Slashdot Mirror


Breakthrough Portends Cure For the Common Cold

breadboy21 writes with this excerpt from the Independent: "Scientists have been able to show for the first time that the body's immune defenses can destroy the common cold virus after it has actually invaded the inner sanctum of a human cell, a feat that was believed until now to be impossible. The discovery opens the door to the development of a new class of antiviral drugs that work by enhancing this natural virus-killing machinery of the cell. Scientists believe the first clinical trials of new drugs based on the findings could begin within two to five years."

44 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Stunning Research by Dr. Strangelove by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    But studies at the Medical Research Council's laboratory have found that the antibodies produced by the immune system, which recognise and attack invading viruses, actually ride piggyback into the inside of a cell with the invading virus.

    Yes but these 'Slim Pickens' antibodies are often regarded as clinically insane by the others that watch in confusion as the suicidal antibody hoots and hollers, waiving its antibody cowboy hat around as the virus blasts them both into the cell.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Stunning Research by Dr. Strangelove by chichilalescu · · Score: 3, Funny

      don't worry. in real life, we have both will smith and bruce willis to save humanity. unless chuck norris gets angry with them being more famous or something.

      --
      new sig
  2. Two to five YEARS??? by MrHanky · · Score: 5, Funny

    My cold will be over by then.

    1. Re:Two to five YEARS??? by ruffled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can't say I know how long approval in the UK will take either, and I agree that if anything does come of this it will be at the long end of their estimate at the soonest.

      at the soonest:
      lab prototype design and lead modification (now) - 2-5yrs
      clinical trials - +5yrs
      regulatory approval and marketing - +2yrs

      and given at any stage the project could just break down with delays.. hope you'll be holding onto that cold for a while

    2. Re:Two to five YEARS??? by Albanach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      hope you'll be holding onto that cold for a while

      Actually, I'll be out exercising.

    3. Re:Two to five YEARS??? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sometimes I am caught thinking that reducing these delays (by keeping the whole process safe of course) may be one of the most important things to do in our society.

      Does anyone know whether these procedure are optimised to reduce the number of casualties or to reduce the number of potential lawsuits.

      In other words, is the main problem legal/political rather than technical ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    4. Re:Two to five YEARS??? by RMH101 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I hear what you're saying, but it's not really the case. Take first-into-man, Phase 1 Clinical Trials. I've implemented systems to control this and have a bit of experience - at this phase, you're not testing the efficacy of the drug, you're testing how it's affecting vital signs - i.e. you're not trying to cure people, you're seeing at what doseage it has any effect on lung function, or heart rate, or temperature etc. This is a long and complex process tested on healthy volunteers - you can't afford to miss an effect that may be disasterous at a later stage. An example of this might be any drug that affects the Q-T rhythm of the heart, as regardless of how clinically effective such a drug might be it will have such a negative effect just due to this one effect on the heart that it's better the candidate drug is killed early before going up the logarithmic scale of cost and patient numbers in Phase 2, 3 and 4 trials.
      Plain stats give you an idea of the number of healthy volunteers you need at this stage, and the time it's going to take to statistically prove that the results you've got are conclusive before going to the next level.
      Between each phase there'll be long review, ethics boards, etc. Bear in mind that for every successful drug there are going to be hundreds or thousands of candidate drugs which didn't make it.
      In short, you can criticise the FDA for some things, but they serve a vital purpose which is ensuring to as high a level as possible that the drugs that are approved are both safe and effective.
      The fact that a drug has passed FDA approval does not shield the Pharma company that made it from any liability - this is a common misconception that is categorically not true.
      In terms of the common cold, I'd kind of agree with you but I'd also say that once the mechanism for defeating the cold is understood it'll almost certainly give us the ability to treat a lot of more critical illnesses than we currently can - there's no reason not to research into it, anyway.
      All pharma companies are trying like mad to shorten the 8-12 year process of taking a drug to market - they'd be mad if they didn't just from a commercial point of view - the length it takes is indicative of effort required.

