Talk:Antibiotic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

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Ok, in answer to this question that I raised, penicillin was used in unpublished clinical trials in 1931.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 name 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://goldbook.iupac.org/goldbook/G02656.html 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.

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)

Things evolve. What's debatable is wether or not we as the human species evolved from apes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.55.248 (talk) 00:57, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

The reason they become resistant, as stated above isn't entirely true. Antibiotics change the fitness landscape and alter the selective pressure on microbes present. For example, if an antibiotic's method of action is to disrupt DNA replication or protein synthesis (or peptidoglycan cell well synthesis) then that subset of bacterial population who suffer a lower fitness now due to, say, faulty or slow polymerase, will reap a higher fitness in presence of the antibiotic as it shifts the fitness landscape to the left (I wish I could draw this here). As antibiotic gradients are setup or as antibiotics are withdrawn, you are left with a population of "persister" bacteria who are less susceptible to that antibiotic. They did not become resistant because they survived; they were already resistant to the mechanism of action of that antibiotic due to some genetic variability. Remember, bacterial colonies are rarely homogeneous. Further complementary mutations may confer greater fitness benefits. The point is that they are not resistant simply because they survived the antibiotic treatment (bacteria survive antibiotic treatment all the time because of diffuse concentration gradients (think P. areugenosa in lung)). I hope I made sense :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.172.158.176 (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC). 67.172.158.176 05:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't genetic mutation and fitness levels the basis for evolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.55.248 (talk) 00:53, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

yes, though the long post disn't mention mutation, just genetic variability, which perhaps he thinks was there at the creation. to show that antibiotic resistance is a result of evolution as we know it you'd have to show that the genetic variability that varied resistance in a poplulation of bacteria was a result of mutation. i'm not qualified to say whether this has been done or not--Mongreilf (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that this article makes claims about the existence of time prior to 1950. The existence of the past is still widely debated among cosmologists; it is unclear whether our memories and evidence of past history reflect some actual time that had objective reality, or whether they are an illusion created by our movement through space. For this reason, I recommend that in addition to flagging all articles that reference evolution by natural selection as POV, please also flag any article that refers to an event that supposedly occurred in this hypothetical 'past'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.59.69 (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why choose 1950? Since your post was several hours in the past, 24.20.59.69, do you exist? or are you only an illusion created by our movement through space?

Seriously, though, survival of resistant bacteria is a fact easily proved by repeatable experiment at any time in the future. The question of whether evolution is fact or theory needn't come into this. Dbfirs 07:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Added Freudenreich and Duchesne

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

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)

1. 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)

1. 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)

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)

discussion of classes of antibiotics

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

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)

Not to mention new drug development--68.51.41.59 (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Even this phrase is not correct that "Conventional antibiotics are not effective in viral, fungal and other nonbacterial infections...". The classical antibiotics polyene macrolides (amphotericin, nystatin etc) possess only antifungal activities. Although quite toxic, amphotericin was among the first antifungal agents used internally. Another classic or conventional antifungal antibiotic is griseofulvin. Tgunda 10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

Please modify, it really does look like a spam. Andru nl (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

• On "antibiotic" v. "antimicrobial": the pattern of bacterial resistance to an antimicrobial subtance which is present in nature or is a modification of a substance present in nature (an antibiotic) might be expected to be different from that to a wholly novel antimicrobial substance (which is not an antiobiotic). Evolution, don't you know? So I think it ("antibiotic" v. "antimicrobial") is a useful, rather than a false, distinction.Moletrouser 09:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I think that brands belong here; people frequently search for information by brand. However, a single Indian brand for everything may be spam, or it may be people just adding the little information they know. The best response is to add enough other information that it gets evened out. Bckirkup (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes: AMA news article. This is the only credible reference I could find for it off of a quick Google search. However, I'm not entirely sure how to write it into this article.--Shark Fin 101 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Host endogenous bacteria are harmed, but quickly repopulate- their beneficial role is relatively minor, as the usual treatment (for decades) of ablating the entire gut's flora is usually unnoticed. Perhaps the most beneficial role is occupying all available niches to prevent pathogenic bacteria from colonizing. It is noteworthy that this is a potential source reservoir of antibiotic resistant bacteria. (Bp) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.235.253 (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Go right ahead! ;-)--Shark Fin 101 16:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

side effect

did side effect mention the complication of asthma in case children (from 1-7 years) take certain period intensively of antibiotics? Avis12 18:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is another side effect that antibiotics kill your own antibodies? I understood that antibiotics weaken your own immune system and it can take up to 2 years to recover. Michael Stangeland (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Antibiotic Hypersensitivity?

