Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gene Therapy May Protect Against Flu

Posted by samzenpus on from the shields-up dept.

sciencehabit writes "In 2009, a global collaboration of scientists, public health agencies, and companies raced to make a vaccine against a pandemic influenza virus, but most of it wasn't ready until the pandemic had peaked. Now, researchers have come up with an alternative, faster strategy for when a pandemic influenza virus surfaces: Just squirt genes for the protective antibodies into people's noses. The method—which borrows ideas from both gene therapy and vaccination, but is neither—protects mice against a wide range of flu viruses in a new study."

13 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. How long before this scenario happens? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some radical environmentalist person on their online dating profile writes "Genetically modified people need not apply."

    1. Re:How long before this scenario happens? by gnoshi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's ok, for two reasons:
      1. The 'gene modification' disappears over time
      2. Who here would want to date someone that boring anyway?

    2. Re:How long before this scenario happens? by Ultracrepidarian · · Score: 2

      Back off. Let natural selection do it's job.

  2. It is just a matter of time before by houbou · · Score: 3, Interesting

    nano-tech and germ warfare become sophisticated enough that we will have millions of little nanobots our bloodstream which will provide the coverage necessary to deal with anything which our immune system isn't able to. This of course will be designed in such a way that you will have to 're-stock' your nanobots at certain determined intervals, because Big Pharma isn't going to design any permanent solution, or at least, will not be marketing any permanent solution at first, for we all know that the money is made through the sales of medications and prescriptions, not in curing any diseases.

    1. Re:It is just a matter of time before by TheLink · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A worm or two might help: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/11/15/parasitic-worm-eggs-ease-intestinal-ills-by-changing-gut-macrobiota/
      http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/44092.php

      But stool transplants might still be preferable...

      --
    2. Re:It is just a matter of time before by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

      But stool transplants might still be preferable...

      I smell an upcoming /. poll

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  3. Good. For 3 months. by gnoshi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It isn't quite as simple as 'squirt genes for the protective antibodies into people's noses'.
    It is 'squirt a non-replicating virus into people's noses, so the virus can stick the DNA for the protective antibodies into cells'.

    It's a pretty good trick. The cells will start producing the antibody, but they will not pass this property on to subsequent cell generations. That means there is a pretty limited lifespan.
    That can make it really good for pandemics, especially if it is fast to generate. However, for longer-term protection you really still need vaccines.

    1. Re:Good. For 3 months. by gnoshi · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's mostly a risk if you're using a virus vector which integrates the DNA into an existing chromosome (which this one doesn't, I believe), AND you can't control the site of insertion. That is, unless the specific gene (in this case, the antibody gene) itself can cause a persistent change in the function of the cell - maybe causing the body to produce a compound which itself promotes cell growth or the like. (That's well outside my area of expertise.)

      The great thing about inserting into an existing chromosome (which this does not do) is that then cell replication *does* propagate the gene. The downside is the risk of incorrect insertion which can lead to cancer, among other things.

    2. Re:Good. For 3 months. by GenieGenieGenie · · Score: 2

      rAAVs don't integrate.

  4. This is not "squirt genes" by GenieGenieGenie · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is "squirt AAV" or Adeno-Associated Virus, or better - rAAV for recombinant. The virus does what viruses do and delivers the genes encoding your gene of interest, in this case a gene encoding a broad antibody that is effective against many different flu virus strains.

    This is a big difference, especially if you're trying to sell it out to Average Joe and his mother in law. "Here, let me just squirt this genetically engineered virus into your nose for a second...".

    One more thing I don't get - why are they reporting a 2011 paper today?

    1. Re:This is not "squirt genes" by EmperorArthur · · Score: 2

      One more thing I don't get - why are they reporting a 2011 paper today?

      Ehh, It's Slashdot.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    2. Re:This is not "squirt genes" by gnoshi · · Score: 2

      Yes, although size of the gene to be inserted, the type of cell you want to infect, and other such factors can make it more difficult.

      Optogenetics is a pretty cool example of that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optogenetics). You infect brain cells with a rabies-type virus which is loaded with DNA for photoreceptors, and the neurons develop photoreceptors. You can then stimulate them using light (which means you don't get the electrical spread effects you do with electrode-based stimulation).

      It is awesome.

  5. AAV therapy by kilodelta · · Score: 2

    I've known about this for a year or so. Friend of mine is a scientist working on testing cancer treatments using rats and mice.

    She told me they introduce the genetic changes mostly through those adeno viruses. But this is pretty cool - you could have complete herd immunity in something you could buy over the counter.