Re-Animated
October 5, 2005 12:01 PM Subscribe
The 1918 strain of flu lives again. Newsfilter or not, according to a paper published in Science, a team of U.S. researchers has managed to recreate the Spanish flu. Bits of the original virus were taken from the remains of victims from that outbreak and reconstructed in mice. To the surprise of probably no one, the 1918 flu has several elements common with bird flus and was probably originally avian in origin.
Isn't influenza caused because certain countries allow people to breed and keep poultry and livestock (specifically, pigs) together in the same space?
Why don't certain countries (ahem) go after people who do this?
posted by wakko at 12:17 PM on October 5, 2005
Why don't certain countries (ahem) go after people who do this?
posted by wakko at 12:17 PM on October 5, 2005
/dies now, to avoid the rush
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:18 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:18 PM on October 5, 2005
Oh great, yeah that's awesome. Resurrect a proven lethal killer virus. Way to go!
Yeah yeah, I know it's good to study the darn thing, but resetting a guillotine doesn't sound like an appropriate action at first blush, eh?
posted by zoogleplex at 12:25 PM on October 5, 2005
Yeah yeah, I know it's good to study the darn thing, but resetting a guillotine doesn't sound like an appropriate action at first blush, eh?
posted by zoogleplex at 12:25 PM on October 5, 2005
There's nothing to worry about. The government is great at keeping controlled substances such as Anthrax under strict control at all times. And even if it did get out, Bush has personally seen to it that the Department of Homeland security has a plan to keep you safe.
posted by efbrazil at 12:41 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by efbrazil at 12:41 PM on October 5, 2005
Let me guess, soon we'll see reports of protesters catching it, eh?
But hell, if newsfilter were outlawed this place would be much emptier. I didn't spend $5 for a lifetime membership to look at a total void, y'know.
posted by davy at 12:43 PM on October 5, 2005
But hell, if newsfilter were outlawed this place would be much emptier. I didn't spend $5 for a lifetime membership to look at a total void, y'know.
posted by davy at 12:43 PM on October 5, 2005
Isn't influenza caused because certain countries allow people to breed and keep poultry and livestock (specifically, pigs) together in the same space?
I for one bow-down and welcome our Chinese pig-bird overlords.
But seriously, what country doesn't allow pigs and birds to share space? Most small farms around just let the chickens run around wherever they want
posted by delmoi at 12:45 PM on October 5, 2005
I for one bow-down and welcome our Chinese pig-bird overlords.
But seriously, what country doesn't allow pigs and birds to share space? Most small farms around just let the chickens run around wherever they want
posted by delmoi at 12:45 PM on October 5, 2005
I was going to post this as well. I think the science behind this is fascinating (I read the CNN/AP version of the story), but overall, the phrase "Pandora's Box" keeps running through my head. Although I hold out hope that this will lead to some therapeutic discovery, I am struck with the thought that our arrogance as a species is only surpased by our ridiculous curiosity.
It's stories like this that give fodder to the folks who contend that "AIDS was cooked up in a lab and unleashed on the public."
posted by mosk at 12:47 PM on October 5, 2005
It's stories like this that give fodder to the folks who contend that "AIDS was cooked up in a lab and unleashed on the public."
posted by mosk at 12:47 PM on October 5, 2005
There ya go wakko, it's obviously a fiendish Maoist Communist plot, like Buddhist temples and cell phones.
posted by davy at 12:49 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by davy at 12:49 PM on October 5, 2005
But mosk, everybody knows AIDS got started because junkies were getting buttfucked by goats.
posted by davy at 12:50 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by davy at 12:50 PM on October 5, 2005
Damn, and I always thought that it was because goats were getting buttfucked by junkies...
posted by ob at 12:54 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by ob at 12:54 PM on October 5, 2005
oh sure, dig up granny out of the permafrost and harvest her killer why don't you!
posted by punkbitch at 12:56 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by punkbitch at 12:56 PM on October 5, 2005
speaking of getting buttfucked by junkies, i know this guy who told me he knew a guy who got buttfucked by a goat WHILE buttfucking a junkie and that then there was this lab where we were all cooking up a fiendish plot. . .oh, did I say "we?" I meant "they" . . o, nevermind.
