Slashdot Mirror


Antibody Cocktail Cures Monkeys of Ebola

ananyo writes "Monkeys infected with Ebola have been cured by a cocktail of three antibodies first administered 24 hours or more after exposure. The result raises hopes that a future treatment could improve the chances of humans surviving the disease caused by the deadly virus, which kills up to 90% of infected people and could potentially be used as a biological weapon. Most treatment regimes tested to date only improve chances of survival if administered within one hour of infection (abstract)."

25 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. Ooooooook. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oooooook?

    1. Re:Ooooooook. by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why did this get modded down? Seems like a perfectly reasonable question from a concerned party.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    2. Re:Ooooooook. by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oooooook?

      Yes, monkeys were deliberately exposed to Ebola in the name of medical research. Yes, they would have had to be euthanized if the experiment had failed. In fact, they'll likely be killed anyhow just to ensure containment of any form of the virus.

      Sorry.

      BTW mods; there is nothing wrong with the occasional question from our simian relatives. Just leave this sort of thing for those of us that understand Primate and spare the down-mods.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:Ooooooook. by couchslug · · Score: 2, Funny

      "BTW mods; there is nothing wrong with the occasional question from our simian relatives."

      Questions from the subjects are prejudicial to good simian discipline.

      Order requires credible threat of force, so I spank my monkey constantly.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:Ooooooook. by Scoldog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd be careful calling him a monkey if I was you. The Librarian is an orangutan, and will show his displeasure at being called a monkey by unscrewing your head!

      --
      This space for rent
  2. Bowling.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess my league name of Ebowla is on it's way out...

  3. ...it's the only way to be sure. by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hit it hard and hit it fast, it's the same epidemiological solution to a zombie uprising.

    --
    Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    1. Re:...it's the only way to be sure. by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2

      Ammunition isn't as effective against Ebola, however. In fact it makes things worse, what with the spattering and all.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  4. Ebola as a Bioweapon by bmo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone who actively develops bioweapons is a criminal. He or she is a direct hazard to humanity and needs to be removed from society as soon as possible. We have seen what happens when a particularly virulent illness from MomNature herself wreaks havoc, like the 1918 flu or Bubonic Plague. To deliberately take something such as Ebola and weaponize it shocks the conscience. Unlike nuclear weapons which simply level cities and cause localised radioactive areas, bioweapons are the gift that keeps on giving and do indeed go wildly out of control once they are deployed. This is not idle speculation. We proved it with smallpox blankets.

    If you develop bioweapons, you need to be in jail, or dead.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      No, that's catalogueing and preserving a research sample.

      Production of a bioweapon is like what the USSR did with anthrax. Take ordinary soil microbes, and pressure them in lab conditions to take on characteristics that make them horrifically virulent and lethal to humans, produce them in bulk in a heated culture tank, carefully dry it so that it forms into spores, then load that into air-burst conventional warheads for military deployment.

    2. Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, one could also argue that the ease of moving from place to place dramatically increases the probability that any given person anywhere on Earth has been exposed to a strain that is similar to any given strain that might reasonably mutate in a way that caused increased deaths. Thus, depending on how the pandemic starts (by mutation or by cross-species transmission), it might make things better or worse.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Ebola as a Bioweapon by Lurker2288 · · Score: 2

      Contrary to your response, there's a substantial amount of research that could be classified as either bio-defense or biological weapon development depending on the perspective. Plenty of experts in the field (see Ken Alibek's 'Biohazard' or Judy Mikovits' 'Germs' for example) recognize this as a key difficult in trying to minimize proliferation. Other activities are a bit less ambiguous, of course: if you're studying the mechanical properties of anthrax spores in order to determine how to optimize aerosolization then it's hard to claim your purposes are purely peaceful.

  5. Far more important by Grayhand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The odds of weaponized Ebola are fairly small. Viruses are inherently hard to treat so this would have the potential for treating that entire class of virus. A similar approach may even be potentially an option for AIDs since a small percentage of the population produces the antibodies for AIDs. There is reason to think it might work on AIDs since one man was cured when he received a bone marrow transplant from some one that has the natural immunity. The trick is producing enough of the right antibodies.

    1. Re:Far more important by dunezone · · Score: 2

      There is reason to think it might work on AIDs since one man was cured when he received a bone marrow transplant from some one that has the natural immunity. The trick is producing enough of the right antibodies.

      Actually almost everyone produces an antibody for HIV the problem is that only a handful of people can keep up with producing the antibody to fight off the virus or that's the going theory right now. As for the man that was cured, that is more of a long shot treatment, we can keep people alive for a long time now just with anti-virals that the risk of a bone marrow transplant is not worth it.

  6. Monkeys by Soporific · · Score: 2

    I really didn't think they would have live monkeys running around being infected with Ebola. I realize it's at a lab or something, but aren't they kind of difficult to contain or isolate biologically?