Are there any plans to add a section (or a new listing) on antibiotic hypersensitivity (or allergy)? I have been able to find lots of information on the widespread use and misuse of antibiotics in both agriculture and medicine, and little bits and pieces on antibiotic allergy, and again, tons on things like milk allergy, but is no one putting these pieces together? I'm not a medical person, but I have had enough weird hypersensitivity reactions that all seem to point back to either diary products (which mostly probably contain antibiotics) or direct antibiotic administration (first it was urticaria from sulfa meds, now Sweet's Syndrome after Macrolides) that I'm starting to see a pattern. This is of course not about me personally, but I think might be a huge problem that no one seems to be looking at. I talk to others and they often tell me of their hypersensitive reactions to this or that antibiotic, and it seems they do not get much acknowledgement of this issue from their doctors--no testing, no referral to an allergist, and basically no connection. I think this is because no one is documenting the relationship, and doctors rely on research findings. Is research being conducted in this area? If so, it would be great if someone could point to where and what. I don't know where to begin, or I would try to get it going myself. Thank you!

69.109.126.210 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Leha

A search on pubmed at NCBI [4] with the key words "antibiotics" and "hypersensitivity" returns more than 9000 hits for scientific articles that have been published on the topic. So yes, there's plenty of research in the area of interactions of antibiotics with the human immune system. It would be fitting for this entry to contain key findings in the literature, eg, under "Side effects" (where they should belong I believe). Perhaps if you seed such a section and include some relevant info taken from the current literature, others may be able to fill in more info if needed. Although I'd personally be careful to make antibiotics look as if they could be blamed for almost every malady affecting humankind. Allergies can be caused by almost everything that you can wave a stick at, and are likely multifactorial--that antibiotics are currently in the spotlight for their over- and misuse may detract from that. So have a look at pubmed and see what you can find--some of the literature may be a bit arcane and intractable, but a good review (some journals make articles available for free) aimed at a general audience can go a long way to find out more about the topic.Malljaja 19:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

anti-bac on viral

A friend has pneumonia, the doc thinks it is viral. The doc gave him some powerful anti-bac stuff. I thought ant-bac doesn't work on viral and looked up this article. Sure enough this article sights using ant-bac as a bad thing for viral infections like a cold, but it also in the "beyond antibotics" section briefly implies that anti-bac are used to tread viral infections... well now I am all confused - anon

You're not alone in your confusion. There's some uncertainty as to what antibiotics are and what they do, and while this entry deals with the topic well, it's still difficult to see the forest for the trees. In case of viral infections, some doctors prescribe anti-bacterial antibiotics as a prophylactic treatment. Viral infections, such as a cold, can weaken the body, which may cause bacteria to take over and cause sometimes severe opportunistic infections. So anti-bacterial antibiotics are often prescribed if someone suffers from a viral infection to reduce the risk of opportunistic bacterial infections. Drugs targeting specific viruses are less common, as described in the "Beyond antibiotics" section, but they also exist. Maybe this section needs more detail and clarification. Malljaja 16:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Antibiotic suceptibility Section?

Should this page include something on antibiotic suceptibility testing Lilypink 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC) I really think it could add to this article.

Antibiotic suceptibility of bacteria is usually assessed prior to commencement of treatment. One such test for bacterial antibiotic suceptibitity is the disk diffusion method. The resulting zone of inhibition (see figure above) is measured and the antibiotic suceptibility of the strain is measured by relating the size of the zone to a corresponding Minimum inhibitory concentration.

Antibiotics & the pill

Every antibiotic I have ever seen in the UK has carried the warning on the information leaflet that you should not rely on oral contraceptives for birth control whilst taking antibiotics. It is true that, as a rule, antibiotics themselves do not interact with the pill. As far as I am aware, the warning is majoritively in place because of the common side effect diarrhoea causing problems with the uptake of the contraceptive. Given this warning is so prevalent, and the side effect so common, should not the article's mention of this presumed interaction make note of this? LinaMishima 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Some antibiotics are known to interfere with birthcontrol, leading to more than a few...accidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.235.253 (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Chemical verus Chemotherapeutic agent

Recently made a change to article While antibiotic's are chemical compounds chemotherapeutic agent is a more correct term to describe them. If you disagree your welcome to change it back! 140.203.12.243 12:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

References?

Where have all the citations gone? I am unable to locate any references. Specifically #7.

Dave G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.23.171 (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Studies?

