Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
09 October 2020 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Supplied
Disinfectants
Once they have an understanding of the development of disinfectant resistance, the Veterinary Biotechnology group will be able to make recommendations to hospitals and the agricultural industry on how to prevent the development of these resistant microorganisms.

SARS-CoV-2, an enveloped coronavirus, is susceptible to most disinfectants. Therefore, the majority of disinfectants, including those containing 70% ethanol, should be able to kill the virus fairly quickly.

Nevertheless, it was found that some bacteria are highly resistant to several commercially available disinfectants. These bacteria are currently still quite rare, and the work of the Veterinary Biotechnology group at the University of the Free State (UFS) aims to prevent the development of more highly resistant bacteria.

The research group in the Department of Microbial, Biochemical and Food Biotechnology is working on disinfectant resistance. They recently published an article, ‘Molecular basis of bacterial disinfectant resistance’.

Group members include: Prof Robert Bragg, professor in the department; Dr Charlotte Boucher, research associate; Samantha Mc Carlie, master’s student and laboratory manager; master’s students, Twyne Skein and Gunther Staats; honours students, Carlo Visser, Bernadette Belter, Boudine van der Walt, Jacky Huang, and Mart-Louise van Zyl; and an NRF intern, Gloria Kankam.

According to Mc Carlie, the work being done on disinfectant resistance is largely attributable to the major issues currently experienced with antibiotic resistance.

“Antibiotic resistance is becoming one of the biggest life-threatening challenges of our time – even overshadowing the current COVID-19 pandemic – as multidrug-resistant infections are becoming increasingly difficult to treat. Bacterial infections that are present in hospitals and agriculture are becoming unresponsive to many of the antibiotics currently in use, marking the start of a post-antibiotic era.”

It is predicted that by 2050, antimicrobial resistance could lead to as many deaths as cancer causes today and could account for between 10 million and 50 million deaths per year.

Lack of proper biosecurity

Mc Carlie says the resistance to antibiotics is spreading rapidly due to a lack of proper biosecurity measures in the food and agricultural industry as well as in the hospital environment, even if the COVID-19 pandemic has gone a long way towards increasing the awareness of hospital staff to the importance of good biosecurity. Millions of rands are lost every year due to multidrug-resistant infections in the dairy and poultry industries of South Africa, and superbugs are present in almost every major hospital in the country.

“Currently, the best viable protection we have against bacteria is biosecurity and disinfectants. Biosecurity relies heavily on the use of disinfectants to control bacterial growth. This makes it only more troubling that disinfectant resistance is emerging at an alarming rate.”

She believes it is important to understand the mechanisms of resistance in order to combat resistance to disinfectants. “Once the mechanisms are identified, possible solutions can be investigated.”

The research group is currently monitoring disinfectant resistance, looking at which microorganisms are resistant to which disinfectants. They take environmental samples and test the levels of disinfectant resistance to observe the development and spread thereof.

Once they have an understanding of the development of disinfectant resistance, the Veterinary Biotechnology group will be able to make recommendations to hospitals and the agricultural industry on how to prevent the development of these resistant microorganisms.

“As we learn more about these highly resistant isolates, it will direct day-to-day treatment of multidrug-resistant infections and hopefully aid in the fight against antibiotic and disinfectant resistance,” says Mc Carlie.

The dangers of over-prescribing

“Resistance to antimicrobials such as antibiotics and disinfectants is a natural occurrence. We did not invent antibiotics, we discovered them, and so bacterial resistance has been around for as long as antibiotics have – as a survival strategy.”

“However, the widespread use of antimicrobials creates selective pressure for those microorganisms that are resistant to the antimicrobial being used. Over-prescribing and improper use of antibiotics has led to widespread antibiotic resistance. We expect the same trend to be seen with disinfectant resistance in the near future,” says Mc Carlie.

She urges the public to take note that disease-causing microorganisms can become resistant to antibiotics and disinfectants if they are not used correctly. A course of antibiotics should always be taken at the correct time and until the last dose. In the same way, disinfectants should be used at the recommended level and not diluted below that level.

These resistant organisms are causing major issues in the agricultural and medical industries, but this effect has not been seen in households yet. As long as disinfectants are used correctly, most will be able to kill the novel coronavirus.

There is, however, a need to establish tests on the efficacy of the massive number of ‘hand sanitisers’ that are now suddenly available.

According to Prof Bragg, existing disinfectants and hand sanitisers have been specifically tested against SARS-CoV-2 and have been found to be effective. He says the undergraduate students in the department will be evaluating a wide range of different hand sanitisers as part of their practical training.

Mc Carlie adds that the excessive use of poor-quality disinfectants as hand sanitisers can result in bacteria developing resistance to these disinfectants. “It is therefore very important that reliable high-quality disinfectants are used as hand sanitisers during this COVID-19 crisis, otherwise we will be replacing one crisis with a potentially even bigger crisis.”

Mc Carlie believes there is a need to start looking at alternatives to control bacterial growth. “Disinfectants are currently the only viable option, and if these microorganisms become resistant to disinfectants as well, we will have nowhere else to turn,” she says.

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept