Another press release on a vaccine breakthrough from NIH. This one allegedly predicts the mutations that will result in enhanced transmissibility. Just published as a paper in the journal Science, the focus was on mutations of the HA protein (the "H" part of H5N1) that are related to binding to human cells versus bird cells. We have discussed this pretty often here (for the science background see the posts here):
The research group compared the structural proteins on the surface of bird-adapted H5N1 influenza virus with those on the surface of the human-adapted strain that caused the 1918 pandemic. They specifically looked at genetic changes to one portion of the H5 protein, the receptor binding domain. The investigators showed that as few as two mutations to this receptor binding domain could enhance the ability of H5N1 to recognize human cells.Additional mutations would likely need to accumulate for H5N1 to spread more easily from person to person, says Gary Nabel, M.D., Ph.D., director of the NIAID?s Dale and Betty Bumpers Vaccine Research Center (VRC), who led the study. The few mutations he and his colleagues identified are likely just a subset, he emphasizes.
The team also found that these mutations change how the immune system recognizes the virus. Mouse antibodies that target H5N1 were up to 10-fold less potent against the mutants. Dr. Nabel and his colleagues then created vaccines and isolated new antibodies that might be used therapeutically against human-adapted mutants. (Genetic Engineering News)
Note that "additional mutations would likely need to accumulate for H5N1 to spread more easily from person to person." This is clearly true and is another way of saying we don't understand the factors that go into increased transmissibility. It would be very likely there are multiple paths to that very dangerous end. So it's not clear how useful this technique will turn out to be.
But I want to raise another question about it. This is clearly interesting work scientifically and not at all stupid. Along with a lot of people I will look on with interest over the next few years to see how this line of investigation unfolds. Science is a slow business, unfortunately and we will need time. So I don't understand why NIH has to issue a press release about it. It's not exactly breaking news that will make an immediate difference if it makes a difference at all. I understand why various biotech companies pull this kind of PR stunt. They are trying to raise venture capital and reassure stockholders. But why does NIH need to do this?
Science by Press Release is not what we need. Bad form.
- Log in to post comments
What's wrong with a press release? We get those now for weird non-software releases, non-stories of every type. Why not for incremental knowledge increases? That is better than most things in press releases. As long as it is about a refereed paper, I, as a taxpayer, think that is a nice way to demonstrate to the general public what some of these taxes are being used for.
Markk,
I share revere's concerns. In my own areas of expertise, I've seen too many press releases--even of peer-reviewed work--that don't stand up to further scrutiny, or (and this is far more common) make far broader claims that the data actually justify. To the extent NIH has obligation to educate the public, it should do so only after we see if this research program pans out. There's no need to jump the gun, and, by doing so, potential misinform people. That's not helpful.
Political motivation.
1) to get more funding to continue the research.
2) to avoid a cut of the funding that has been (hypothetically) threatened.
3) to 'scoop' another research group working on the same problem, especially if said group is outside the US.
If they do eventually find all the needed mutations, that not only means we (meaning the NIH) could start vaccine work, it means we could cause a pandemic by building the virus (which would be incredibly stupid as it would immediately begin to diverge genetically from the source strain and evade any vaccine for it that might be in hand).
I pretty much agree with Lisa's sentiments re: "tweaked vaccine" dangers... Nothing stands in isolation! The GM crap (processed into food) in the environment will still do a "funky evolutionary dance" in the guts of animals eating it -- and possibly interact with the "H5N1 vaccine" in a way which "diverges genetically from the source strain and [evades] any vaccine for it that might be in hand"!
C21*S*E*Research -- The Politics of Horizontal Gene
Transfer (how the H2H H-this N-that virus evolved and
painfully destroyed half the human species)
I suspected genetic engineering was dangerous back in
the late 90s when first seeing a tv news item on H5N1
contamination in Hong Kong -- six people (adults and
kids) "cytokine storm" died of this transgenic flu
during a late 1997 outbreak in Hong Kong's Special
Administrative Region.
Even a major pharma company, Roche, was worried back
in 1997 'bout the global implications -- in its Media
News 16 (May 2006) Roche says:
"Roche has been in discussions with governments as
early as 1997 regarding pandemic preparedness..."
http://www.roche.com/med-cor-2006-05-16
So how did H5N1 get here?
