Talk:Antibiotic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Antibiotic is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Biology Portal

Antibiotic is part of WikiProject Microbiology, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Microbiology and microbiology-related topics. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Top

This article is on a subject of top-importance within microbiology.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

rated top as topic of general/public interest - tameeria 16:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

MCB Portal

This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Signal transduction.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Top

This article is on a subject of top-importance within molecular and cellular biology.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

rated top as topic of general/public interest - tameeria 16:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If the sulfonamides (i.e. sulfa drugs) are to be considered antibiotics, then they *may* have a claim to being the first antibiotics found. Someone better check into prontosil (interesting in itself as a drug found using the magic bullet theory, and for which the magic bullet theory pointed to the useless part of the molecule) and the date of its discovery. David M

Ok, in answer to this question that I raised, penicillin was used in unpublished clinical trials in 1931. Tests of prontosil did not begin until December of 1932, and the first clinical tests are supposed to have happened in 1933. David M

A good discussion of this history is here:

http://stevenlehrer.com/explorers/chapter_7-3.htm

David M

The sulfonamides do predate penicillin but don't count as antibiotics since they are synthetic antimicrobials. There are enough of these around to warrant a seperate article. I've added a clarification in the first paragraph.
Generally harmless is a bit misleading. I haven't changed this but it should be noted that many antibiotics can have toxic effects (eg Streptomycin damages the balance mechanism in the ear), they often affect normal gut flora causing gastrointestinal disturbance and there is a significant incidence of allergic reaction.

--DWeir

Some people a group of antibiotics like glycopeptids and another people like glucopeptids. What is the right name ( from glucosa or glycosa )???Mac

The proper name is glycopeptides. For example http://www.iupac.org/goldbook/G02656.pdf Daevatgl 15:08, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Any reason for maintaining a section called Antibiotic#Antibiotic_Resistance in this article. All of this material should be moved to Antibiotic resistance. The section called Antibiotic#Antibiotic_misuse should suffice as a redirection to Antibiotic resistance WpZurp 14:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, antibiotics are made by bacteria against other bacteria. The common usage of the word antibiotic should actually be the term 'antimicrobial'. Antimicrobials are any substance which has properties against a microbe - whether that be a protozoa, bacteria, virus, etc. Discussion/classification of antibiotics on the basis of bacteriocidal (actively kill bacteria) and bacteriostatic (prevent from multiplying) properties would be nice to have too.

[edit] Article wildly POV

"Use or misuse of antibiotics may result in the development of antibiotic resistance by the infecting organisms, similar to the development of pesticide resistance in insects. Evolutionary theory of genetic selection requires that as close as possible to 100% of the infecting organisms be killed off to avoid selection of resistance; if a small subset of the population survives the treatment and is allowed to multiply, the average susceptibility of this new population to the compound will be much less than that of the original population, since they have descended from those few organisms which survived the original treatment."

This articles uses an argument about evolution as if it were a fact agreed upon by all scientists. This is not the case and as there is still a lot of debate in this area it is not appropriate to include this as fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.198.151.130 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 October 2006.

Evolution is a theory which has wide and near-unanimous acceptance among scientists in the field. The only debate in this area is caused by theists who do not understand evolution. I'm glad to see someone has reverted the above's changes already. MickeyK 03:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Freudenreich and Duchesne

Discoverers, respectively, of the first antibiotic (Pyocyanase), and the penicillium mold's effectiveness.

[edit] re last addition to "lead" paragraph

The new sentence was added by an editor who apparently has some background in this area, but: 1) an antibiotic is a "small" molecule compared to what?; 2) sure, it's "not an enzyme", but it's not lots of things; and 3) antibiotics, as the term is generally used, are not necessarily "a molecule" to begin with. I expect to alter or eliminate this addition soon, but wanted to put this note out before so doing. Am I missing something here? Sfahey 03:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are "small" molecules compared to large molecules like proteins or large polymeric carbohydrates. The specification "molecular weight less than 2000" is the "official" definition.

Perhaps it's in the eye of the beholder. Todar's textbk. of bacteriology says: "Antibiotics tend to be rather large, complicated, organic molecules and may require as many as 30 separate enzymatic steps to synthesize. The maintenance of a substantial component of the bacterial genome devoted solely to the synthesis of an antibiotic leads one to the conclusion that the process (or molecule) is important, if not essential, to the survival of these organisms in their natural habitat." Sfahey 04:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Antibiotics are by definition organic molecules.