  3. This is fantastic news! by i_ate_god · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I look forward to seeing how this annoyance will evolve into a serious threat

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    1. Re:This is fantastic news! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder however how many flu symptoms are the effect of your body's defenses, and whether any of them will be worsened by such a drug

      The cytokine storm that causes fatalities with some influenza variants is due (roughly speaking) to the body breaking down the virus too quickly, swamping its ability to dispose of the byproducts. This looks like it would cause your body to break down the virus faster, which could be problematic.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:This is fantastic news! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't hold your breath expecting a quick, simple and over the counter cure.

      Holding your breath is a quick, simple cure, as long as you can do it long enough.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:This is fantastic news! by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 4, Funny

      None of them are going to cure you in a finger-snap.

      "The average cold lasts seven days, but if you take this drug it will be over in a week"

    4. Re:This is fantastic news! by Taibhsear · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This isn't like antibiotics though. This is a naturally occurring chemical that your body produces. The human body has been fighting colds for ages and they haven't evolved into a serious threat, nor will it. It's key to survival is the fact that it doesn't kill you. That way it can spread and infect more people, thus insuring its survival. However, that said, what effects throwing in an excess of antibodies that your body would normally produce does to the immune response over time is another question entirely. Could the body come to assume there was a magical load of antibodies going to come on its own (the drug) and decide not to waste the resources to make any of its own anymore? That's more my worry. (sort of like how a certain type of diabetes is induced rather than genetic)

    5. Re:This is fantastic news! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shh! If I can convince enough stupid people this actually works I could make the world a better place.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    6. Re:This is fantastic news! by sackvillian · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Right, but there's a distinction between destroying the virus itself, and destroying infected cells. The old dogma was, from the TFA:

      "In any immunology textbook you will read that once a virus makes it into a cell, that is game over because the cell is now infected. At that point there is nothing the immune response can do other than kill that cell," said Leo James, who led the research team.

      But they showed a mechanism by which the body's cells can destroy the virus before the cell becomes controlled by the virus but after the virus has entered the cell. This is quite unprecedented as it allows that cell to recover, and therefore reduces the need for the immune system to have to launch attacks on our own cells, as occurs in a normal immune response and becomes uncontrolled in a cytokine storm.

      In other words, this looks promising!

      --
      Hey mate, spare a sig?
  4. Drawback to curing the common cold by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Funny

    We reduce the number of ways we can defend against Martian war machines.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  5. 2 - 5 years by mtinsley · · Score: 3, Funny
  6. Flash game by SpinningCone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    while reading the article i couldn't help thinking that the immune system would make a cool Flash game.

  7. NO! by p51d007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unless you have a depressed immune system, I for one would NOT want this. I think part of the problem we have today with "people getting sick" is that at the first sniffle, we are off to the doctor, "demanding" an antibiotic or something to make us feel better. Doctors are partly to blame because they use to just give in and give it to us, even though most of the time, it wasn't a bacteria problem, but a virus problem. Now, a lot of antibiotics don't work, because the little bugs have gotten use to the stuff and don't work at all. Along with that, we don't eat enough raw food...everything these days is preprocessed. We don't eat raw cooked veggies, everything comes out of a can. We don't eat home-made bread, it comes from the store. We don't get enough "natural" products to protect us against invaders. And, as much of a pain in the butt as it is, we don't let ourselves "be sick". Sometimes letting the body fight off a cold, or small virus is better than trying to beat it. It helps our immune system "buck up" and keep us healthy the next time a little invader hits us. The other thing that just gets me ticked is people NOT WASHING THEIR HANDS when they use the restroom. I see it daily...people walk in, do their business, and walk out. H*ll, didn't your momma tell you to wash up after you do your business? Nice to see that some research has found those alcohol based hand cleaners are kind of worthless. Just use a little soap and warm water. Soapbox (no pun) mode off.... I'm an outside contractor who works around a large hospital...I see a LOT of garbage that people do daily...and scary...sometimes from the medical staff!

    1. Re:NO! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nice rant. No, actually, completely irrelevant rant. This research shows how your body breaks down viruses and provides a potential means of stimulating this response. If anything, it makes it harder for viruses to adapt, because they're faced with exactly the same defence mechanism as without this boost, it's just more powerful so they are destroyed faster and have less time to adapt.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:NO! by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's possible that there is a good reason why that mechanism is not already more powerful.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:NO! by atdt1991 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's possible that there is a good reason why that mechanism is not already more powerful.

