14 thoughts on “D11c – Alves Da Silva

  1. Do you think that using a higher dose, even lower than that used in chemotherapy, would still be toxic if used as an antibiotic in humans??

    1. I don’t know… I think that would be something that could be tested if the compound moved on to in-vivo testing. Being able to see how toxic or non-toxic the antibiotic dose of the compound would be in animals could give an idea of what it might look like in humans, maybe.

  2. Great Presentation! How did you determine that Azacytidine-5 was a “Hit”? What exactly is a “Hit”?

    1. Thanks! A “hit” is any concentration of Azacytadine that produced antibiotic effects. In our experiment we determined hits by observing the absorbance values. Any absorbance values below two standard deviations of the mean of our negative control were considered a hit.

  3. Are there any possible modifications that could be made to the drug itself to lessen its toxicity? Or do you think that this drug is just not a great option for antibiotic use within the human body?

    1. I think modifications to the compound are possible, however I am unaware of any that would result in lower toxicity, and I don’t know if modifying it would change it’s effectiveness. I think if it continued to show promise in further testing and then in-vivo at similar concentrations to those we tested, I think it could be a good option for use in the human body. A ton more research would be necessary, but the doses we tested were actually a lot lower than those used in cancer treatments, so if similar doses kept working, that would mean a lower toxicity when used as an antibiotic.

  4. Do you think the Azacytidine-5 was very affective because of the restricted areas of the system used in the experiment (petri dish- if thats what was used)? And do you think the complex system of the human body (or any other animal) would effect the capability and effectiveness of the drug?

    1. This is definitely possible, but it is hard to know without further testing. However, I think it Azacytadine might hold more promise in terms of working in-vivo, based on the fact that it is is an effective chemotherapy – which means it is able to work in the human body in certain capacities. But I am just speculating – I’m not sure.

    1. I think the main drawbacks to using mice would be the challenges of getting the compound through the body (intact) to it’s intended target. Unlike our model organism in this experiment, Salmonella typhimurium, the body of a mouse presents many more barriers for the compound to get through before it can get inside the macrophage to reach the target Salmonella Bacteria. We would have less control over the environment the compound is exposed to if we tested in mice. Complications could also arise in the method of administering the drug safely. The benefits of in-vivo testing on organisms like mice would be the ability to better evaluate any toxicities and side effects the compound could be causing in a more complex organism.

    1. I think first and foremost a repeat of this experiment would be good, just to ensure our results weren’t adversely effected. Further testing of more concentrations could be helpful as well, to narrow down which concentrations the compound is most effective at, as well as at which concentrations it has no effect.

Leave a Reply