The popular usage of "antibiotic" includes combination drugs, which wouldn't be "a molecule". That's perhaps splitting hairs, but it would be good to qualify the statement, as in "biochemically, an antibiotic ..." Sfahey 04:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually there are two different definitions used in medicine and biochemistry, I will change the article accordingly soon. Cacycle 11:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adding section: production of antibiotics

I have some good information on the production of antibiotics, obtained from various sources for an essay. I am happy to submit the relevant info and commentary (all properly referenced and wikified of course). I personally think this section would be okay in the main article of Antibiotics, but do any users think it would be more suitable to create Production of Antibiotics and then include a more concise version and a link in the main article? Comments very welcome.

Mushin 17:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] discussion of classes of antibiotics

is needed. Doldrums 03:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adding section explaining antibiosis

Desn't the article need a brief section explaining antibiosis: "the antagonistic association between an organism and the metabolic substances produced by another"? soverman 16:01 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Go for it.Sfahey 03:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

what new strategies are being used to treat diseases caused by antibiotic-resistent bacteria?

One strategy is bacteriophages that I know of. There are probably many others, like enhancing the immune system and so forth. By the way, sign your post in the future.Tyciol 08:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do they work?

I didn't see in the article any discussion of how antibiotics actually work. An obvious excellent place to expand the article if any experts would care to lend a hand. I'm sure it's a deep area of study with various answers, hence the need for experts.... Tempshill 20:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

     Antibiotics act in one of several ways. *I am not a medical professional, this is just a little info I know
     One of those ways is to stimulate the immune system to fight the enemy, others directly attack the bacteria or     perform actions that kill the bacteria. 
***IE: Many oral anti-acne medications oxidize the actual bacteria and in return kill them.***
     Antibiotics could be expanded to include those which kill ALL cells. This would mean bleach is an antibiotic... but I 
     highly doubt such a technique could/would ever work. Coastiehelo 04:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sulfa is an anti-biotic

Sulfa was used as an antibiotic during the civil war to help treat both gunshot wounds and amputations. Although largly unsucessful, sulfa is considered an antibiotic. Coastiehelo 04:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

The follow was added uncited by an anon user, can others help WP:Verify please - I raise 5 issues.

Seawater is also a traditional, though unpredictable cure for infection. This is now thought to have worked because of the exremely high titer of bacteriophages in seawater, which can reach 2.5x10^11 virions per liter.

I wonder about the citing/verifing that this was a "traditional...cure".
As for the concentration of bacteriophages, see Talk:Phage#History reference as the cited source for the number does not obviously associated this with seawater (vs perhaps stagnant fresh waters). The reference I found on a quick search seems to suggest a level 50 times lower (see here).
- I don't see a conflict. The Nature article is a maximum; this article is an average. User:Ray Van De Walker

In the early modern period, colloidal silver, and compounds of mercury were used to help manage some bacterial diseases. Silver is a metabolic poison for many bacteria, and is relatively harmless to humans.

Mercury compounds were used in the 19th century to manage syphilis, and silver is a traditional material for utensils because it "purifies." I don't have any references, but I know that it's a traditional material for silverware and wine cups, and I thought that that dated back to Roman usages. User:Ray Van De Walker

What is "modern period" in this context ?
We need some verification and citing for this claimed usage.

However both statements, even if true, possibly are inappropriate within this article - as neither are members of antibiotic group. Even the higher level of Antimicrobials define itself as "originally described only those formulations derived from living organisms but is now applied also to synthetic antimicrobials", which clearly rules out silver & mercury as neither are organically derived nor synthetic.

Can editors please help verify, cite and explain why the above 2 sentances should be re-included. David Ruben ^Talk 09:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antifungal and Antiviral Antibiotics

Antibiotics are not effective in viral, fungal and other nonbacterial infections, and individual antibiotics vary widely in their effectiveness on various types of bacteria.