H5N1 is a transgenic polymorphic pathogen, a fast and
fiesty fracker of a virus. This highly mutable cross
species multi-strained virus probably originated from
genetic engineering.
Since the mid 1990s, consumption of GM (genetically
modified) crops by wild and domestic birds, animals
and humans (who eat crops, birds and animals) have
increased dramatically. It is very probable GM crops
containing CaMV 35S transcription promoter are the
horizontal gene transfer (HGT) causation vector thru
which transgenic viral pathogens (eg. H5N1) are
recombining (homologously) into existence with such
ease, speed and spread.
The "homologous recombination" process has, according
to Recombinomics.com, always been the explanation for
viral evolution and not "random mutation". But, the
thang bout the flawed technology of remix tweaking GM
organisms (eg. crops) sees Las Vegas-styled
"hyper-acceleration" and "unpredictability" entering
natural DNA evolution -- thangs move a darned sight
faster in dangerous directions...
Recombinomics -- Random Mutation Explanation of Flu
Genetics Is Fatally Flawed (March 30, 2006) @
http://www.recombinomics.com/News/03300602/Random_Mutation_Flawed.html
The defence against evolving polymorphic viruses is
rather simple and has been repeated many times by
numerous scientists worldwide -- cease the corporate
controlled release of genetically modified organisms
within the global environment.
Before the end of 2005, official gov-based efforts in
sequence tracking the genesis of H5N1 were criminally
lackluster -- we now know cross species strains are
present in birds and mammalian populations across the
entire planet...
But still, the question remains unanswered, how did a
transgenic virus with far reaching destructive power
appear out of nowhere?
The probable (but unproven) cross species vector is
GM/GE crops eaten by wild birds, etc, from the mid
1990s to present, HGT recombining H5N1 (via CaMV 35S
promoter) into a transgenic polymorphic pathogen, now
infecting and killing humans with an ever increasing
efficiency...
So, basically I'm saying gene flow has occurred as a
consequence of transgenic crops doing a CaMV 35S
promoter recombination hotspot remix in the bellies
(and bodies) of all organisms consuming such crops.
Prof. Joe Cummins was the first to warn against using
the CaMV 35S promoter or any viral genes in plants
because it had been shown that such viral transgenes
in plants could gene flow recombine with naturally
occurring viruses to generate, in some cases,
super-infectious viruses.
Subsequently, the CaMV 35S promoter has been found to
substitute for the promoter of many plant and animal
viruses to produce infectious viruses.
* Remixed excerpt ISIS Press Release 29/11/04 -- Fluid
Genome & Beyond @
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Fluidgenomeandbeyond.php
Lisa: (1) Possible but a fairly slow and inefficient way to do this; (2) same; funding is in the pipeline for years from now; (3) no; the paper is published in Science and priority is established.
The serious concern is the emergence of two voices: the scientist versus the "press release-icist" (i.e. the communications person).
The former is concerned with conveying the truth, the latter is concerned with getting a response in the real world. Its a big divide, and its okay when the communications person has a background in the field and understands the limitations. But when that person doesn't (and previously worked for Coca-cola in their communications department) is when you're asking for real problems.
And its happening in a lot of fields. We've seen it in conservation plenty where the scientists say one thing and the "communicators" take it and say something sometimes very different. Its very frustratiing for the scientists.
A smart communicator, who knows the field well, can pluck out a few keys facts from the scientists work and really push the boundaries in an honest and responsible manner. But when you end up with "publicists" who have no understanding of the science, don't know the issues, and simply know how to whip up a media frenzy (using techniques they learned at Coco-Cola) going for it, the outcome is very bad.
I know of a couple of very specific instances of it recently, but for political reasons don't want to go into detail. Suffice it to say, your concern about science and publicists is well justified.
"The investigators showed that as few as two mutations to this receptor binding domain could enhance the ability of H5N1 to recognize human cells. "
Unless I'm being really dumb here, but didn't Tumpey et al. (DOI: 10.1126/science.1136212) show a similar two-amino-acid difference for the HA of consensus HPAI and 1918 flu earlier this year? (Just wondering why this is a Science-magazine level paper.)