    ~S

    1. Re:Monkeys by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ebola is deadly but it isn't that great at spreading. The vast majority of Ebola spread occurs through bodily fluids. This is a problem in less sanitary or hygenic environments- if you don't know the person who is vomiting has Ebola you aren't going to be as careful. Avoiding direct contact works for most purposes and so Ebola research generally occurs in a Biosafety-4 lab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level. This generally means that one has a pressure suit on at all times when working with the agent or infected lab animals. One goes through an ultraviolet scan and a shower system on exiting. But in the case of Ebola most of this is arguably overkill (in comparison most level 4 critters are ones that can spread through the air or through very small droplets). When doctors and nurses are working with Ebola they often just use full face masks without pressure suits (although that is to some extent for the practical reason that bringing pressure suits out to isolated areas would be very tough, and you certainly can't bring the whole lab environment out).

    2. Re:Monkeys by gman003 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ebola research, at least in the US and Europe, can *only* be performed at Biosafety Level 4 labs - literally the highest there is.

      The labs are fully isolated. Any air or water going in or out will be subjected to enough UV light to kill any virus, followed by extreme heat and powerful chemicals. The lab areas are kept at a lower atmospheric pressure, so if there *is* a leak, air flows in, not out.

      Humans going in require multiple chemical showers, going through several airlocks including a vacuum chamber, and wearing a full positive-pressure suit with an *isolated* air supply, not filtered. And even then, all work is done inside Class II or III biosafety cabinets (the boxes with gloves in them).

      There are less than fifty active BSL-4 labs in the entire planet, and only fifteen in the United States. These are specifically designed for the worst of the worst - Smallpox, Ebola, Lassa, and the like.

      In the United States, BSL-4 labs that contain potential biological weapons, such as the smallpox lab, are guarded by the US Army. I believe Ebola is one of those diseases.

      Trust me. They know how to keep diseases contained.

  7. Re:Problem will never go away. by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dionysius (II) was a fourth century B.C. tyrant of Syracuse, a city in Magna Graecia, the Greek area of southern Italy. To all appearances Dionysius was very rich and comfortable, with all the luxuries money could buy, tasteful clothing and jewelry, and delectable food. He even had court flatterers (adsentatores) to inflate his ego. One of these ingratiators was the court sycophant, Damocles. Damocles used to make comments to the king about his wealth and luxurious life. One day when Damocles complimented the tyrant on his abundance and power, Dionysius turned to Damocles and said, "If you think I'm so lucky, how would you like to try out my life?"

    Damocles readily agreed, and so Dionysius ordered everything to be prepared for Damocles to experience what life as Dionysius was like. Damocles was enjoying himself immensely... until he noticed a sharp sword hovering over his head, that was suspended from the ceiling by a horse hair. This, the tyrant explained to Damocles, was what life as ruler was really like.

    Damocles, alarmed, quickly revised his idea of what made up a good life, and asked to be excused. He then eagerly returned to his poorer, but safer life.

    ... For those of us not up on our Classical stories.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  8. Not exactly 90%.... by RobinEggs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That "kills up to 90% of infected people" comment is something of an exaggeration. From reading Richard Preston's "The Hot Zone", I recall that the dominant families of Ebola virus are the Sudan strain(s) and the Zaire strain(s). The Zaire strain will really fuck you up; that's the one which kills up to 90%. The Sudan strain is much less dangerous (statistically speaking), and kills something like 40-50%. There's even a new strain which broke out in a medical research facility in Reston, VA in 1998 which was contagious only to monkeys.

    It sounds pedantic and insensitive to point out that some strains kill only 50% when even that number is horrific, and sounds totally incidental to mention a non-lethal strain, but actually the Reston and Sudan strains are more concerning in many ways than the extremely lethal Zaire varieties.

    Extremely contagious, quick, and deadly diseases like Ebola Zaire often go too quickly for their own good. They can kill everyone so fast that even if the victims travel or meet an ignorant medical response, outbreaks wind up limiting themselves because the incubation isn't really that long and you certainly aren't moving around to spread the disease anymore once you're dead. Several times major outbreaks in African villages burnt themselves out with only the most rudimentary quarantine measures, and there were some major scares when people with Zaire strain took international plane rides that should have lead to global devastation if the disease were really that efficient in spreading. (It is astonishingly contagious in certain circumstances and certain phases of infection, but its contagiousness to people in the immediate area is only correlated to it's potential global virulence, not explicitly and solely causal to said potential.)