posted by punkbitch at 12:59 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by punkbitch at 12:59 PM on October 5, 2005
According to this month's National Geographic, the Spanish Flu or variants thereof are still with us in the wild.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 1:13 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by Ogre Lawless at 1:13 PM on October 5, 2005
I think everyone's been reading The Stand too much. Discovering how the 1918 virus worked could save many many lives and might help us if the fabled avian flu pandemic strikes. It's basic, necessary science, and the only way for us to learn how to fight these illnesses. There are risks in the studying, yes, but a far greater risk in burying our heads in the sand, la-la-la. Ignorance won't protect us.
One thing that wasn't mentioned was; how vulnerable would the current population be to the original virus? Is there any resistance from those who survived that was passed down, or are we just as vulnerable now as we were then?
posted by emjaybee at 1:22 PM on October 5, 2005
One thing that wasn't mentioned was; how vulnerable would the current population be to the original virus? Is there any resistance from those who survived that was passed down, or are we just as vulnerable now as we were then?
posted by emjaybee at 1:22 PM on October 5, 2005
One of the researchers impaled herself on her car's stick shift handle in a sexual frenzy.
WTF?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 1:23 PM on October 5, 2005
WTF?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 1:23 PM on October 5, 2005
I wouldn't worry about the 1918 flu. It was a global pandemic, which means that pretty much all human populations were affected, which also means that anyone alive today is descended from the survivors, and would presumably have some degree of immunity.
Of course I might be wrong, and we may all be going to die shortly.
posted by jokeefe at 1:28 PM on October 5, 2005
Of course I might be wrong, and we may all be going to die shortly.
posted by jokeefe at 1:28 PM on October 5, 2005
I think not so much on the immunity - it's not hereditary. You need to be exposed (personally) to the virus to have antibodies against it; only these antibodies confer an effective immunity. And stuff.
Well, I do hope they keep it safe. I'm pretty sure they will, despite how hard it is.
posted by metaculpa at 1:32 PM on October 5, 2005
Well, I do hope they keep it safe. I'm pretty sure they will, despite how hard it is.
posted by metaculpa at 1:32 PM on October 5, 2005
wakko writes "Isn't influenza caused because certain countries allow people to breed and keep poultry and livestock (specifically, pigs) together in the same space? "
Somewhat ironically the mixed animal husbandry practises of SE Asia are probably a lot more human than the factory farm norm of North American. At least I'd much rather be a chicken in China than in Canada.
posted by Mitheral at 1:39 PM on October 5, 2005
Somewhat ironically the mixed animal husbandry practises of SE Asia are probably a lot more human than the factory farm norm of North American. At least I'd much rather be a chicken in China than in Canada.
posted by Mitheral at 1:39 PM on October 5, 2005
Of course I might be wrong, and we may all be going to die shortly.
Not all of us... just a few of us... or maybe a whole helluva a lot of us. But all of us? Nah.
posted by psmealey at 2:06 PM on October 5, 2005
Not all of us... just a few of us... or maybe a whole helluva a lot of us. But all of us? Nah.
posted by psmealey at 2:06 PM on October 5, 2005
I don't get this- they synthesized the virus, then they published the code for synthesis. My reading of that is that anybody with a few competent scientists can now synthesize the 1918 virus, right? Seems much simpler than acquiring and placing an atomic bomb or some such thing. I don't think the synthesis was reckless, but the publishing seems to be. See 12 monkeys...
posted by efbrazil at 2:15 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by efbrazil at 2:15 PM on October 5, 2005
Is it just me, or has there been a lot of articles, talk and other etc. about influenza lately?
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:44 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:44 PM on October 5, 2005
metaculpa - I think not so much on the immunity - it's not hereditary.
Sure, we don't have the antibodies to it but a larger portion of the survivor's descendents (us) have the genetic makeup to potentially produce antibodies against it than the original cohort (the people living in the year 1918). The people who died were the ones unable to produce the right antibodies to recognize and therefore attack and remove the virus.