"If they do eventually find all the needed mutations, that not only means we (meaning the NIH) could start vaccine work, it means we could cause a pandemic by building the virus (which would be incredibly stupid as it would immediately begin to diverge genetically from the source strain and evade any vaccine for it that might be in hand)."
Yeah, but the 1918 virus' virulence wasn't solely because of its killer HA or N proteins. Its virulence was a consilience with the other proteins in the virus. See the Tumpey et al. paper.
Also, there's been work targeting the M2 protein as a vaccine, which raises hope for a universal 'flu vaccine.
Hiya Jonny. Listen, I have no problem with the GM thought except for one thing. The Chinese didnt have GM over there during the time frame that you are talking about here. They introduced their super space seeds about 97-99.
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Space-Seed-Disaster.htm
http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/january/17997.htm
They were more of a not of this earth type of seed program. Space based irradiation of seeds and yep, we did it too. But GM was 99% done by the US, UK and the usual cast of idiots. If you have some indications that the ChiComs had something going and you might know more about it there than we did here in any event because of our media bias, let me know.
I have watched this and that super duper stuff apparently makes everything grow and I dont discount what you have said but there has to be a link and there's nothing conclusive at all...so far, today, I think.
Sock, I hear it from a very, very good source that the targeting is very limited in scope and that ten years might make a universal vaccine for what we have right now, not for whats out there then. The source also told me that there are indications that the M2 might not be the protein that needs to be targeted even though there is some new research that was pumped hard. Research grant? My source said maybe, it sure sounded good. Peer review might pull the program apart on that one though. Then again, you could be right. Sooner or later we will figure it out though. I doubt it will be in time in light of current events.
Howdy Randy,
Thanks for prompting me to get off my ass and finally subscribe to NYTimes.com! Anyway, given all the GM based articles I've studied this past decade, I knew Beijing was on par with Yankeeville, if not ahead, on the "who gives a frack 'bout longitudinal tests, just get the GM stuff out there for dumbfrack consumers to purchase" money game...
BTW: I don't see why I should have to pay NYTimes.com five bucks to research thru seven year old news articles whilst simulaneously promoting their agency for free, via EM Blog, across the planet!?!
NYTimes.com -- China Rushes to Adopt Genetically Modified Crops
October 7, 2000, Saturday
By CRAIG S. SMITH (NYT); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 3, Column 1, 1636 words
Excerpt: " China was the first in the world to grow genetically engineered crops commercially, starting with virus-resistant tobacco plants in northeastern Liaoning Province in 1988.
Since 1997, Beijing has approved the release of more than 100 genetically altered crops, double the number released in the United States. Several, including slow-ripening tomatoes and virus-resistant green peppers, are in commercial production and have entered the food supply..."
"Sock, I hear it from a very, very good source that the targeting is very limited in scope and that ten years might make a universal vaccine for what we have right now, not for whats out there then. "
Randolph, the source you're using seems a bit dated: Acambris have submitted their M2 vaccine for Phase I clinical. They're absolutely humping the crap out the immune response with two adjuvants, but it's a *lot* further on than the research grant stage.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/panflu/news/jul3007a…
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5772/380
Sock-that exact article was cited by the source. They said it was what it didnt say that caused them concern. Mutation was their biggest concern and that if it got past this if we decided to field it would likely ensure pandemic of somekind. I aint a doctor, just relaying the info. They other part was the ten year deal. In ten years the M2 they said might not be what they need to hit.
They also pointed out that its the flu and it mutates each and every time it replicates. Some into non infectious, some into. With that mutation process the M2 might pull in its horns and another take its place as being the site that the vaccine misses.
Hey, if it keeps somoen alive for even the one day longer it might be worth it. So far flu vaccines have all been a disaster. GM food, steroids for the bug world? I dont discount anything anyone says because with the stuff we are all talking about is relative to the day we are in. The more I get into the the flu gig the more it astounds me. Its like the little bastards are in on a Bush wiretap and figuring ways to get us.