Super-Vaccine For Flu In Development

Adam9 tipped us to a DailyMail article about the possibility of a revolutionary flu vaccine that could work against all strains of the Influenza A disease. This 'holy grail' of vaccines would work on everything from the annual 'winter flu' to the 'bird flu'. The best part is that just a few vaccinations may provide complete immunity, unlike the annual boosters are current defenses require. From the article: "The new jabs would be grown in huge vats of bacterial 'soup', with just two pints of liquid providing 10,000 doses of vaccine. Current flu vaccines focus on two proteins on the surface of the virus. However, these constantly mutate in a bid to fool the immune system, making it impossible for vaccine manufacturers to keep up with the creation of each new strain. The universal vaccines focus on a different protein called M2, which has barely changed during the last 100 years."

Comments

They did have a cure for flu

[Timesprout]

But the formula was stored in a researchers gmail account.....

unchanged protein

[javilon]

"The universal vaccines focus on a different protein called M2, which has barely changed during the last 100 years."

I bet it will change in the next 5 years...

Re:unchanged protein

[CTachyon]

the change could happen as a direct result of the new vaccine because the very nature of viruses forces them to evolve for survival, OR it could happen as a completely unrelated event (happening simply because it was already time for this particular protein to naturally evolve)

There's no such thing in nature. Proteins don't "decide" to evolve, and DNA doesn't "decide" to mutate. All evolution happens because of random mutations in DNA -- random in terms of where the mutation is, what the mutation does, and when the mutation occurs -- followed by the proliferation (or not) of that mutation due to natural selection.

(There are some minor exceptions to the randomness of mutation, such as alternative mRNA splicing and certain regions of DNA that trip up the replication process, but they can be ignored for this discussion.)

In the case of influenza, mutations happen at an extremely rapid rate: the influenza genome is made of single-stranded RNA (no backup copy) and is copied by a viral transcriptase without the aid of any proofreading enzymes (no verification happens when copies are made). This means that the average mutation rate is roughly 1 per virus, on average. That's an insane mutation rate -- moreso since the genome of any RNA virus is almost 100% genes -- and it only works because influenza creates so many copies of itself in each infected cell.

Now, not knowing anything about the M2 protein's history except for what's in the article, the fact that the M2 protein has remained nearly the same for the last 100 years -- despite all these rapid mutations -- means that the dominant M2 protein is being strongly selected for. That means that viruses with a different M2 don't spread very well, as compared to viruses with the most popular M2. This suggests that, even if a newer vaccine causes the immune system to target only the currently popular M2, the viruses that escape the vaccine will be less effective than any influenza strain of the last 100 years.

(Of course, "worse for influenza" doesn't necessarily equate to "better for humans". It could be that the reason the current M2 is so popular is that it doesn't kill as many human hosts as the older M2s, which benefits both humans and influenza. But, given what the Wikipedia article says about M2's function, the smart money is that switching to the older M2 will impede the virus's ability to infect a cell, which is a win for humans.)

Do fix-alls really exist?

[dada21]

I was contemplating vaccines and software patches and other items that constantly need updating and never really solve the problem and came up with a theory of selling reality -- do you ever want to sell a product that never needs updating or repairs or replacement? Is it anyone's goal to truly fix a problem forever?

One of my businesses is IT consulting, and we really do try to fix our customers problems for good -- when possible. We find that solving problems today ends up giving us more work tomorrow through referrals, etc. We even have a popular warranty where we always fix things that break again for free (even if we lose money on the net), even due to user error. Yet most consultants love the repeat business -- why fix something forever if you're sure that only temporarily patching a problem is enough?

Are there any vaccines or medical products that really do anything permanent? Is part of the reason for temporary cures or fixes just the basic realistic knowledge that temporary cures mean job security?

I don't trust anything that is sold as a "permanent fix" for a problem -- I don't know if we humans are capable of doing anything so self-sacrificial as that.

Re:Do fix-alls really exist?

[MightyYar]

I know that in my business (semiconductor assembly equipment), we introduced a new low-end machine that invaded a competitor's formerly exclusive niche. Our machine was much faster upon introduction. As soon as we got on-site, our competitor showed up and was able to nearly double the speed of their machine in a few hours with a software patch. The intended effect, no doubt, was to show how much better their machine was then ours so that the customer wouldn't bother buying our equipment. Instead, the customer was infuriated that our competition had been "sandbagging" all this time, throttling down their machines so that the customer would have to buy more units to meet demand. In response, we now get 50% of their orders with our slightly slower machine - just to "keep them honest".