I thought I saw something in the news about those who take antibiotics the most live shorter lives than those who don't and the theory was it messes with your natural bacteria. Hope to find more here but nothing. Anyone else see the study? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.187.151.92 (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the lifespan outlook of people with severe bacterial infections is likely increased to a point past next week--Mrdeath5493 (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

demand and supply

i want to know about the demand and supply of antibiotic. in specific about rifamycin. can i get the data in numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushhour santosh (talk • contribs) 16:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Antibiotic Stewardship

I would suggest that a detailed discussion of this is included in Wikipedia. I am happy to commence it 58.105.146.22 (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Request to revert to Antibiotic for this entry name

A recent change has converted Antibiotic first to Antibiotic Classification and then to Classifications of Antibiotics. This is cause for all kinds of problems, chief among them that this change has never been discussed, and the new title seems too restrictive for the content of this entry. I've therefore placed a move request at the top of this page, as I was unable to carry out the move revert myself without breaking the link between this article and its history. Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sun Exposure

I do believe a side effect of antibiotics is hypersensitivity to the sun. The few times I've taken them, the doctor (and the bottle of pills) warn about sun exposure. I'll try to find sources to back this up.. | Ateo (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding Cleanup Tag

Ok, this article really is a wreck. It needs both basic cleanup and attention by an expert. The introduction is shot to pieces and the references are unreadable. There's almost nothing about how antibiotics actually work and very few details about their use. There is an enormous table with a list of scores of antibiotics, but nothing which actually discusses them in any kind of organized or encyclopedic way. I'd love to try to dive in and fix this myself, but I don't know anything about antibiotics, which is why I came to the page in the first place. Medical editors, please? Vonspringer (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a pharmacy student in his 2nd year and we are currently covering all the antibiotics in our Pharmacology section. I would like to use our large online reference section to revamp this article. Starting with the definition through to the end, this article suffers from vagueness and misconceptions (even published ones). So, I'm gonna have at it, and if I go to far it looks like there is a pretty comprehensive changelog. --Mrdeath5493 (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Antibiotics and alcohol section, nonsense sentence

"However contrary to a popular belief there are only several antibiotics that cause a serious drug interaction." I'm sure it should say "only a few" or, simply, "several" but I have no idea which one was meant by the poster. In addition, I've no idea what the "popular belief" referred to might be. ...And that "however" needs a comma after it. Ugh, now I need a drink. Meltyman (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the edit is not good, i revert it now to the original (with refernces that one can verify), that they are in fact dangerous with alcohol.Andru nl (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

~I restored the original text and references, merging with the new added information about "serum something" and extra references.Andru nl (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of antibiotics have no interaction with alcohol. The reference given to support the sentence "Alcohol can interfere with the activity or metabolization of antibiotics" actually says "Alcohol doesn't diminish the effectiveness of most antibiotics"!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.86.71.20 (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference to John Tyndall

The section I just cleaned up refers to John Tyndall as an early discoverer of penicillin. Is this the same John Tyndall? There's no reference to his work in biology in the wiki article Ianjs (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Antibiotics as Livestock Growth Promoters

There are serious issues involving the use of antibiotics in livestock feed. Antibiotics speed up the rate of growth in livestock animals, as well as treating and preventing bacterial diseases. The reasons for this, as far as I know, are not completely understood or well investigated. Unfortunately, this use may also reduce the effectiveness of various antibiotics in human beings who consume the meat from treated animals. I would personally like to see this specific controversy addressed in more depth, but: perhaps more importantly for the article, the regular use of antibiotics in livestock agriculture means an enormous physical amount of these drugs and a large proportion of the money spent on antibiotics is spent on non-human and non-medical purposes. This should merit more than a paragraph under "Misuse" subsection. Thanks for any help with this. 71.184.105.86 (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Consumption of meat from from treated animals is not really the issue. The treatment of livestock with antibiotics provides selective pressure for anitbiotic resistant bacteria in the environment where they are used. The meat is not really any more dangerous to consume than meat from untreated animals because people do not generally get infections from the consumption of meat. But an increased prevalance of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the environment increases the risk of infection with resistant bacteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.86.71.20 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis contradicting lede and potentially misleading

This article is one of the links from one of the news stories at the top of the Wikipedia home page at the moment (the one about malacidins) but when I clicked on the story on the app, and again when I went to the antibiotics article, there's a little synopsis of it in grey as with most articles, but the problem is that this synopsis says of antibiotics, "substance that kills or slows the growth of microorganisms, including bacteria, viruses, fungi and protozoans." Not only is it clear to anyone who knows what antibiotics are that this is wrong, but it directly contradicts this from the lede of the article: "A limited number of antibiotics possess antiprotozoal activity. Antibiotics are not effective against viruses such as the common cold or influenza; drugs which inhibit viruses are termed antiviral drugs or antivirals rather than antibiotics."