Short answer: less people today would die than in 1918 (given similar conditions).
posted by PurplePorpoise at 2:48 PM on October 5, 2005
Sure, we don't have the antibodies to it but a larger portion of the survivor's descendents (us) have the genetic makeup to potentially produce antibodies against it than the original cohort (the people living in the year 1918). The people who died were the ones unable to produce the right antibodies to recognize and therefore attack and remove the virus.
Short answer: less people today would die than in 1918 (given similar conditions).
posted by PurplePorpoise at 2:48 PM on October 5, 2005
12 Monkeys, The Stand, whatever . . . .
Hollywood has mass-brainwashed us to accept what's coming.
posted by augustweed at 2:48 PM on October 5, 2005
Hollywood has mass-brainwashed us to accept what's coming.
posted by augustweed at 2:48 PM on October 5, 2005
Sure, we don't have the antibodies to it but a larger portion of the survivor's descendents (us) have the genetic makeup to potentially produce antibodies against it than the original cohort (the people living in the year 1918). The people who died were the ones unable to produce the right antibodies to recognize and therefore attack and remove the virus.
No. First of all, only an estimated 28% of the world's population fell ill. That's a lot, but not enough to say (even then) that everyone is immune.
Second, antibody response is a learned behavior. If it were genetic then we wouldn't have to vaccinate against smallpox, polio, measles, etc. It's like riding a bike or learning to swim: your body has to see and recognize the invader before it knows how to attack it.
Third, during the 1918 Spanish Flu some of the healthiest people -- those with the strongest immune systems -- died the fastest. John M. Barry offers the theory (in his book The Great Influenza) that their immune systems launched such a massive attack they drowned because of fluid and cell debris in their lungs.
In any event, when a pandemic of influenza does break out it won't be any strain we've ever seen before. Some scientists playing with the Spanish Flu doesn't worry me the least.
posted by sbutler at 2:59 PM on October 5, 2005
No. First of all, only an estimated 28% of the world's population fell ill. That's a lot, but not enough to say (even then) that everyone is immune.
Second, antibody response is a learned behavior. If it were genetic then we wouldn't have to vaccinate against smallpox, polio, measles, etc. It's like riding a bike or learning to swim: your body has to see and recognize the invader before it knows how to attack it.
Third, during the 1918 Spanish Flu some of the healthiest people -- those with the strongest immune systems -- died the fastest. John M. Barry offers the theory (in his book The Great Influenza) that their immune systems launched such a massive attack they drowned because of fluid and cell debris in their lungs.
In any event, when a pandemic of influenza does break out it won't be any strain we've ever seen before. Some scientists playing with the Spanish Flu doesn't worry me the least.
posted by sbutler at 2:59 PM on October 5, 2005
I think stories like these and Bush wanting to use the Army to quell any uprising, etc. are just prepping us for a military take over of the US.
People will go along if IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!
posted by Balisong at 3:04 PM on October 5, 2005
People will go along if IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!
posted by Balisong at 3:04 PM on October 5, 2005
There was a little Spanish Flu
A pandemic he thought he'd do
He'd heard of killers like SARS and the avian flu he knew too
....Why not a Little Spanish Flu?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:10 PM on October 5, 2005
A pandemic he thought he'd do
He'd heard of killers like SARS and the avian flu he knew too
....Why not a Little Spanish Flu?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:10 PM on October 5, 2005
sbutler - I'm not saying that everyone will be instantaneously immune, I'm arguing that there are more people capable of recognizing that strain and surviving than in 1918.
With SARS, a lot of people died because they couldn't mount an appropriate immune response - re: the success of using serum (polyclonal antibodies) from someone who got infected, showed symptoms, and survived to treat the infected who showed the worst symptoms and no signs of recovering.
As I've mentioned in other threads, I'm about as worried of pandemics as I am worried about a catastrophic earthquake in my area (which has been predicted). Probably less.
Just visited pubmed - all I could find was that over-exciting the immune system with an unrelated bacteria protected mice from lethal influenza challenge. Another study looked at a specific receptor that permitted viral replication - it was the receptor and not an increased immune response that resulted in increased symptoms and mortality as the the response to another similar virus (but which didn't use this particular receptor) was identical to wildtype mice of the same background.
