Do you have an idea of other compounds you could have used that would have shown better results or are all compounds at an equal opportunity to be sucessful?
I think that compounds that do not inhibit parts of the human body could prove to be more effective because compounds that are inhibitors are not going to directly kill cells but rather prevent them from doing something. This means that the inhibitor could indirectly kill bacterial cells by inhibiting some part of the cell, but the inhibitor could also simply inhibit a part of the cell that does not lead to the cell’s death. A compound that is more toxic towards cells in general would definitely provide better results because the compound would be more likely to kill cells even if it is toxic towards cells in humans and animals.
Yes, I believe that Maprotiline Hydrochloride could be effective on a different type of bacteria because the compound has already been proven to be effective against francisella bacteria, which is the bacteria that was mentioned in my poster. Since the compound prolonged the lives of mice infected with francisella it is very possible it could completely cure or prolong the lives of mice infected with other types of bacteria.
No, we have not looked into using vaccines to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria because we were asked to look into finding new potential antibiotics. A vaccine could work in combating some antibiotic-resistant bacteria because the human body can be exposed to the bacteria and stimulate the immune system to develop a response to the bacteria. However, salmonella bacteria would easily bypass this vaccine because salmonella bacteria infects cells in humans by having the macrophages in humans attack it so it can be engulfed by the macrophage. The bacteria will then infect the macrophage and spread to other cells in the body.
Do you have an idea of other compounds you could have used that would have shown better results or are all compounds at an equal opportunity to be sucessful?
I think that compounds that do not inhibit parts of the human body could prove to be more effective because compounds that are inhibitors are not going to directly kill cells but rather prevent them from doing something. This means that the inhibitor could indirectly kill bacterial cells by inhibiting some part of the cell, but the inhibitor could also simply inhibit a part of the cell that does not lead to the cell’s death. A compound that is more toxic towards cells in general would definitely provide better results because the compound would be more likely to kill cells even if it is toxic towards cells in humans and animals.
Is there a chance that this compound would be effective on a different type of bacteria, despite it’s ineffectiveness against salmonella?
Yes, I believe that Maprotiline Hydrochloride could be effective on a different type of bacteria because the compound has already been proven to be effective against francisella bacteria, which is the bacteria that was mentioned in my poster. Since the compound prolonged the lives of mice infected with francisella it is very possible it could completely cure or prolong the lives of mice infected with other types of bacteria.
Have you looked into the possibilities of using vaccines to combat treatment-resistent bacterial infections?
No, we have not looked into using vaccines to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria because we were asked to look into finding new potential antibiotics. A vaccine could work in combating some antibiotic-resistant bacteria because the human body can be exposed to the bacteria and stimulate the immune system to develop a response to the bacteria. However, salmonella bacteria would easily bypass this vaccine because salmonella bacteria infects cells in humans by having the macrophages in humans attack it so it can be engulfed by the macrophage. The bacteria will then infect the macrophage and spread to other cells in the body.