my ear, in smallish ways. I'm speaking

of

> words from the author, not any of the direct quotes from biofilm

mega

> luminaries.

>

[Guest guest]

It's articles like this that make me angry when people constantly nag

about how getting the immune system to fire is likely to fix

them..This is why our blood is clogged and we don't have a very good

immune system IMO.......

>

> It's like a year since I posted that news article stating that DG

> Davies had identified a pheromone able to disperse biofilms. He

hasn't

> published, nor is his name lighting anything up over at uspto.gov -

I

> searched using:

>

> in/davies and abst/biofilm

> in/davies and abst/biofilms

>

> Maybe he hasn't publsihed because he is pursuing commercialization.

>

> Anyway, more gossip emerges in this free PLoS Biol article on

biofilms:

>

> http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-

document & doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050307

>

> " One of the most tantalizing aspects of this molecule is that it

> appears to be universal across bacterial species. Although the

enzymes

> required to degrade the matrix differ between species, the same

> signaling molecule triggers the process. Davies' team has identified

> the molecule and verified that a synthesized version induces

dispersal

> even in films that are below the threshold density [for spontaneous,

> natural dispersion behavior], and works even in multispecies

biofilms. "

>

> Later...

> " Although worried about being branded as 'one of those

> alternative-medicine types,' Wolcott [physician] has been exploring

> anti-biofilm therapies. 'I watched so many people die, in their

> forties and fifties, a piece at a time,' he says. 'I'd just had

> enough.' Overall, he says, 'biofilm disease kills more people than

> cancer.'

>

> " For wounds that don't respond to standard-of-care wound treatment,

> including mechanical removal of damaged tissue, Wolcott adds as many

> as six or seven agents to kill bacteria and disrupt the biofilms. He

> also uses phages, which qualify as natural substances and has

> occasionally seen 'wounds that have been present for years go on to

> heal up in weeks.' "

>

>

> Earlier...

> " Davies, now an associate professor at Binghamton University, says

> that many doctors treat these debilitating wounds as a problem with

> the patient, rather than a sign of infection. 'There's no excuse for

> it,' he says. "

>

> A little bit of the introductory material in the article was either

> imprecise or inaccurate, to my ear, in smallish ways. I'm speaking

of

> words from the author, not any of the direct quotes from biofilm

mega

> luminaries.

>

[Guest guest]

It would be a blast to see Davies turn this into a powerful medicine

with wide application. He'd go straight to the hall of fame. Only 4 or

5 previous landmarks in antimicrobial medicine would be comparable.

[Guest guest]

For sure! Especially if the "powerful medicine with wide application" could be used for systemic infections not just wounds.

Nelly

[infections] Re: PLoS Biol covers biofilms, including dispersion

It would be a blast to see Davies turn this into a powerful medicinewith wide application. He'd go straight to the hall of fame. Only 4 or5 previous landmarks in antimicrobial medicine would be comparable.

[Guest guest]

> For sure! Especially if the " powerful medicine with wide

application " could be used for systemic infections not just wounds.

>

> Nelly

Yeah, who knows... I mean it's a bit silly of me to speculate this way

about something not even published yet... but it's possible this

Davies pheromone system could have effects on other behavior programs,

other than the biofilm dispersion program. Thus, it could perhaps have

a useful effect on slow-growing infections that aren't (or might not

be) biofilmic in nature.

Unfortunately, there could always be some taxa that simply don't have

the pheromone system in question. Chlamydia and borrelia, eg, are very

divergent groups and oftentimes lack physiologic systems that are

widespread in " mainstream " eubacteria such as the proteobacteria.

Indeed, it's unpleasant to contemplate just how sleek some bacterial

cells can be. Mycoplasma genitalium probably has ~460 genes, and

perhaps only ~260 essential ones (PMID: 8816789, which I haven't

read). That organism is definitely not an infinite wilderness of drug

targets - especially not if you want drugs that can kill hypometabolic

cells.

[Guest guest]

, in case this list ever bites the dust, you must save our email addresses so that you can inform us all if this ever happens. It would be a drag for a major breakthrough to happen that we never hear of, simply because most of the medical world takes a long time to catch up to good information when it comes to infection. penny <usenethod@...> wrote: It would be a blast to see Davies turn this into a powerful medicinewith wide application. He'd go

straight to the hall of fame. Only 4 or5 previous landmarks in antimicrobial medicine would be comparable.