You need to watch out if you are considering holding back from your customers, and you see it on the consumer level, too. The iPod wouldn't even be around today if Sony hadn't sandbagged with their Walkman follow-ons. Artificially restricting your product is usually not very healthy in the long-term.

Re:Do fix-alls really exist?

[vertinox]

Is it anyone's goal to truly fix a problem forever?

I can think of two...

Laser hair removal and vasectomies.

Is a cure enough?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Having a cure is not enough to prevent the disease from happening. A concerted effort to suply the vaccine is also needed.

Smallpox etc seems to have been handled pretty well, yet TB - a totally curable disease - still kills more people than 'flu.

Re:Is a cure enough?

[MightyYar]

True, but this requires one shot - then you are protected for some short period of time. TB is bacterial and has no vaccine. Most of the patients are either drug users and/or have compromised immune systems (e.g. AIDS). Worse, the cure is a 6-9 month course of antibiotics. It is hard to consistently take antibiotics for 6 months even if you are well - a heroin addict can be much less reliable and may miss doses or abandon treatment. So now we have antibiotic resistant strains... etc.

In short, it's a much different problem. Hell, the flu even goes away on its own over 99% of the time. Frankly, I think that if we could cure AIDS, I think that TB would largely go along with it in the developed world.

Re:Is a cure enough?

[Dunbal]

yet TB - a totally curable disease - still kills more people than 'flu.

      Umm, where did you get THAT little snippet of misinformation?

      TB is not totally curable - in fact we are seeing a huge increase in multi-resistant strains of this bacillus. You have to take up to 6 different antibiotics (rifampin, isoniazid, ethambutol, pyrazinamide, streptomycin and pyridoxine) and supplements during up to 6 months or more. There is poor compliance with the treatment, which makes this a disease that is very hard to cure. I would also argue that although TB and its complications might directly kill more people (the death rates are similar in the US, 0.6 per 100,000 for TB and 0,4 per 100,000 for influenza), the consequences of influenza - especially in the elderly, are usually devastating for quality of life and prognosis purposes.

Smallpox etc seems to have been handled pretty well, yet TB

      Also I must point out that smallpox is caused by a virus, while TB is a very slow growing bacterium. Not the same critter at all.

Re:Is a cure enough?

[DrYak]

TB is bacterial

...and is therefore a little bit easier to cure, since we've had antibiotics for a longer time than anti-viral drugs, and since anti-viral drugs tend to be much more bug-specific than antibiotics.

and has no vaccine.

Guess what ? I *happen* to be vaccinated against TB. There are vaccine against TB. It isn't as widely used in the USA is it was in eastern country in the past or still today in Africa. The main reason that it is less used in the western world is that TB isn't very prevalent, and therefor, TB vaccine is only given to people at risk.
(A less important reason is also aesthetic : adults and older children may have a small permanent scar at the point of injection).

Most of the patients are either drug users and/or have compromised immune systems (e.g. AIDS).

In the western world. The largest part of the patient are in third world countries. The TB is prevalent there because of poorer population and harder access to medication, lower quality of life, etc...

Worse, the cure is a 6-9 month course of antibiotics.

...which is on of the reason that TB is prevalent in the 3rd world and that there, vaccine is simpler and cheaper.

I think that TB would largely go along with it in the developed world.

No, as long as there is still a source were the bacteria can proliferate they'll still be there around and still find ways to travel back to your home. There are lot of disease that are clearly under control - with both vaccine and treatment available - but that are still not extinct, because they can proliferate in some animal population (not even in another human population living somewhere else).

The main reasons why there's still TB around are mainly the economic situation in counrties where it's prevalent.
(then there also some other smaller reason like the fact that the bacteria can hide in cavities where they're less accessible to drugs, and also they can stay dormant for a long time).

Re:Is a cure enough?