In the following paragraph, it does go on to claim, "Sometimes the term antibiotic is used to refer to any substance used against microbes, synonymous with antimicrobial," and cites sources, which I'm not disputing is worth having in the article, however I don't think this alternative definition should be the one asserted in the synopsis, in particular because for anybody who doesn't know what antibiotics are (and who might not read the article itself), seeing "on Wikipedia" that they're things that work on not just bacteria but also viruses and fungi is the kind of thing that encourages antibiotics misuse (addressed in the next paragraph of the lede), isn't it?

Unfortunately I'm not sure how to edit that synopsis. Adam Dent (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

how would you therefore recommend we proceed w/ the text in question?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The text that Adam Dent is concerned about comes from Wikidata and is only displayed on mobile devices (I think). I have updated the one-line synopsis at Wikidata to mirror the first line of this article: "drugs used in the treatment and prevention of bacterial infections". I hope that resolves the concern. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks Ed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Development of new antibiotics(section) rewrite

have posted at editors page in regards--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• rewrite--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• [5]
• [6]

Would this be also another suitable report to cite for this section.

• [7]

2A02:8084:9043:2E00:805B:8651:236D:124A (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

it should follow MEDRS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2018

result of the move request was: Move. There is a rough consensus, supported by WP:SINGULAR, to move the article

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was: Move. There is a rough consensus, supported by WP:SINGULAR, to move the article. Cúchullain t/c 20:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Antibiotics → Antibiotic – use singular 2601:541:4500:1760:A470:8272:6B65:AF59 (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC) oppose rationale?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Oppose per common name. The word "antibiotics" is likely most familiar to people, when in common use, as something that is heard or read out as singular. Question: "Are you taking antibiotic?" Answer: "Do you mean am I taking antibiotics?" Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC) Randy, are you taking an antibiotic for that? Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC) Personal medical information, protected by a strong password. But I haven't taken antibiotics lately. lol though. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC) Support – the singular makes perfect sense here, and that's what we prefer when it does, per WP:PLURAL. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC) Oppose the singular is an adjective. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC) It can be an adjective, but also a noun, defined in Google search as "noun: a medicine (such as penicillin or its derivatives) that inhibits the growth of or destroys microorganisms." Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC) I don't understand User:In ictu oculi's argument. Adjectives in English generally have to be singular and nouns in English often derive from adjectives. However, these nouns can be used in the singular or plural just like other nouns. Note similar examples in my comment below. —  AjaxSmack  02:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Hmm "the antibiotic is" does produce some hits, but in common usage antibiotic is largely an adjective and the noun is plural. I'm well aware that lexically any adjective almost can a singular noun, but I was talking about usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Support per WP:PLURAL. In ictu oculi 's comment that the singular term is an adjective may be correct, but it is a pointless observation since the term is also a noun. Our article even uses the singular term as a noun in several places e.g., "The choice of antibiotic given ...", "... the administration of a broad-spectrum antibiotic based on ...". "... depending on the type of antibiotic used ...". Note that broad-spectrum antibiotic is the article title while the plural form broad-spectrum antibiotics is the redirect. Meters (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC) Support per WP:SINGULAR/WP:PLURAL as is applied to other similar article titles. (Think "Erythromycin is an antibiotic" and cf. Antiparasitic, Anticoagulant, Antidepressant &c.) —  AjaxSmack  02:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Some say tomato, some say antibiotic. You all make a good case. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Oppose Weak Oppose - Again, I think that it's a more common name when talking about the antibiotic as a whole. You could say that stuff like Erythromycin is an antibiotic, but when people talk about antibiotics themselves then they usually refer them to just antibiotics. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC) The same with vegetables, but... —  AjaxSmack  21:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Eh, I'm actually going weak oppose because it's not too much a concern. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Support It isn't a question of common usage, but correct singular usage. Compare Statin or Antipsychotic for the same reason. Drug is the index article for the whole topic class. Should we move them all? Of course not. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Weak support. I suspect usage is fairly individual/regional. "I'm on an antibiotic", "She prescribed me an antibiotic", "I'm taking antibiotics". Common usage is going to be impossible to define, so go with WP:PLURAL. Just don't let it become Pluralgate... Basie (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Keyicin

Perhaps we can also mention keyicin ? See Two microbes are better than one for making an antibiotic Genetics4good (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Etymology

I don't think the etymology need be taken too seriously. There is some confusion between Greek and Latin "anti", I think. Seadowns (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

thank you for bringing this up--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Decoy antibiotics and others

Can a page on decoy antibiotics be made ? See here Genetics4good (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, in extreme environments (such as caves), new antibiotics can appearantly be found (see publications by Hazel Barton), and some have been found there already (not sure how they're called), see here

Can this be mentioned in article ? Genetics4good (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

will look for more/other sources--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

References