      This is completely blind speculation. It's also possible, using similar blind speculation, that this pathway is the virus panacea we've been waiting for, and that it will ultimately prove to be the death of all human-susceptible viruses ever. Take THAT, HIV!

    4. Re:NO! by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice rant. No, actually, completely irrelevant rant. This research shows how your body breaks down viruses and provides a potential means of stimulating this response. If anything, it makes it harder for viruses to adapt, because they're faced with exactly the same defence mechanism as without this boost, it's just more powerful so they are destroyed faster and have less time to adapt.

      You tried to label a comment as "completely irrelevant" but still you demonstrate you fail to understand the basic aspects pertaining to evolution. The thing is, "making it harder to adapt" does not, nor it can ever mean "making it impossible to adapt". They will adapt. It will only take a single virus to survive a stimulated response for it to replicate and propagate. With all the other unadapted virus out of the picture, the replicas of the adapted virus will in essence have an entire ecosystem at their disposal, where they will freely propagate, infect and replicate. Your poor understanding of this subject is what lead incompetent health officials and irresponsible patients to contribute to the development of the so called superbugs, which are no laughing matter.

      But hey, keep spewing uneducated drivel and accuse those who demonstrate a better understanding of the subject as making "completely irrelevant rants". Meanwhile nature does work in spite of your lack of understanding.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    5. Re:NO! by Jayemji · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That reason could be that the metabolic expense is too high for someone who lives off 1000 Calories a day. Not really a problem for most 1st world folks nowadays...

    6. Re:NO! by LateArthurDent · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nice rant. No, actually, completely irrelevant rant. This research shows how your body breaks down viruses and provides a potential means of stimulating this response. If anything, it makes it harder for viruses to adapt, because they're faced with exactly the same defence mechanism as without this boost, it's just more powerful so they are destroyed faster and have less time to adapt.

      You tried to label a comment as "completely irrelevant" but still you demonstrate you fail to understand the basic aspects pertaining to evolution. The thing is, "making it harder to adapt" does not, nor it can ever mean "making it impossible to adapt". They will adapt. It will only take a single virus to survive a stimulated response for it to replicate and propagate. With all the other unadapted virus out of the picture, the replicas of the adapted virus will in essence have an entire ecosystem at their disposal, where they will freely propagate, infect and replicate. Your poor understanding of this subject is what lead incompetent health officials and irresponsible patients to contribute to the development of the so called superbugs, which are no laughing matter.

      But hey, keep spewing uneducated drivel and accuse those who demonstrate a better understanding of the subject as making "completely irrelevant rants". Meanwhile nature does work in spite of your lack of understanding.

      Actually, in this case, the person you're replying to is right. If the stimulated response is causing your body to use the exact same method of attack against the viruses, but just cause it to act faster, than it is lowering the chance for the virus to adapt. After all, the ones who are susceptible to the immune system response are already being killed by this response, and are getting a greater number of generations in which to develop a mutation that might make them more resistant to it. If you can make the immune system kill them faster using the same method, then yes, they could still adapt, but now you're giving them less time to do it. Assuming it's even possible for them to develop a mutation that can stop it, which is not necessarily a given.

    7. Re:NO! by donscarletti · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The thing is, "making it harder to adapt" does not, nor it can ever mean "making it impossible to adapt".

      A pathogen is like a person, put a mild poison in their water supply and they will build an immunity, inject a 30ml vial of ricin into their aorta and they will die in seconds. Flooding a person's body with almost enough vancomycin to kill them is going to kill pretty much anything else inside of them. But give the same person a single dose of oxacillin and it will just kill off the weakest and least resistant of the bacteria allowing the less vulnerable to thrive and spread to new generations. This is why you should always swallow all of your antibiotics, even if you do not need it. The analogy holds for virus as well, if a virus mutates into a sort-of resistant strain, it is much better if we give it enough antibodies to kill all of it than provide evolutionary pressure to make a fully resistant version.

