A key ingredient for a universal flu vaccine may come from llamas
latimes.com
latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-universa...
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/nasal-gene-spray-ins...
Blocked here in Europe - just FYI in case the link does get changed.
Let's say take the top viral cure each week, and follow up how it's developing each anniversary. It could actually be really interesting, if done well.
But what to call it?
That's interesting. I didn't realize gene therapy could be so localized.
Also worth checking out are some promising trials for treatment of severe hemophilia using AAV vectors [3]. These might end up being great, because the current gold standard treatment involves giving people regular injections of recombinant clotting factor protein, which is even more expensive than gene therapy. Plus, with gene therapy, you have one treatment that lasts a long time, versus having to get an infusion of the treatment regularly.
[1] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5138125/) [2] (https://www.labroots.com/trending/drug-discovery/7533/adeno-...) [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5728634/
I never realized there was an LD50 for influenza viruses (in healthy individuals)...
To quote the actual study:
"Moreover, most vaccine-induced antibodies are directed against the highly variable head region of hemagglutinin (HA) and are strain specific. However, broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) targeting influenza HA have been isolated and characterized (8). Several bnAbs have entered clinical trials as therapeutic agents, but their use in influenza prophylaxis remains elusive because of the incomplete coverage against circulating human influenza A and B viruses, which necessitates administration of a bnAb cocktail, and the need for multiple, high-dose injections for protection throughout the entire influenza season. High serum bnAb levels are required because of poor distribution to the upper airways. We present an alternative strategy for long-lasting protection in which single-domain antibodies (sdAbs) (9) with influenza A or B reactivity are linked together into a multidomain antibody (MDAb) and expressed at the nasopharyngeal mucosa through the intranasal administration of a recombinant adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector (10, 11) encoding the MDAb transgene."
Their whole point was to take Ab that target highly-conserved regions and link them together into a, let's call it, multi-tool ab that has a variety of ways of hitting highly conserved regions.
Nothing at all about that approach suggests using "smaller ab" to "penetrate deeper." It's true camelids produce single-domain antibodies which are much smaller than the multi-domain antibodies humans use, but that wasn't the goal of the study: on the contrary, using peptide linkers to string together ab sounds like it accomplishes quite the contrary.
I think the actual rationale is: "we wanted to string together a bunch of different antibodies to maximize the likelihood of our construction finding a target, and human ab are so big that if we string them together it'll be useless - so we strung together a bunch of small, highly targeted ab, whose final size will still be small enough to allow the multi-headed hydra to interact with viruses."
Few early-stage trials make it to market, but that's an entirely different matter. The treatment they developed, and published in a highly regarded journal, almost certainly works as described. That's a very different beast from a treatment that will be effective in humans to the high standards we hold modern drugs to.
No, this is simply not true. Unless you also mean “cures the disease, but kills the patient for some other reason” and other net negative outcomes.
Most of those studies are on tissue samples, or rodent analogs. That’s not the same as live trials and there is no basis for claiming they’d work in situ.
There's further no guarantee that the rat survives, or mates, or becomes emperor of China for that matter. What is reproducible is what is described in the paper, not what you might wish would follow.
Reproducibility is a very specific requirement. It requires that, following the procedure as outlined, you will find similar data. It has nothing to do with application, or utility, or anything else. It is simply that your results, for the same experiment, will be similar.
It started in 1989 and looks like the real deal this time. They have gotten funding and have been growing ever since. Doesn't seem like crap to me:
https://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/farma-biotech/het-bloedspoor-...
Ps. They were on the Belgium stock market as Ablynx
PS2. They got approval of the European Commission
And when we do, it won't be recognizably related to this article, because the pop-sci writer and his headline editor mangled the description so terribly that it bears only a passing resemblance to what the study actually did.
Llama, it really whips the flu's ass.
Also, this BBC article is two days old and is now in the 5th position on HN's homepage, for me currently.
people working on flu vaccines are probably not interested, trained or able to work on public welfare. People who work on public welfare are not interested, trained or able to work on vaccines.
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/the-flu-costs-the-us-economy...