Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Science

Scientists Have Created a Vaccine For Cat Allergies, But You Can't Have It Yet (gizmodo.com) 64

Posted by BeauHD from the allergy-free dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: People unjustly kept away from feline companionship due to an allergy are rejoicing this week, after news resurfaced of a potential vaccine that makes cats less able to cause allergies. But while this research is promising, a finished product won't be available any time soon. The vaccine in question is being developed by Swiss-based Hypocat and is the company's lead experimental and namesake drug. This April, Hypocat published results from a study on the vaccine. And it's this news that the internet has, for reasons lost to the void, started to buzz about again.

The study, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, details a very clever strategy to tackle cat allergies. The vaccine doesn't try to desensitize the immune system of people allergic to cats, as other existing immunotherapies like allergy shots do. Rather, it attempts to train the immune system of cats to go after a specific protein, or allergen, that they naturally produce called Fel d 1. It's supposed to accomplish this trick by hitching a genetically modified version of the protein to a virus-like particle derived from a plant virus (only being a particle, it shouldn't be capable of causing disease). Some 90 percent of people with a cat allergy produce antibodies to Fel d 1. So if successful, the vaccine would basically turn cats hypoallergenic by greatly reducing the amount of Fel d 1 they make and eventually spew into our noses and mouths. While the company behind the vaccine says it's been in discussions with both U.S. and European drug approval agencies, Gizmodo notes that "even if these trials started today and the vaccine passed them with flying colors, you'll still have to wait years before it could hit the market."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Have Created a Vaccine For Cat Allergies, But You Can't Have It Yet More

Scientists Have Created a Vaccine For Cat Allergies, But You Can't Have It Yet

Comments Filter:

  • Sounds like it works by ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @11:12PM (#59088348) Journal

    Sounds like it works by giving the cat a strong autoimmune disease reacting against one of its major proteins.

    That does not sound very healthy for the cat.

    • Perhaps if they get at the cat early enough, before the immune system has become fully developed, it might have no adverse effects.

      Depends on the normal role of the protein Fel d 1.

      If it's a 'useless' protein, they could try CRISPR instead.

      • GloFish (transgenic fish with genes for various fluorescent proteins inserted) are already a thing, so biotech pets aren't outside the realm of possibility. I'm not a cat biologist, but conceptually I see no reason why altering the prominent cat allergens (or fully eliminating, if viable...there's already variance in allergen production among breeds so it might be safe to completely remove the relevant genes) could not be done to produce lines of hypoallergenic cats. Similar things are already being tried

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The main concern will be based on past experience with breeding animals as pets. Dogs got it the worst, some breeds can't breath or walk properly after generations of selective breeding to look "cute" to humans. Cats have suffered from the same thing to a lesser extent.

          The health of the animal has to come first.

          • Genetic engineering and techniques like this are far more precise than animal husbandry and selective breeding. I’ll grant you that many things were done for completely stupid reasons or terrible aesthetics, but a lot of conditions were also unintended.
          • I absolutely agree. There's a lot of dogs out there that should be illegal to breed for health or behavioral reasons, and no doubt if such breeds were developed today using biotech techniques like transgenics or gene editing they would justifiably cause widespread outrage...they only reason that hasn't happened is because these breeds have been around for decades and were created with conventional breeding techniques. Really goes to show how much those 'concerned' anti-biotech people really care about irr

    • Re:Sounds like it works by ... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Chris Katko ( 2923353 ) on Thursday August 15, 2019 @12:01AM (#59088444)

      It's okay. All the cats had autism anyway.

    • Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

      I've heard that story before. It is said that California Quail say 'chicago' and you will never hear anything else, but I've heard 'tobacco' and other similar words.

      • It is said that California Quail say 'chicago' and you will never hear anything else, but I've heard 'tobacco' and other similar words.

        I hear them as "McCracken".

        But that's because my (former) next door neighbors at the ranch were named McCracken and had a big sign out with their name on it. The ranch was also the first place where I heard the quail (several of them per evening, marking territory) making their call. And the first time I heard it was after seeing that sign.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      Right... which raises the question. If they aren't giving it to people why does it need any sort of approval at all?

      • There are laws on the books centered around Animal Abuse. We can't just sell products targeted towards our pets and livestock which are harmful. Even for products that are suppose to kill pests, need a degree of regulation to make sure the rodent isn't suffering needlessly.
        Also as Pets and Livestock interact with humans, we cannot have them be harmful towards us as well. So if the Cat isn't shedding dander that cause the common allergy. Who knows if it isn't doing something else that could cause a new re

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shaitan ( 22585 )

          "We can't just sell products targeted towards our pets and livestock which are harmful."

          Well we can't sell products targeted towards pets which are KNOWN to be harmful but by default you don't have an obligation to go looking for harm even with most products for humans. Just stop calling it a drug. Anti-allergen pet food. Make sure it meets nutrient requirements, add your unregulated herbal supplement without medical claims, brief in house testing to make sure it isn't killing kitties and you should be done

    • There's already a much healthier solution to cat allergies.

      It's called a dog.

      • There's already a much healthier solution to cat allergies. It's called a dog.

        My wife is allergic to cats and loves dogs.
        I'm allergic to dogs and love cats.
        We compromized - have neither and started breeding show chickens.
        Until she got "bird breeder's lung" (a deadly, lung-destroying, allergy ("hypersensitivity disorder") to bird dander). B-b

    • "That does not sound very healthy for the cat."

      Well, my dog already likes it.

