The FDA's Cure ID mobile app allows healthcare professionals to quickly and easily report novel uses of existing drugs for rare diseases. This crowdsourced data platform aims to accelerate drug repurposing by connecting clinicians who've observed positive outcomes with researchers seeking potential treatments. The app streamlines the reporting process, allowing clinicians to submit cases directly to the FDA with minimal effort, fostering collaboration and potentially leading to faster identification of effective therapies for patients with rare conditions.
A new antibiotic, clovibactin, has been discovered in soil bacteria from a Maine technician's backyard. This antibiotic attacks bacteria in a unique way, making it effective against drug-resistant "superbugs" like MRSA and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Clovibactin binds to a crucial building block of bacterial cell walls in a manner that makes resistance development unlikely. While human trials are still some time away, the discovery represents a promising new weapon in the fight against growing antibiotic resistance.
Hacker News users discuss the serendipitous discovery of clovibactin, a new antibiotic found in soil. Several express cautious optimism, acknowledging the long road to clinical trials and the potential for bacteria to eventually develop resistance. Some highlight the importance of exploring underexplored environments like soil for new antibiotics, while others point to the challenges of bringing new antibiotics to market due to the high cost of development and relatively low returns. A few commenters dive into the mechanism of action of clovibactin, explaining its unique ability to target a highly conserved part of bacterial cell walls, making resistance development more difficult. The discussion also touches on the limitations of current antibiotic discovery methods and the need for new strategies. Some users suggest alternative approaches to fighting bacterial infections, such as phage therapy and improving sanitation.
Researchers have identified a naturally occurring molecule, lactosylceramide (LacCer), that shows promise as a weight-loss treatment comparable to Ozempic, but without the common gastrointestinal side effects. In a study on obese mice, LacCer effectively reduced appetite, promoted weight loss, and improved glucose tolerance, mirroring the effects of semaglutide (Ozempic). Unlike semaglutide, which mimics the gut hormone GLP-1, LacCer appears to work by influencing the hypothalamus directly, offering a potentially safer and more tolerable alternative for obesity management. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and explore LacCer's potential in humans.
Hacker News commenters express cautious optimism about the potential of this naturally occurring molecule as a weight-loss drug. Several highlight the need for more research, particularly regarding long-term effects and potential unknown side effects. Some point out that "natural" doesn't inherently mean safe, and many natural substances have negative side effects. Others discuss the societal implications of widespread weight loss drugs, including potential impacts on the food industry and pressures surrounding body image. A few commenters note the similarities to previous "miracle" weight loss solutions that ultimately proved problematic. The overall sentiment is one of interest, but tempered by a healthy dose of skepticism and a desire for more data.
Researchers used AI to identify a new antibiotic, abaucin, effective against a multidrug-resistant superbug, Acinetobacter baumannii. The AI model was trained on data about the molecular structure of over 7,500 drugs and their effectiveness against the bacteria. Within 48 hours, it identified nine potential antibiotic candidates, one of which, abaucin, proved highly effective in lab tests and successfully treated infected mice. This accomplishment, typically taking years of research, highlights the potential of AI to accelerate antibiotic discovery and combat the growing threat of antibiotic resistance.
HN commenters are generally skeptical of the BBC article's framing. Several point out that the AI didn't "crack" the problem entirely on its own, but rather accelerated a process already guided by human researchers. They highlight the importance of the scientists' prior work in identifying abaucin and setting up the parameters for the AI's search. Some also question the novelty, noting that AI has been used in drug discovery for years and that this is an incremental improvement rather than a revolutionary breakthrough. Others discuss the challenges of antibiotic resistance, the need for new antibiotics, and the potential of AI to contribute to solutions. A few commenters also delve into the technical details of the AI model and the specific problem it addressed.
Schrödinger, a computational drug discovery company partnering with Nvidia, is using AI and physics-based simulations to revolutionize pharmaceutical development. Their platform accelerates the traditionally slow and expensive process of identifying and optimizing drug candidates by predicting molecular properties and interactions. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang encouraged Schrödinger to expand their ambition beyond drug discovery, envisioning applications in materials science and other fields leveraging their computational prowess and predictive modeling capabilities. This partnership combines Schrödinger's scientific expertise with Nvidia's advanced computing power, ultimately aiming to create a new paradigm of accelerated scientific discovery.
