Talk:Antibiotics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Antibacterial)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Microbiology (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Production[edit]

Reading over the production section of this paper interests me in learning more and make me wish that there was at least a little bit more about how antibiotics are created whether it be fermentation is explained in a simple way, or a recent new chemical pathway. There is a lot of research being conducted as we speak regarding the production of antibiotics and it would be helpful to include some of these processes here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgue.13 (talkcontribs) 01:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

False information in classes[edit]

> Following a 40-year hiatus in discovering new classes of antibacterial compounds, four new classes of antibacterial antibiotics have been brought into clinical use:[when?] cyclic lipopeptides (such as daptomycin), glycylcyclines (such as tigecycline), oxazolidinones (such as linezolid), and lipiarmycins (such as fidaxomicin).[21][22]

  • Oxazolidinones were in use in the 1950s (notably the TB drug Seromycin).
  • The citations do not support the sentence as written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.156.214 (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

History[edit]

@CFCF:There seems to be something amiss with the first-used assertion. Compare Sulfonamide (medicine)#History. Of course there's a long history of herbals used as topical antibiotics too, not to mention soap and water, alcohol, etc. Some rewording would seem to be warranted. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: I didn't actually add that section, but rather restored/corrected the mention of widespread use arriving with the advent of penicillin. My interest in medical history is purely non-professional so far, and I didn't question the additions by Dbhall2. Do we have anyone with specialty knowledge of medical history? When it comes to something like this which may be subject to debate I don't want to sound too authoritative only to find myself completely disproven. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@LeadSongDog:@CFCF:Based on CFCF's recommendation, I reworded to clarify arsphenamine as the start of the era of antibacterial chemotherapy. The development and use of arsphenamine was notably different from agents such as alcohol, as rather than being toxic to all cells, it is toxic to bacteria in much lower doses. Please see my reference. Please do not add penicillin back into the discussion of the first antibiotic. Penicillin was hypothesized by Fleming in 1928, but it was not isolated until after protonsil (the first sulfonamide) and not mass produced until the 1940s. Mass production of sulfonamides began in the 1930s. Sulfonamides hold a very important place in the history of pharmacology. A toxic preparation, elixir sulfanilimide, lead to 100 deaths in 1937. The U.S. government responded, in part, by forming the Food and Drug Administration. -- Dbhall2 14:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, as for including penicillin it is down to what one would constitute as widespread use. I don't think it unreasonable that we mention arsphenamine, sumfonamides and penicillin as all have important roles in the history of antibiotics. To that end maybe it be best to remove the mentions of nobel prizes, or simply mention that several have been given.
As a side note I haven't seen you before Dbhall2 and I'd like to say you're very welcome to introduce yourself over at WikiProject Medicine's talk page. (There is also WikiProject:Pharmacology, but there tends to be little discussion there). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dbhall2:@CFCF:Some "historical article" sources to draw from: PMC 2731226, PMID 24326504, PMID 20215414, PMID 11227256. Please be careful to reflect what the best available sources say, rather than being tempted to seek out sources to support a thesis. That habit from academia does not transfer well into Wikipedia, as it leads one into original thinking. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
PMID 22439833 & PMC 3109405 also seem interesting. Maybe something on the first antibiotic resistance could be added too. Off digging sources, fleshing out on resistance was my primary reason for coming to this article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@CFCF:@LeadSongDog:I'd agree that penicillin deserves mention in the history section, and I think it's adequately covered there. I don't think it belongs in the introductory paragraph with a description of the first antibiotic or first widely used antibiotic. There are sources that describe penicillin as the first antibiotic, but they use the obsolete definition from Waksman (see your references) of a substance made by one microbe that inhibits the growth of another microbe. Because arsphenamine (salvarsan) and sulfonamides are synthetic molecules, they don't fit that narrow definition. The history section does a good job describing the timeline. I'd say the introduction now reflects that timeline: Ehrlich comes up with the idea of a "magic bullet" that selectively targets bacterial cells, then in 1907, he finds arsphenamine, which is used clinically in the early 1900s for syphilis. In '28 Fleming hypothesizes the existence of penicillin, in 33 Domagk discovers the antibacterial effect of sulfonamides, and in the late 30s sulfonamides are mass produced and in wide use. Later penicillin is purified from penicillium mold, and then in 1944 it is mass produced by the Allies for WWII. Notably, penicillin wasn't commercially available until after the war, years after sulfonamides were in wide use.--Dbhall2 23:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@CFCF:A section, or article on the history of antibiotic resistance would be fascinating! -- Dbhall2 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dbhall2:What ref calls Waksman's definition "obsolete"? LeadSongDog come howl! 00:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@LeadSongDog:the article defines the term as the general definition of antibiotics, "a substance used against bacteria", so as far as this article is concerned, we're not using Waksman's definition. I thought you might find it helpful to know why some sources would describe penicillin as the first antibiotic, though. Pick up any modern pharmacology textbook and you'll see synthetic antibiotics and microbial derivative antibiotics listed together in the antibiotic section. See the industry standard Goodman and Gilman [1]. Katzung is another widely used text [2]. If you use Waksman's definition, very few clinically relevant antibiotics would count. Even the antibiotics we initially discovered by isolating them from another microbe have been modified to extend their spectrum or keep up with the spread of resistance. Of note, just to double check from a primary historical source, I looked back in my first edition Goodman and Gilman when I got back from the office tonight. It was published in 1941 and describes the arsphenamine and sulfonamide timeline as discussed above, but without any reference to penicillin (as it wasn't yet clinically available). I added the first edition G&G as a reference. -- Dbhall2 01:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ ISBN:9780071624428
  2. ^ ISBN:9780071451536