I'm not really buying the "strongest immune system = increased change of death."
posted by PurplePorpoise at 3:10 PM on October 5, 2005
With SARS, a lot of people died because they couldn't mount an appropriate immune response - re: the success of using serum (polyclonal antibodies) from someone who got infected, showed symptoms, and survived to treat the infected who showed the worst symptoms and no signs of recovering.
As I've mentioned in other threads, I'm about as worried of pandemics as I am worried about a catastrophic earthquake in my area (which has been predicted). Probably less.
Just visited pubmed - all I could find was that over-exciting the immune system with an unrelated bacteria protected mice from lethal influenza challenge. Another study looked at a specific receptor that permitted viral replication - it was the receptor and not an increased immune response that resulted in increased symptoms and mortality as the the response to another similar virus (but which didn't use this particular receptor) was identical to wildtype mice of the same background.
I'm not really buying the "strongest immune system = increased change of death."
posted by PurplePorpoise at 3:10 PM on October 5, 2005
I'm not saying that everyone will be instantaneously immune, I'm arguing that there are more people capable of recognizing that strain and surviving than in 1918.
Can you offer examples of other viral diseases where offspring are more likely to survive because their parents survived an infection? You seem confident of your position so I'd like to know why.
posted by sbutler at 3:28 PM on October 5, 2005
Can you offer examples of other viral diseases where offspring are more likely to survive because their parents survived an infection? You seem confident of your position so I'd like to know why.
posted by sbutler at 3:28 PM on October 5, 2005
I'm just going to shoot myself in the head and get it over with now. The New Orleans' bowl filled, Minneapolis has been struck with massive storms (more rain fell last night than usually falls in the entire month of July, the wettest month). Either catastrophy is following me or the world is collapsing. I expect to catch the bird flu any day now.
posted by maxsparber at 3:58 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by maxsparber at 3:58 PM on October 5, 2005
You seem confident of your position so I'd like to know why.
If 1918 really did kill off a lot of the population, it suggests to me that there (was) a portion of the population who's HLA type could not generate gene rearrangements that could give rise to B cell and T cell receptors that could recognize an epitope of the that particular virus. If these people died, it is more likely that those sets of HLA were not passed on at the same frequency as other HLA types.
There have been reports of some sex workers who have been repeatedly exposed to HIV, don't develop AIDS, but are seropositive. I would suspect that their offspring would have a greater chance of not developing AIDS if exposed to HIV than the offspring of someone who were exposed to HIV, develop AIDS, and are seropositive.
Also, consider smallpox and bubonic plague (yes, it's not a virus) brought from Europe to North America. True, the 1918 flu wasn't as prevalent a selection factor, nor was it such a factor for as long as those examples but it would exert some selection pressure.
My original statement was "a larger portion of the survivor's descendents (us) have the genetic makeup to potentially produce antibodies against it than the original cohort" which was to clarify metaculpa's correction of jokeefe's technically wrong but practically (that less people would die of 1918 than the people in 1918 who were infected with 1918) consistant.
I don't know if you have a background in immunology. If someone with a super "strong" (define:strong) immune system would die of 1918, why did their immune system also not kill them when exposed to other pathogens? Did most healthy people with strong immune systems die?
Also, there is a difference between innate and adaptive immunity. Activation of the innate is now thought to be necessary for the activation of the adaptive. Vaccines "shouldn't have historically worked." It's because there were contaminants in the vaccines, which were recognized and responded to by the innate immune system, that the adaptive immune system could specifically recognize that vaccine and be able to mount a response when confronted with live versions of that virus. Today, adjuvants ("artificial" contaminants) are added to vaccines to make them work.
If a person had a really strong innate response, why else couldn't it activate the adaptive response (which is responsible for telling virus-infected cells to die, and to mark virus particles for killing and removal by other immune cells) other than that they were genetically unable to create receptors that could recognize that virus?
posted by PurplePorpoise at 4:41 PM on October 5, 2005
If 1918 really did kill off a lot of the population, it suggests to me that there (was) a portion of the population who's HLA type could not generate gene rearrangements that could give rise to B cell and T cell receptors that could recognize an epitope of the that particular virus. If these people died, it is more likely that those sets of HLA were not passed on at the same frequency as other HLA types.