Hacker News users discuss Nvidia's partnership with Schrödinger and their ambitious goals in drug discovery. Several commenters express skepticism about the feasibility of using AI to revolutionize drug development, citing the complexity of biological systems and the limitations of current computational methods. Some highlight the potential for AI to accelerate specific aspects of the process, such as molecule design and screening, but doubt it can replace the need for extensive experimental validation. Others question the hype surrounding AI in drug discovery, suggesting it's driven more by marketing than scientific breakthroughs. There's also discussion of Schrödinger's existing software and its perceived strengths and weaknesses within the field. Finally, some commenters note the potential conflict of interest between scientific rigor and the financial incentives driving the partnership.
Researchers have identified a naturally occurring molecule called BAM15 that acts as a mitochondrial uncoupler, increasing fat metabolism without affecting appetite or body temperature. In preclinical studies, BAM15 effectively reduced body fat in obese mice without causing changes in food intake or activity levels, suggesting it could be a potential therapeutic for obesity and related metabolic disorders. Further research is needed to determine its safety and efficacy in humans.
HN commenters are generally skeptical of the article's claims. Several point out that the study was performed in mice, not humans, and that many promising results in mice fail to translate to human benefit. Others express concern about potential side effects, noting that tampering with metabolism is complex and can have unintended consequences. Some question the article's framing of "natural" boosting, highlighting that the molecule itself might not be readily available or safe to consume without further research. A few commenters discuss the potential for abuse as a performance-enhancing drug. Overall, the prevailing sentiment is one of cautious pessimism tempered by hope for further research and development.
Summary of Comments ( 17 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43648649
HN commenters are largely skeptical of the FDA's Cure ID app. Several express concern that it will primarily serve as a data collection tool for pharmaceutical companies, enabling them to repurpose existing drugs for new, potentially lucrative applications without investing in the original research. Some doubt the app's ability to effectively filter out placebo effects or accurately attribute positive outcomes to the reported drug, given the lack of rigorous controls. Others question the practicality and ethics of relying on clinician anecdotes, suggesting it might lead to the spread of misinformation or encourage off-label drug use without sufficient evidence. There's also cynicism about the FDA's motives, with some believing this initiative is merely a performative measure designed to appear proactive in addressing drug development challenges.
The Hacker News post titled "Cure ID App Lets Clinicians Report Novel Uses of Existing Drugs" linking to an FDA article about the same topic has a modest number of comments, generating a small but focused discussion.
Several commenters express skepticism about the practicality and effectiveness of the app. One commenter questions whether doctors have the time or incentive to meticulously document and report off-label drug uses, suggesting the process is too cumbersome for busy clinicians. This sentiment is echoed by another who doubts the app will gain widespread adoption due to the perceived extra work involved. They argue that doctors are already overloaded and unlikely to embrace another administrative task.
Concerns about data quality and potential biases also emerge. A commenter highlights the possibility of the app primarily capturing positive outcomes, as clinicians might be more inclined to report successes than failures, leading to a skewed dataset. Another points out the challenge of verifying the accuracy of the reported information, emphasizing the importance of robust validation mechanisms.
However, some commenters offer more optimistic perspectives. One suggests the app could be a valuable tool for identifying potential new uses of existing drugs, especially for rare diseases where traditional clinical trials are difficult to conduct. They argue that even anecdotal evidence can be a starting point for further research. Another commenter highlights the potential for crowdsourcing drug repurposing, emphasizing the collective intelligence of clinicians and the possibility of uncovering unexpected therapeutic benefits.
A couple of comments delve into the regulatory aspects, discussing the FDA's role in evaluating the data collected through the app and the potential implications for drug approvals. One commenter questions whether the FDA has the resources to effectively process the potentially large volume of reports.
Overall, the discussion reflects a mix of cautious optimism and pragmatic concerns about the Cure ID app. While some see its potential for accelerating drug discovery and repurposing, others remain skeptical about its practical implementation and the reliability of the data it will generate. The comments highlight the inherent challenges of balancing innovation with rigorous scientific validation in the context of drug development.