    On the other hand, diseases like Sudan and Reston Ebola might become much worse health threats than the exceptionally deadly types of Ebola. Something like Ebola Sudan, which kills slower and kills relatively fewer people, could travel much farther and wider than the Zaire types. There could be longer periods in which people are shedding virus while they're still largely pre-symptomatic, longer periods of disease and recovery where they're extremely contagious but still require medical care and community to some degree, etc. I don't recall whether it applies to Hemorrhagic fevers, but there are also viruses people carry and periodically shed for life, as well, like herpes viruses. So a disease that kills a smaller percentage and presents less quickly/dramatically can be far more dangerous than the quicker, more brutal members of its pathogenic family

    Along the same lines, the Reston variety of Ebola could be the freakiest of all, given some bad cosmic luck. Something very closely related to a lethal human illness can spread in birds, monkeys, pigs, etc. until it's downright common, and then suddenly re-develop the qualities to infect and kill humans. Now you have something which can be unpredictably spread by a population of carriers which can't be quarantined or predicted even half as well as you could manage human beings. That's why they follow the development of flu strains in birds, pigs, monkeys, and ruminants every year; you never know when something will show up that could make the Spanish flu look like a weekend with the sniffles.

    So in summary, the headline makes Hemorrhagic fevers look worse than they really are (although even the 'nicest' ones are fucking terrifying), and it's actually the gentler varieties that are most likely to fuck up humanity one day.

    1. Re:Not exactly 90%.... by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Of course if you were researching a bio-weapon you can get an "all of the above" virus and ground zero could be the departure hall of a major international airport instead of some remote village in Nowhere, Africa. Who'd like to try "basic quarantine measures" on cities with millions of people? Not to mention all the commuters and such we didn't have during the Spanish Flu, chances are good your quarantine is broken even before you can even set it. That's really the scary thing about a bioweapon, you can bootstrap it on such an intensity that it will be practically impossible to contain.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Not exactly 90%.... by catmistake · · Score: 2

      Extremely contagious, quick, and deadly diseases like Ebola Zaire often go too quickly for their own good. They can kill everyone so fast...

      I don't understand how such deadly diseases can evolve... kill everything, including itself, and then outbreaks can reoccur once this has happened.

      While fascinating, I find biology far too complicated to ever get my head around completely because it seems too difficult to reduce to the simpler underlying systems, like one can get away with only knowing a few trigonometry equations and derive the rest from those when needed. There is far too much information for me to memorize it all. I am thankful that there are those that have the biological knack, that understand it and think biology is simple, and are readily available to dumb-it-up for people like me. Thx for posting.

    3. Re:Not exactly 90%.... by RivenAleem · · Score: 2

      A gun is a very good weapon because you can, with practice, chose the person you want killed. A virus is not a weapon, but instead a Doomsday device. If a nation decided it wanted to attack America by deploying the bio-weapon in JFK, they will kill their own country too, as the virus spreads back home. They could try to close their borders, but something WILL get through, especially a retaliatory strike. Even if you defended yourself, you would kill or doom the rest of the world.

      No, if you are creating a virus, you want it to be a tactical weapon, one that can target just the people you want dead, and not you, your allies and countries you rely on for export/import.

    4. Re:Not exactly 90%.... by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2

      Extremely contagious, quick, and deadly diseases like Ebola Zaire often go too quickly for their own good. They can kill everyone so fast...

      I don't understand how such deadly diseases can evolve... kill everything, including itself, and then outbreaks can reoccur once this has happened.

      I'm skipping over a lot of material here, but diseases that infect within a species tend to get less virulent over time because they spread more that way, like colds. The ideal within-species disease would be unnoticeable because then you'd go wandering around spreading it everywhere. It's likely thousands of these exist and we've never bothered to discover them.

      Diseases between species are different. Diseases that need two species to complete their lifestyle, like malaria, want you as nearly dead as possible so you're lying there for days on end while mosquitos work you over and catch the disease, so it can go on to its next host. There's a bit of pressure to keep the host alive, but not a lot, and there's lots of pressure to immobilize the host, so you get these awful things that leave you incapacitated.

      And the worst is diseases that are accidentally in humans: they come visiting, so to speak. They don't care about us because they probably can't use us in their lifecycle. We're a dead end. Those diseases have extremely high mortality, and ebola is one of those diseases. There's no pressure to moderate lethality since there's no mechanism to select for survival over time.

      There are diseases like cholera that spread person-to-person in some situations, and are by-mistake-in-people-mostly-in-snails in other situations, and we see evolution occurring: cholera in the people-to-people scenario gets less lethal over time, while the estuary/snail-based cholera keeps just obliterating its human victims.

      And, by the way, nobody thinks biology is simple. If there's a Moore's Law for biological research, the doubling time is probably in the dozen year range rather than the 18 month range, which is why we've seen computers progress so vastly much faster than medicine and genetic engineering.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  9. Hot Zone by jbeaupre · · Score: 2

    Check out the book The Hot Zone, by Richard Preston. It reads like fiction, but is non-fiction about several ebola outbreaks. Including one at a primate facility in Reston Virginia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hot_Zone

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  10. Biological weapons are categorically insane. by Benfea · · Score: 4, Informative

    They're not just evil, they're insane. Once released, you can't control where they go, a lesson that should have been learned from the Bubonic Plague, but apparently neither Soviets nor Americans learned our lessons from history. :(