A new weapon in the fight against superbugs | David Brenner

Since the widespread use of antibiotics began in the 1940s, we've tried to develop new drugs faster than bacteria can evolve — but this strategy isn't working. Drug-resistant bacteria known as superbugs killed nearly 700,000 people last year, and by 2050 that number could be 10 million — more than cancer kills each year. Can physics help? In a talk from the frontiers of science, radiation scientist David Brenner shares his work studying a potentially life-saving weapon: a wavelength of ultraviolet light known as far-UVC, which can kill superbugs safely, without penetrating our skin. Followed by a Q&A with TED Curator Chris Anderson.

Check out more TED Talks:

The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design — plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more.

Follow TED on Twitter:
Like TED on Facebook:

Subscribe to our channel:

54 Comments on A new weapon in the fight against superbugs | David Brenner

    • Michael Gusevsky it doesn’t burn the upper layer because the light isn’t strong enough to penetrate the dead cells but it is strong enough for a small things such as bacteria. Even if it did somehow manage to burn a cell it would be a dead cell so it would do any harm such as cause cancer

    • I would like to add to his explanation that the thing that makes it safe to humans is its frequency not its brightness. It is a particular wavelength this chaps claims to have found that doesn’t penetrate deep into tissues but it doesn’t have to for simple organisms that cause infection. This is because certain things are opaque to certain frequencies. Glass is only transparent to our visible spectrum and most things are transparent to the signals reaching your phone.

  1. And what about the damage to the eyes? If the non-dividing, dead layer of the skin is absorbing the damage normally, how could it be used during surgery? Won’t sterilizing every surrounding of ours exacerbate the problem of the growing number of auto-immune diseases?

    • I can imagine some bacteria evolving its own coating of UVC sun-screen, or perhaps fast DNA repair mechanisms if this becomes used everywhere… and like somebody ponted out, there are probably also some good bacteria that we shouldn’t harm for our own sake. Besides, wouldn’t kids end up with an underdeveloped and dysfuctioning immune system if they are forced to live in an almost sterile environment?

    • HappyPlanker Obviously the dose of UVC we’re getting from the sun is not an issue, otherwise everything would be either dead or resistant. The size arguement is also a bad one – if cells can resist UVC by being bigger, then size is what will evolve. And if you rightly assume that a big cell would find it hard to infect us, then they could evolve a “big cell” phase for the outside and a “small cell” phase for virulence (many virulant bacteria already change drastically when they enter a host body).

    • HappyPlanker I don’t follow your logic at all. If anything, your claim that UVC coming in through the holes in the ozone layer is causing more flu cases shows that flu viruses, that are even smaller than bacteria, can be resistant to UVC.

  2. His presentation is great, and new ways to kill superbugs are always welcome.
    But trying to sterilise everybody nearly everywhere (airport/school) is just nonsense what about our comensal bacterias ? And What about the selective pressure it creates ? Because that method is innefective against intracellular bacterias, they will proliferate ! Moreover if any kind of bacteria immune to that light exist, they will proliferate, be everywhere and may give the resitance to other bacteria.
    He also claims that the “drug method” against superbugs is not effective, but here in France and nearly all europe we do not use antibiotics like candies (contrary to the US). And superbugs are really uncommon and are kept under surveillance. Plus we have always some antiotics that we use only against them that are still effective. So by not prescribing drug the “drug method” actually works nearly everytime

    • The drug method is not effective enough. People travel the world constantly and can bring these superbugs anywhere. It doesn’t really matter if a few counties responsibly prescribes antibiotics with people traveling all over the world. Worldwide education on how to use antibiotics properly and removing them from use in livestock will help but we still need more. Bacteria evolve quickly, can transfer R plasmids easily, and can easily go anywhere in the world.

      Even things as simple as phone usage in a hospital by doctors can transport MRSA between patients.

  3. He’s very clearly not a biologist. Life finds a way. Especially if you blast everything with whatever it is you’re trying to kill it with 24/7. This is a recipe for quickly evolving UV-resistant bacteria.

    • You can’t resist physics. UVs at those wavelengths break down all kinds of organic matter. They cleave C-C bonds. And because they’re so strongly absorbed by organic matter, all their energy is delivered to those bacteria, unlike longer wavelengths that mostly pass through.

      For a bacteria to develop any form of tolerance to that, it would have to constantly regenerate its proteins and DNA. If sufficient amounts of UV are used, doing so would be such a drain on its metabolism that it would only be able to multiply at severely reduced rates, if it can find sufficient nutrients to do so at all.
      Once these run out, or if they aren’t present in the first place, the cell dies from the accumulation of cellular damage.

      And if it still somehow survives, and manages to infect you, that enzymatic machinery it will have evolved for constant self-repair will be such a drain on its metabolism, it’s virulence will be severely lowered and your immune system will have much better odds at taking it out early on.

      Now, I’m not saying it’s a perfect method – I see many flaws with it (What about UV degradation of exposed surfaces? What about parts of the human body that aren’t covered in dead skin (mouth, eyes, openings in someone undergoing surgery, etc…)? What about photogenerated radicals? What about killing beneficial skin flora?), but I don’t think resistance is one of those flaws.

    • piranha031091 I agree with all the potential flaws you mention, but I do think resistance might also be an issue. The very fact that our (albeit dead) skin cells don’t let that wavelength through is proof that you can “resist physics” (of course you can’t but your claim that evolving UV resistance is against physics is absurd).

    • Well, if you find some big multicelular bacterias, they might be UV resistance. But we would call it something else other than bacteria. I am almost conviced that what we call nowadays as bacteria can’t develop UV resistance. I am curious though about how exactly he managed to find such a specific interesting wavelenght. That doesn’t makes to much sense for me…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


Shares
Share This