Snake Anti-Venom From Chicken Eggs 33
Makarand writes "Scientists have found a way to collect snake anti-venom from chicken eggs
according to this
article in The Times Of India.
In this newly developed technique 12 week old birds injected with sub-lethal doses of venom followed by
a booster dose after 2-3 weeks started to lay eggs with anti-venom antibodies
concentrated in the yolk.
Anti-venom produced in horses sometimes has other proteins that can cause
allergic reactions, kidney failure and serum sickness in some people. Anti-venom
from chicken is expected to have no such side-effects.
This newly developed process is also an improvement
in the quantity of anti-venom produced -
antibodies produced by 1 litre of horse blood could be
obtained from just 50 chicken eggs."
First Flu shots (Score:3, Funny)
Re:First Flu shots (Score:2, Funny)
When they start crapping out caffeinated eggs, then we'll be on to something!
What about eating these eggs? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What about eating these eggs? (Score:5, Informative)
First the "no":
No, because, as you point out, it wouldn't get into your system. Anti-venom is in the form of antibodies, and these are nice big proteins. Intact protiens cannot pass through the epithelium lining your digestive tract, so the digestive system does a very thorough job of chopping up proteins up prior to absorption into the body.
Yes, some tiny amount of the protein may find its way into the bloodstream through a cut or hole in a membrane somewhere... But it doesn't matter, because exposure to anti-venom antibodies does not confer immunity. Anti-venom works when antibodies in the anti-venom bind to the toxic components in venom, thereby rendering the components inactive and targeting them for destruction by the immune system.
Which brings us to the "no with a but":
No, exposure to the antibodies won't help you to build up an immunity. But, if those eggs happen to have an amount of the original venom in them, things might be different. If the toxic components of the venom are small molecules (which are more likely to pass through the epithelial lining intact) rather than enzymes (I honestly don't remember what the active ingredients in snake hemo- and neurotoxins are), or even if enough venom enzyme make its way into the body, then the immune system would be exposed to the venom in non-lethal doses. Then the egg would serve as an innoculation, the individual's own immune system would have an opportunity to produce his or her own anti-venom antibodies, and immunity to the venom in question could be built up.
But those are big "if"s
No (Score:2, Informative)
Such antibody proteins are decomposed by the digestive tract before being absorbed into the bloodstream - just like snake venom. It's quite harmless to ingest snake venom as long as you don't have any openings in your GI tract, like a bleeding ulcer. Eating the eggs would have no particular effect, any more than the immunization state of any of the animal products you eat affects you.
For this same reason, you can't develop an immunity by swallowing venom - your digestive system neutralizes it before any significant amount of it enters your body. (You can still develop an allergic reastion to that insignificant amount, which is a Bad Thing.)
If you want to immunize yourself, you need to do like they do with the horses - inject yourself with increasing doses of venom. See the book Dancing With Demons [kingsnake.com] for practical advice.
Wait, though. (Score:2)
Re:Wait, though. (Score:2)
Re:Wait, though. (Score:2)
The horse serum makes you sick, it just beats dying from the snake venom, is all.
PM
Re:Wait, though. (Score:2)
Re:Wait, though. (Score:1, Funny)
Egg allergies (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Egg allergies (Score:2)
Of course the best option would be to purify out the allergens.
-
Great, one more thing to pack. (Score:2, Funny)
JUST 50 eggs. (Score:1)
just 50 chicken eggs.
Not that many, I mean, everybody has 50 eggs laying around just in case... right?
Blood curdling chirping (Score:2)
So our solution to the great deal of pain caused by continually blood-letting a horse is to simply inject a light dose of venom into still-maturing chickens? As noted in the comment at the end of the story, this may lower the overall amount of pain (How quantifiable is pain?), but it soundslike we're still benefitting from a rather cruel process to animals. Is it possible to safely anesthesize the birds and still reap the benefits of anti-venom, or are we just injecting them with pain inducing venom and letting them flap it off?
Re:Blood curdling chirping (Score:1)
And yes I do value human life more than an animals. Humans will continue to benefit from the misery of animals, just like lions, sharks, snakes, seals, dolphins, bears, tigers. In fact any animal that finds itself not on the bottom of the food chain.