[MightyYar]

Sorry, you are correct - there is a TB vaccine. I had forgotten all about that. However, it doesn't really work very well (especially in adults) and interferes with TB testing. In the US, they only recommend the vaccine to certain health care workers and other high-risk folks, but many of them get it anyway. We have a high incidence for a developed country because we have so many immigrants - incidence in foreigners is something like 9 or 10 times higher than in the US-born population. We also have large numbers of people living in homeless shelters, prisons, and nursing homes. These crowded facilities are full of people with weak immune systems, and the disease spreads relatively quickly. Even then, the incidence is something like 14,000 new cases of active TB a year, which is really quite low in a country of 300 million. Deaths number in the hundreds (700-ish?), so we're doing just about as well as the UK I think, with their 350 or so in a population of 61 million :)

All that said, there are several new vaccines undergoing trials right now, so hopefully one will be more effective in adults.

Re:Eugenics

[ArcherB]

Hooray for making large portions of the population immune to virii with this protein. Nothing like guiding evolution/adaptation ever closer towards pandemic.

You're right! We should ban all medicines that fight diseases that kill millions because they might cause the disease to mutate into a disease that kills millions.

In other news...

[gzerphey]

Nature develops Super-Flu to counteract Vaccine.

Nature sucks... We should just take off and nuke it from orbit.

Outlook Grim

[soloport]

In related news, the stock has plummeted for McAffee and Intuit as researchers discover a cure for all computer related viruses:
"The universal 'vaccine' focuses on a different program called Outlook, which has barely changed during the last 100 years."

It's in the Mail, it's almost certainly snake oil

[Alioth]

The Daily Mail is probably one of the most ignorant newspapers published in Britain, read by reactionary permanently offended right wing little Englanders (the audience to which it panders). Unfortunately, if the report's only in the Daily Mail, it's almost certainly wrong in every important detail. The Mail is one of the least credible papers in Britain.

The secret ingredient

[Rob T Firefly]

The formula lies in a particular oleaginous substance which can be manufactured from refined cells of particular reptiles of suborder serpentes.

Super Flu?

[Lord_Dweomer]

Correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't the reason that we haven't cured the flu yet with all of our advances in medical technology due to the fact that the virus keeps mutating and evolving due to natural selection taking place when we apply vaccines? Won't this just serve to create a super flu? I really hope that the people doing this research (who obviously know quite a bit more on the subject) have already thought of this...

Flu Virus Proteins

[reverseengineer]

The two proteins noted as being the current targets for flu research are hemagglutinin and neuraminidase- these are the "H" and "N" that influenza viruses are classified by (like H5N1 for the modern strain of avian flu of much concern). Hemagglutinin plays a major role in attachment of the flu virus to the host cell, while neuraminidase promotes viral release from infected cells. These have been the focus of most flu research because the body usually has strong antigenic responses to them.

M2 happens to be an ion channel protein for the flu virus, which is also necessary for propagation of the virus (it's thought to be involved breaking down the virus protein coat once inside the host cell, freeing the genetic material to be replicated). As the article notes, it tends to be more conserved than H and N- there may be a severe disadvantage for a flu virus to have a mutant strain of M2.

What the article does not mention, however, is that there are a couple of antiviral drugs already available which target M2. Amantidine and rimantidine both are thought to interfere with M2, and are already administered as antivirals against flu. (Curiously enough, they started as Parkinson's treatments- it was discovered patients taking them had serendipitous flu resistance). While a vaccine meant to target M2 might work differently than the adamantane-based antiviral drugs, it's worth noting that influenza, and H5N1 flu at that, resistant to those drugs is already quite common throughout Southeast Asia.

Re:Great News - but why emphasise stockpiling?

[MightyYar]

Probably because it would be hard to compel people to get the vaccine. I mean, there is a vaccine available now for this year's flu, yet I sit here un-vaccinated. Hell, I doubt that my tetanus shot is up-to-date. People only get vaccinated when they are scared - my infant is vaccinated, my wife is vaccinated (she's in health care), and many old folks get vaccinated. The rest of us just take our chances with the flu because we aren't scared of it and we don't get it every year.

When something is more deadly, people get vaccinated. Everyone will be in line for an AIDS vaccine, and they certainly have no trouble getting folks vaccinated in the US against polio or smallpox.

You'll never "stop" the flu as they have with smallpox and polio (almost), because it jumps species too easily. If birds still carry it, it will be very difficult to control in human populations.

Vaporware??

[rlp]

I am not a molecular biologist, but this blog entry suggests that this may be vaporware.