There have been reports of some sex workers who have been repeatedly exposed to HIV, don't develop AIDS, but are seropositive. I would suspect that their offspring would have a greater chance of not developing AIDS if exposed to HIV than the offspring of someone who were exposed to HIV, develop AIDS, and are seropositive.
Also, consider smallpox and bubonic plague (yes, it's not a virus) brought from Europe to North America. True, the 1918 flu wasn't as prevalent a selection factor, nor was it such a factor for as long as those examples but it would exert some selection pressure.
My original statement was "a larger portion of the survivor's descendents (us) have the genetic makeup to potentially produce antibodies against it than the original cohort" which was to clarify metaculpa's correction of jokeefe's technically wrong but practically (that less people would die of 1918 than the people in 1918 who were infected with 1918) consistant.
I don't know if you have a background in immunology. If someone with a super "strong" (define:strong) immune system would die of 1918, why did their immune system also not kill them when exposed to other pathogens? Did most healthy people with strong immune systems die?
Also, there is a difference between innate and adaptive immunity. Activation of the innate is now thought to be necessary for the activation of the adaptive. Vaccines "shouldn't have historically worked." It's because there were contaminants in the vaccines, which were recognized and responded to by the innate immune system, that the adaptive immune system could specifically recognize that vaccine and be able to mount a response when confronted with live versions of that virus. Today, adjuvants ("artificial" contaminants) are added to vaccines to make them work.
If a person had a really strong innate response, why else couldn't it activate the adaptive response (which is responsible for telling virus-infected cells to die, and to mark virus particles for killing and removal by other immune cells) other than that they were genetically unable to create receptors that could recognize that virus?
posted by PurplePorpoise at 4:41 PM on October 5, 2005
Here's a short primer on gene rearrangement to generate B cell receptor (an antibody is essentially BCR that's secreted after the B cell gets activated). Here's a short blurb on HLA and susceptibility to SARS.
Remember, I never claimed that antibodies are inherited (well, some pass from mother to child but they go away completely in about a year, some faster some slower), only that the genes that rearrange and end up as antibodies are. If those genes (human leukocyte antigen aka HLA) that determine what kinds of antibodies can be produced are being selected for (since the ones that can't against 1918 were selected out) then the current population is more likely to be not susceptible since a greater percentage of people are ABLE to produce the "right" antibodies (since the people who couldn't make the "right" antibodies died).
posted by PurplePorpoise at 4:51 PM on October 5, 2005
Remember, I never claimed that antibodies are inherited (well, some pass from mother to child but they go away completely in about a year, some faster some slower), only that the genes that rearrange and end up as antibodies are. If those genes (human leukocyte antigen aka HLA) that determine what kinds of antibodies can be produced are being selected for (since the ones that can't against 1918 were selected out) then the current population is more likely to be not susceptible since a greater percentage of people are ABLE to produce the "right" antibodies (since the people who couldn't make the "right" antibodies died).
posted by PurplePorpoise at 4:51 PM on October 5, 2005
I didn't spend $5 for a lifetime membership to look at a total void, y'know.
Thank goodness I got the total void free!
posted by Ryvar at 5:11 PM on October 5, 2005
Thank goodness I got the total void free!
posted by Ryvar at 5:11 PM on October 5, 2005
To use a farkism, "what could possibly go wrong?"
posted by clevershark at 5:38 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by clevershark at 5:38 PM on October 5, 2005
I'm not really buying the "strongest immune system = increased change of death."
The phrase you're looking for is "cytokine storm". That's thought to be why there were so many people aged 20-40--the age group with the strongest immune systems around--who died of the 1918-1919 flu: their bodies launched such a massive attack on the virus that they attacked their own tissue and accidentally destroyed their own lungs.