      We are discussing biology, not making lines for Jurassic Park 4, life can always find a way, but if you kill it quickly, its evolutionary choices are limited. MRSA was caused by low doses of antibiotics by proscribing it to people who don't need it and not supervising them to take it properly, high doses of Meticillin would have killed its great great grandparents too, which were still partially vulnerable to the penicillin family, not just pruning its less resilient great aunts and uncles. If someone's got antibodies in their body anyway (as we all do), it is good to encourage the body to pump out enough to thoroughly kill viruses before they iterate and evolve into something that resists your antibodies, just like how mankind betrayed itself in its abuse of the Penicillin family.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    8. Re:NO! by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sometimes letting the body fight off a cold, or small virus is better than trying to beat it. It helps our immune system "buck up" and keep us healthy the next time a little invader hits us. The other thing that just gets me ticked is people NOT WASHING THEIR HANDS when they use the restroom.

      To paraphrase:

      Its a good for the immune system to get some exposure to disease.
      Wash your hands to make sure you don't get exposed to disease.

      Both points might be valid, but it strikes me that they don't really belong right next to each other like that without some sort of explanation.

    9. Re:NO! by pclminion · · Score: 2, Informative

      The other thing that just gets me ticked is people NOT WASHING THEIR HANDS when they use the restroom.

      When's the last time you got cholera? Tapeworm? The sorts of infections which are transmitted via contact with fecal matter are a different set of things than what we're talking about here. The cold virus inhabits the upper respiratory tract, not your ass.

      In fact, when's the last time you caught ANYTHING and your immediate thought was "Dammit, I caught this damn thing from someone's ass!"

      I'm all for handwashing, but don't think there's anything unusually "unclean" about a restroom. Anything that anybody has touched with their hands could harbor potential nasties. Let's stick with worrying about things that are actually real.

  8. Totally wrong by Toe,+The · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, no, no, no, no. This is just silly.

    I have seen several Star Trek episodes where they emphatically pointed out that they had never found a cure for the common cold. So how could there be one in the mere 21st century? Idiots.

    Transporters that can reverse the aging process? Sure. (Though somehow they repeatedly forget this and continue to die of old age.) A cure for most every disease except the common cold? Sure! But a cure for the common cold itself? Impossible!

    1. Re:Totally wrong by DarthBender · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ah, but there was a Next Gen episode where Data was practicing sneezing (to more emulate humans) and Wes asks him if he has a cold. Data responds "a cold what?", and Wes says something to the effect that it's a disease people used to get.

      Why oh why do I remember this?

  9. completely wrong way to think about colds by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/opinion/05ackerman.html

    i just read this last month

    the common cold is an immune system overreaction. the virus does not cause the cold, our own bodies overreact to the cold, and that causes ALL symptoms. which explains why cold medicines work: they modulate the immune response, they don't actually fight the virus

    But, as medical science has realized over the past few decades, the most prevalent cold viruses in fact do little direct harm to our cells. In one experiment in 1984, researchers at the University of Copenhagen performed biopsies on nasal tissue taken from people suffering severe colds, then did the same after the subjects had recovered. To the scientists’ surprise, none of the samples showed any sign of damage to the nasal tissue. Further vindicating the viruses themselves was another study around the same time showing that rhinoviruses infect only a small number of cells lining the nasal passages.

    so the virus comes in, borrows some cellular machinery for a few days, makes a few copies, and then leaves. our body's response is to call out the entirety of the navy, the marines, the army, the air force, the cavalry, mortar batteries, drone predators, and tactical nuclear strikes. for a crime which amounts to a homeless guy squatting in an unused home for a day or two

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:completely wrong way to think about colds by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      for a crime which amounts to a homeless guy squatting in an unused home for a day or two

      You don't understand - his cell membrane is a different COLOR. They're TERRORISTS.

    2. Re:completely wrong way to think about colds by Exsam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All the steroids are doing is suppressing your immune system. This is not a cure you are simply treating the symptoms and depending on how severe the infection is, may be the worst possible thing you can do.

      --
      "To face death, that's nothing much. But to feel really stupid when you die, well, that would be insufferable."
    3. Re:completely wrong way to think about colds by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All the steroids are doing is suppressing your immune system. This is not a cure you are simply treating the symptoms and depending on how severe the infection is, may be the worst possible thing you can do.