I also think this more a solution to the problem of horse allergies, this gives an alternative. Now if you are allergic to both it's still bad - but that's less likely.
Re:Blood curdling chirping (Score:1)
In backwards order:
An understandable judgement call which one must make for himself, but unnecessary suffering of any living thing is cruel, and I would hold unethical. How common are horse allergies an impediment to the use of antivenin? How many chicks suffer through this process now? Has anything been done to address their pain? These I would consider serious questions to which I do not have answers, nor does the article.
Unless you're some kind of typing superchicken, I don't see how your voluntary exposure to pain to benefit other humans is in any way comparable to injecting poison into a child of any species.
Rhetorical: At what point does cruelty become due and proper?
Re:Blood curdling chirping (Score:1)
Most actions have a degree of cruelty. Many of them completely innocent. This is the "unduly" reference.
The fact is, for the moment ignoring whether the venom causes pain to the animal, the procedures being performed on the animals are ones that many people in the world undergo voluntarily and reguarly. The pain and cruelty of these is thus not very high.
As for whether the venom causes pain I don't know, it could be true - and if it is the amount of pain and such would impact upon the cruelty of this action.
I don't believe there are viable alternatives and you haven't provided any. Any equine allergy would prevent the use of this anitvenom and there are people out there with this allergy. It's not every second person, but it's also not rare. This , and the inverse situation, justifies using both methods.
The reason I replied initially was the all to common knee jerk reaction of people to any sort of animal testing. I agree that some animal testing is inappropriate - how peopl can still justify cosmetics testing I do not know - for medical purposes I think it is hard to argue against. In particular if we are talking about a life saving drug. Too many people seem prepared to take all that comes from modern science, but not be prepared to allow it to work. The extreme animals rights groups are in this category.
Re:Blood curdling chirping (Score:2, Insightful)
birds are likely left to suffer. As one who
owes his life to animal testing, I'm completely
at peace with it.
Hell, if saving my life required me to stomp
little chicks with army boots, I'd do it.
That being said, I used to be a member of PETA.
I know it's a cliche, but it's true: you'd be
in favor of having animals die if your own life
were on the line. Myself, I used to have the
opinion that I'd rather die than have animals
suffer for my benefit. Then I had to face
that question _for real_. It's quite different,
and no amount of philosophizing can get your
mind around the fact that you're going to die.
In any event, there are guidelines for use of
animals in testing. Steps must be taken to
reduce pain to the animals, to the extent this
does not interfere with the test. While I wish
animals didn't have to suffer, I gotta say:
it's *nice* to be alive, even at the expense of
the suffering of animals.
vocabulary (Score:3, Informative)
Okay, I'll risk a little bit of Karma on being a vocabluary pedant.
The word is antivenin [m-w.com]. Think anti ven(o) (tox)in.
Re:vocabulary (Score:2)
That said, I still cringe when I hear people use "begs the question" when they mean "raises the question".
Re:vocabulary (Score:2)
In the case of a medical or scientific term, the common usage is that used by physicians or scientists. Thus 'antivenin' is correct. No one involved in venom research or medical treatment of snake bites uses the term 'anti-venom'.
I don't even think it's fair to call this correction pedantry.
Re:vocabulary (Score:2)
Except, of course, the patients. Of which there tend to be more than researchers/physicians.
And my response is no less pedantic than yours. Neener, neener, neener.
Antivenin (Score:3, Informative)
My dad is a herpetologist, and antivenin is an important word to know.
Re:Antivenin (Score:2)
I was a herpetologist for awhile and I never knew of the term antivenin. All the sources I read used the word antivenom. A quick check of Dictionary.com [dictionary.com] has a lot of listings for antivenin, but none for antivenom (well, there's a reference to a med. journal, but no definitions).
So, since antivenom is the common knowledge word and I can't think of a single time I've heard antivenin even in herpetological circles, when does a non-word become a word?
Basilisk (Score:2)
Am I the only one who thought of a basilisk [idirect.com]?