Check out this graph (PDF) which charts this data set. It compares the ages of flu deaths from 1917 (a normal year for flu) to the ages of flu deaths from 1918 (pandemic flu). Note the big spike the 20-to-40-year-old age bracket. In the pandemic year, the "healthiest" cohort was actually dropping dead at a much higher rate than the 10-year-olds.
posted by Asparagirl at 5:50 PM on October 5, 2005
The phrase you're looking for is "cytokine storm". That's thought to be why there were so many people aged 20-40--the age group with the strongest immune systems around--who died of the 1918-1919 flu: their bodies launched such a massive attack on the virus that they attacked their own tissue and accidentally destroyed their own lungs.
Check out this graph (PDF) which charts this data set. It compares the ages of flu deaths from 1917 (a normal year for flu) to the ages of flu deaths from 1918 (pandemic flu). Note the big spike the 20-to-40-year-old age bracket. In the pandemic year, the "healthiest" cohort was actually dropping dead at a much higher rate than the 10-year-olds.
posted by Asparagirl at 5:50 PM on October 5, 2005
Thanks Asparagirl - although I still think that there's a genetic component involved (in addition to HLA such as cell surface molecule polymorphisms that are more permissive for viral reproduction) although I'll concede that in some cases having a robust immune response was detrimental to survival.
To me, the cytokine storm happens when the body recognizes that something is wrong but can't take care of it the normal way so it pulls a last ditch effort and releases cytokines indiscriminately. Similar to the situation of 'frustrated phagocytosis.' At least in the case of acute GVHD there can be such a storm of proinflammatory cytokines after the conditioning regimen - the body knows that something is wrong (microbial products passing from the GI into circulation) but can't do anything about it (lymphocytes inactivated) so it goes nuts with what it can do.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 6:42 PM on October 5, 2005
To me, the cytokine storm happens when the body recognizes that something is wrong but can't take care of it the normal way so it pulls a last ditch effort and releases cytokines indiscriminately. Similar to the situation of 'frustrated phagocytosis.' At least in the case of acute GVHD there can be such a storm of proinflammatory cytokines after the conditioning regimen - the body knows that something is wrong (microbial products passing from the GI into circulation) but can't do anything about it (lymphocytes inactivated) so it goes nuts with what it can do.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 6:42 PM on October 5, 2005
According to the story I heard on NPR this morning, the 1918 flu is a H1N1 virus, variants of which still circulate today. This confers some immunity on modern populations.
posted by oneirodynia at 7:53 PM on October 5, 2005
posted by oneirodynia at 7:53 PM on October 5, 2005
A random question: does anyone know if breastfeeding passes on influenza immunity? I know it passes on other immunities (and antibodies) to infants, though not permanently (?). Maybe a kid who comes from a line of women who always breastfed would have some immunity if his/her great-grandmother caught and survived the 1918 flu.
(Alas, I come from a long line of "modern" types who looked down on breastfeeding, so no supplemental antibodies for me.)
Also, if there is, in fact, a genetic component to an individual's flu resistance (similar to HLA types), it would be interesting to see if certain ethnic groups have a higher or lower fatality rate than others. Doctors might want to think about asking more detailed genealogical questions of their patients rather than just checking off the box for "race = Caucasian", which is an almost totally useless designation. Maybe they'd uncover patterns of how an individual might more likely respond to treatment. We already know certain ethnic groups are likely to respond much better (or worse) to some drugs than others.
Actually, some of the flu-skeptics who think this bird flu talk is all a fuss about nothing have actually claimed that SE Asians are genetically more susceptible to bird flu and that's why we keep seeing it pop up in humans there, so it's nothing for us to worry our little heads about. So at least someone thinks that there may be a genetic component, too, though I seriously doubt the rest of their statements.
posted by Asparagirl at 8:29 PM on October 5, 2005
(Alas, I come from a long line of "modern" types who looked down on breastfeeding, so no supplemental antibodies for me.)
Also, if there is, in fact, a genetic component to an individual's flu resistance (similar to HLA types), it would be interesting to see if certain ethnic groups have a higher or lower fatality rate than others. Doctors might want to think about asking more detailed genealogical questions of their patients rather than just checking off the box for "race = Caucasian", which is an almost totally useless designation. Maybe they'd uncover patterns of how an individual might more likely respond to treatment. We already know certain ethnic groups are likely to respond much better (or worse) to some drugs than others.