I believe this is slightly inaccurate as drugs having antiviral and antifungal properties are often described as antibiotics. Examples from MEDLINE: [1][2][3]

I changed this to read "Conventional antibiotics are not effective in viral, fungal and other nonbacterial infections..." The article should probably further clarify this distinction and its exceptions. --Dforest 00:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this compromise phrasing is perfect, as "antibiotic" is still used mainly to refer to antibacterials.Sfahey 18:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree good phrasing. Perhaps I should point out that the anti-fungal agent Miconazole also has antibacterial properties too; a useful feature when patients are scratching away at their ringworm or have split skin from athlete's foot.David Ruben ^Talk 00:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you had some sort of disease, are there some foods that can cure it? IThink4u 12:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

I'm not an expert but it seems like the "Brand Name" box under Quinolones in the chart is being used to flog an obscure indian company, rather than the well-known Bayer product that led to this class of drugs. I wouldnt modify it because I have no expertise, but though someone here might.

[edit] False distinctions?

I'd argue that antibiotics and antibacterial drugs should be rolled into a single article. The origin of a drug is only of mild historical interest, right? User:Ray Van De Walker

But might there not be confusion with the term "antibacterial agent". Currently antibacterial redirects to antiseptic which are very different, being used the on the external surfaces of the body or indeed on innert surfaces. Hence chlorhexadine or iodine used as pre-op skin antisepsis, whould never be swallowed or given intravenously and I dare not contemplate th eeffects of bleaches & detergents if taken by a patient. Antibiotics are also different in being targeted at specific bacteria that are already causing an infection, whereas antiseptics are to eliminate all & any (i.e. non-specific) bacteria in an area before any infection has occured.David Ruben ^Talk 02:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classes colours

Recently some items in the list have been given a gold coloured background - as there is no key given to the distinction, why ? David Ruben ^Talk 11:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reactions

I'd like to see a section on reactions w/ other drugs. I vaguely remember hearing that taking antibiotics with high does of e.g. vitamin C increases? or decreases? thier effectiveness? What about other ditary suplements? Asprin? etc.? Is it better to take them on an empty stomach? full stomach? linas 17:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country-centric

I've several beefs with this article.

Brand names are different in different countries, and as such, the brand names column should either be eliminated, or all the brand names in the major world countries ought to be listed.

I vote for brand names to be eliminated entirely from the table. This is the table of antibiotic classes and brand names can, if appropriate, be listed in articles of individual pharmaceuticals. Kpjas 10:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Second, as another user pointed out, there are several entries which are used to link to an Indian pharmaceutical company. This is advertising and ought to be eliminated. I've half a mind to do it myself. Perhaps I will wait until tomorrow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.232.54.42 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 19 August 2006.

This is blatant spamming IMO. Kpjas 10:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] platensimycin

Just read an article about this new antibiotic, and to my surprise it wasn't mentioned here (although it has a wiki article of its own). What I'm wondering about is that platensimycin supposedly belongs to an unknown class of antibiotics, and even though being relatively recently discovered and experimental, shouldn't this class be mentioned in the classes of antibiotics section? -- MiG 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roxithromycin

The table seems to be missing Roxithromycin in the macrolides section. Anyone opposed to me adding it there? --Nimrais 11:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bacitracin - Mupirocin entry in Antibody Classes table

The entry for 'Bacitracin' lists 'Mupirocin' as the associated brand name. This does not look like it is correct based on the content of the associated articles. I would have changed this by putting Mupirocin in the correct sub-table, but I wasn't sure which sub-table it should appear in. Could a knowledgable person please fix this? Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right — mupirocin is not a trade name for bacitracin, it's a different antibiotic altogether. Since mupirocin has a unique mechanism of action and an unique chemical structure, I'm adding it under "Others". Fvasconcellos 22:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not harmful to host?

The featured article bacteria states that there are 10 times more bacterial cells in the human body than human cells, with most of the bacterial cells being beneficial. I was under the impression that antibiotics did indeed usually cause harm to the host by killing some of the symbiotic bacteria that we (humans) have in our digestive system. Can anyone confirm this? MickeyK 03:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of Antibiotic Research

The origins of modern antibiotic research do not lie with Fleming as the article postulates (although nobody would belittle his importance in the discovery of penicillin), but with Paul Ehrlich, who developed Salvarsan in 1909 and brought it on the market in 1910, leading to the first effective antibiotic treatment against Syphilis and oder spirochaetal infections. Although Salvarsan is not a broad-spectrum antibiotic (it is only effective against spirochaetes) and is not used in modern medicine any more, its development and introduction in 1909/10 makes it the first antibiotic in medical history. Could someone please correct this in the article? --84.72.116.141 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Talk%7EAntibiotic_b718.html"