      You might want to notice or respond to your GP, which argued fairly clearly that the only things worth treating in a cold are the symptoms.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  10. Ironic by FlyByPC · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...So now we'll be able to cure the common cold, but can't put a man on the Moon (anymore)?

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
  11. Misleading in Title and Content by littlewink · · Score: 3, Informative
    They're not promising a cure for the common cold and they are only speaking of the possibility of some future antiviral drugs.

    Medical researchers should be required to keep their yap shut until they produce something that works in humans. For decades I've read thousands (probably tens of thousands) of science articles that promised medical cures. Yet in that time only a handful were produced. Medical science today is little more than a money machine for researchers. I doubt that the investment is worthwhile.

    Where's a cure for cancer, for diabetes, for heart disease? Nowhere to be found in the USA.

  12. How about other viruses? by mAineAc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Will this help in the effectiveness of antivirals for things like herpes, hepatitis and aids?

    1. Re:How about other viruses? by hallucinogen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Probably not. Different viruses have different protein coats, and antibodies are very specific on what they attach themselves onto. Should we manage to find a way around this problem (creating specific antibodies for other virions), the next problem would be an even bigger one. Common cold is a positive sense ssRNA virus meaning that its genome is a single stranded piece (or pieces, can't remember) of RNA that functions directly as mRNA for making proteins. Herpes viruses are dsDNA viruses meaning that their genomes consist of a piece of dual stranded DNA. This "virus-crushing machinery (TFA used this word)" that the antibody activates would probably be of no use towards this kind of molecules. It might be of useful for the +ssRNA hepatitis viruses (but HVB is dsDNA virus) and HIV (AIDS IS NOT A VIRUS, BUT A STATE) which genome is also +ssRNA molecule, but I doubt this very much. It all depends on the mode of action of this "virus-crushing machinery". I'm guessing it means RNAse (stuff that breaks RNA molecules). At least HIV would probably be safe, because it becomes dsDNA (and part of your genome) very quickly once it has entered a cell.

  13. D20 by Taibhsear · · Score: 2, Funny

    Virus rollls self for initiative.

  14. Original paper? by SlashBugs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can anyone find the original journal article? From a fairly quick PubMed search, James' group last published on TRIM21 back in 2008. There have been a few papers on TRIM21 in 2010, but they're not from James' institution and they don't share any authors with James' 2008 paper.

    Or is this being reported before the paper has been published? Do we know that it has even been properly reviewed?

    This is really cool if it's true and it's relevant to my research, so I'd love to see the original paper.

  15. Re:Article seems to be marketing baloney by radtea · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article makes no sense. It calls antibodies "war machines". Antibodies just bind proteins

    But you see, "war" is such a successful human activity, solving all kinds of problems that couldn't be solved any other way far more easily and at less human cost than any other method, that it is now used as a metaphor for any enterprise that people expect to be easily successful.

    Thus, the "War on Poverty"--which eliminated poverty--and the "War on Drugs"--which eliminated recreational drug use--and the "War on Terror"--which eliminated terrorism.

    As you can see, "war" is such a great metaphor for wildly successful enterprises that everyone wants to use it!

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  16. Badly written by Mortiss · · Score: 2

    "...In any immunology textbook you will read that once a virus makes it into a cell, that is game over because the cell is now infected. At that point there is nothing the immune response can do other than kill that cell,..."

    What a load of crap. Cells have a plenty of methods to fight virus infections. For example viral RNA silencing or interferon alpha/beta response. Moreover, killing of the infected cells is also a viable immune strategy.
    So it is not a game over... In addition, where is the link to the original publication? (article or it didn't happen!)

  17. Re:Side effects by natehoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    You have to admit, though, it did cure the cold.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  18. Re:Article seems to be marketing baloney by mykdavies · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're correct. The Guardian has a better article, that touches on your point -- this approach will only work for those viruses that keep their protein coat once inside the cell; if they shed it on entry, they will not be affected in the way described.

    --
    The world has changed and we all have become metal men.