Actually, some of the flu-skeptics who think this bird flu talk is all a fuss about nothing have actually claimed that SE Asians are genetically more susceptible to bird flu and that's why we keep seeing it pop up in humans there, so it's nothing for us to worry our little heads about. So at least someone thinks that there may be a genetic component, too, though I seriously doubt the rest of their statements.
posted by Asparagirl at 8:29 PM on October 5, 2005
Everything I know about viruses I learned from watch Medical Investigators...So there was this one episode that dealt with a flu and they discovered that the one guy who was exposed and didn't get it was also a survivor of the 1918 flu pandemic (he'd had the flu and survived, I believe). So they figured that the two flus were similar and that he had antibodies. So they took his blood and synthesized some sort of serum to provide anti-bodies for the people who were sick, thus saving their lives.
So, for those of you who actually know stuff. First, is this plausible at all? If they found a 1918 survivor could they put together some sort of "cure"? On TV it was definitely a much quicker than "months" process to come up with the serum. Second, is this something that's possible on a large scale, or only when you're dealing with 5 victims? Third, is this something that's only workable as a "cure" or it could it also be used to develop a pre-emptive vaccine?
posted by duck at 4:56 AM on October 6, 2005
So, for those of you who actually know stuff. First, is this plausible at all? If they found a 1918 survivor could they put together some sort of "cure"? On TV it was definitely a much quicker than "months" process to come up with the serum. Second, is this something that's possible on a large scale, or only when you're dealing with 5 victims? Third, is this something that's only workable as a "cure" or it could it also be used to develop a pre-emptive vaccine?
posted by duck at 4:56 AM on October 6, 2005
Antibodies from breastfeeding are usually IgE's so it may or may not confer immunity to viruses. These antibodies are short lived. Structurally robust, but they won't persist.
Certain populations have higher frequencies for various HLA types but there's a high degree of heterogeneity. I have an HLA that, statistically, I shouldn't have (but it's probably from my American GI Joe genetic contributor [my paternal grandmother was an orphan around the time when there were a lot of Marine Raiders hanging out in Shanghai]). HLA typing can be done relatively quickly - it's just a matter of who's going to pay for it. There was that interesting but about native Taiwanese (who are more genetically isolated) being less susceptible to SARS than Chinese-derived Taiwanese.
As for SE Asia and bird flu, I think that it's more that there are more people who live closely with more animals. Haven't seen any hard evidence on the specifics of H5N1 yet, though.
Serum is just that, blood serum. They suck the blood out of one person, spin the red blood cells down, and inject the yellowish translucent stuff into other people. It can be done very quickly (see also, Omega Man), but one person can give only so much blood. There's also some issue of whether one person's serum is safe to use in another person.
The antibodies present in serum (it "should" be devoid of cells but there will be some low density immune cells - but usually these will be eliminated by the person who receives the serum) will only last so long. These antibodies helps the recipient by pointing out the infection/infected cells and the recipient's immune system has to do the rest.
If the recipient can't recognize the infection, the antibodies may or may not be sufficient to cure them. It really depends. Also, if that person (can't genetically produce the receptors/antibodies to recognize) survives, they will not be immune if re-infected.
Serum/antibodies are not a vaccine (a vaccine is a safe [usually dead or non-replicating but there are live viruses such as those that are dangerous to cows but not humans but look the same as the ones that are dangerous to humans] "shape" [usually shapeS - also, called epitope] of a microorganism coupled with "danger signals." This allows one's immune system to recognize those shapes and the danger signals tell the immune system that those shapes are dangerous. The immune system goes "ok" and sets aside a few cells. If those cells see a particular shape that they once saw as dangerous, those cells will clonally reproduce so that there's lots of them and they go and try to eliminate everything that's they recognize. Usually there are enough shapes such that most people's genetics allow them to produce receptors that will recognize them but some people who are genetically (or mathematically) unable to recognize those shapes won't develop an immunity regardless of the vaccine.)
posted by PurplePorpoise at 7:34 AM on October 6, 2005
Certain populations have higher frequencies for various HLA types but there's a high degree of heterogeneity. I have an HLA that, statistically, I shouldn't have (but it's probably from my American GI Joe genetic contributor [my paternal grandmother was an orphan around the time when there were a lot of Marine Raiders hanging out in Shanghai]). HLA typing can be done relatively quickly - it's just a matter of who's going to pay for it. There was that interesting but about native Taiwanese (who are more genetically isolated) being less susceptible to SARS than Chinese-derived Taiwanese.
As for SE Asia and bird flu, I think that it's more that there are more people who live closely with more animals. Haven't seen any hard evidence on the specifics of H5N1 yet, though.
Serum is just that, blood serum. They suck the blood out of one person, spin the red blood cells down, and inject the yellowish translucent stuff into other people. It can be done very quickly (see also, Omega Man), but one person can give only so much blood. There's also some issue of whether one person's serum is safe to use in another person.
The antibodies present in serum (it "should" be devoid of cells but there will be some low density immune cells - but usually these will be eliminated by the person who receives the serum) will only last so long. These antibodies helps the recipient by pointing out the infection/infected cells and the recipient's immune system has to do the rest.
If the recipient can't recognize the infection, the antibodies may or may not be sufficient to cure them. It really depends. Also, if that person (can't genetically produce the receptors/antibodies to recognize) survives, they will not be immune if re-infected.
Serum/antibodies are not a vaccine (a vaccine is a safe [usually dead or non-replicating but there are live viruses such as those that are dangerous to cows but not humans but look the same as the ones that are dangerous to humans] "shape" [usually shapeS - also, called epitope] of a microorganism coupled with "danger signals." This allows one's immune system to recognize those shapes and the danger signals tell the immune system that those shapes are dangerous. The immune system goes "ok" and sets aside a few cells. If those cells see a particular shape that they once saw as dangerous, those cells will clonally reproduce so that there's lots of them and they go and try to eliminate everything that's they recognize. Usually there are enough shapes such that most people's genetics allow them to produce receptors that will recognize them but some people who are genetically (or mathematically) unable to recognize those shapes won't develop an immunity regardless of the vaccine.)
posted by PurplePorpoise at 7:34 AM on October 6, 2005
If they found a 1918 survivor could they put together some sort of "cure"?
Just to clarify: the 1918-1919 flu was H1N1; the current avian flu that people are worrying over is H5N1. The N section is similar but the H section is totally different; there's never been a human-spread flu virus that has had an H5 in it before, IIRC, so nobody has immunity to that part of it. The two numbers could vary quite a bit depending on how the genes swap around; the current flu vaccines for the coming winter vaccinate against strains of H3N2, for example. And current strains of dog flu have an H7 in them, I think.
So while there's a lot of talk about the 1918-1919 flu going around right now, it's because 1) they've finally just sequenced it and published the data and 2) it has painful reminders of how bad a pandemic could be, and has lessons for how we can deal with a new flu outbreak. But it's not the exact same virus as the bird flu that we're all so jumpy about.
posted by Asparagirl at 8:24 AM on October 6, 2005
Just to clarify: the 1918-1919 flu was H1N1; the current avian flu that people are worrying over is H5N1. The N section is similar but the H section is totally different; there's never been a human-spread flu virus that has had an H5 in it before, IIRC, so nobody has immunity to that part of it. The two numbers could vary quite a bit depending on how the genes swap around; the current flu vaccines for the coming winter vaccinate against strains of H3N2, for example. And current strains of dog flu have an H7 in them, I think.
So while there's a lot of talk about the 1918-1919 flu going around right now, it's because 1) they've finally just sequenced it and published the data and 2) it has painful reminders of how bad a pandemic could be, and has lessons for how we can deal with a new flu outbreak. But it's not the exact same virus as the bird flu that we're all so jumpy about.
posted by Asparagirl at 8:24 AM on October 6, 2005
« Older aspect ratio easteregg | a legend Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Is this a vote? I vote "newsfilter".
posted by Justinian at 12:12 PM on October 5, 2005