    • Yes, and I can't imagine that'd be very healthy for the cat. What happens when cats, dogs, or people are missing some key vitamin/nutrient and can't produce a certain protein? Bad stuff, that's what happens, bad bad stuff.

  • How do you know the cat can live without it?

  • Noooooo (Score:5, Funny)

    by Foske ( 144771 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @11:54PM (#59088430)

    Now I have no excuse any more why my wife can't have any cats!

    • Now I have no excuse any more why my wife can't have any cats!

      But it might accidentally turn your cats into cat-girls. Then you're wife would have a whole different reason to object.

      Do you know how much they eat? And their plate better be FULL of food -- if there's any hint of an exposed plate bottom, they'll look at you like you're starving them. (And let's not get started on the hairballs, those things are HUGE.)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shaitan ( 22585 )

        "Do you know how much they eat? And their plate better be FULL of food -- if there's any hint of an exposed plate bottom"

        Just use a bowl.

      • Wow, your girls are like the opposite of mine. Any sign of the dish to them means they've eaten enough and are full, even if they only burrowed a little hole in the middle of the bowl. I swear one of these days I'm going to try serving their food in a tall beverage tumbler

    • Now I have no excuse any more why my wife can't have any cats!

      Just make sure you start with a cat that hates all other cats.

  • The anti-vaxxers won't use it (Score:3)

    by fredrated ( 639554 ) on Thursday August 15, 2019 @12:13AM (#59088474) Journal

    'cause it will make their cats autistic.

    • Time will show.

    • How could you tell?
      Or rather - I am pretty sure cats are already autistic. Here is the list from WebMD:

      He canâ(TM)t respond to his name by his first birthday.
      Playing, sharing, or talking with other people doesnâ(TM)t interest him.
      He prefers to be alone.
      He avoids or rejects physical contact.
      He avoids eye contact.
      When heâ(

  • So unless every cat in the world is treated with this, it's going to have a fairly limited market...

    Someone who isn't allergic to cats is unlikely to bother with this vaccine.
    People who are allergic to cats generally don't like cats and won't want one.

    This would only appeal to the small subset of people who want a cat, but can't have one because someone else in their house is allergic.

    • People who are allergic to cats generally don't like cats and won't want one.

      My GF is allergic to cats (and shitloads of other stuff). I'm slightly allergic to cats. We have 3 cats. I would love for this to be available if one of our kids would develop a heavy cat allergy, having to get rid of them because of allergies would suck big time.

    • This would only appeal to the small subset of people who want a cat, but can't have one because someone else in their house is allergic.

      That's not a small subset. Even a lot of people who are themselves allergic would want a cat if it wasn't for their allergy.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hawk ( 1151 )

        I have friends who like this silly cat so much that they play with it *in spite* of strong allergies . . . play with the cat a while, go outside to recover, play some more . . .well, he *is* particularly affectionate, and *actually* fetches bottle caps (as in will bring them to a person and drop them, then wait expectantly for another throw, not the common bringing prey, err, a toy, back to where he was playing with it when someone moves/tosses it)

        And I had a hypoallergenic black cat years ago, but we didn'

    • People who are allergic to cats generally don't like cats and won't want one.

      Did it ever occur to you that the reason people allergic to cats generally don't like them is because cats make them miserable?

  • The approach of treating cats instead of people seems to have the obvious shortcoming that it doesn't help allergy sufferers against other people's cats as long as they (the allergy sufferers, not the cats or the other people) don't carry prepared syringes with them for injecting the vaccine into any cat they encounter...

  • That's an odd blame word to use.

    I both like and am allergic to cats and I find that if I brass it out and stay in the cat's company for a few days the problem gradually fades away.

  • For dog hair allergies they mixed them with poodles who don't shed, schnoodels, labradoodels etc.

    They should try catoodles.

    • Yeah, we have 2 labradoodles and we literally have to clean up dog hair tumbleweeds weekly. So I call bullshit on doodles not shedding

    • There are already a bunch of breeds considered "hypoallergenic." (not truly allergy free, but the allergen is reduced a lot, anyway)

      But this vaccine solves the need for someone to adopt existing unwanted cats instead of paying big money for a breeder to make even more cats.

      Sam

  • Cats are shit.
    Change my mind.

  • Lyme Dog (Score:3)

    by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Thursday August 15, 2019 @06:20AM (#59088984)

    SmithKline developed a vaccine against Lyme disease that was pulled from the market after people freaked out about (mostly non-existent) side effects. You can still get it for your dog, though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • even if these trials started today and the vaccine passed them with flying colors, you'll still have to wait years before it could hit the market.

    And that is why, I submit, the FDA is the biggest killer, cause of needless deaths, last century. Deaths due to delays almost certainly exceed lives saved by ensuring safety ahead of time, by many magnitudes.

    But deaths in front of cameras are sob stories. "10 million died this year who would not have had science been further along" apparently is not.

    • Re:Saved a life! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by at0mjack ( 953726 ) on Thursday August 15, 2019 @07:07AM (#59089090)

      More than half of all drug trials fail due to lack of efficacy, i.e. they don't actually do what they were designed to do. Without the FDA, the majority of the people whose lives are actually saved by drug X would instead die because they (or their insurance companies) bought ineffective drugs Y or Z instead.

      Case in point: drugs for treating Alzheimer's disease. There have been dozens if not hundreds of potential treatments tested in the clinic, all with a really good scientific rationale as to why they should work. Every single one of them turned out not to. Without the FDA, they'd all be still on the market: which one are you going to buy when your memory starts to get a bit flaky, and why would anyone invest the $$$ that it would take to develop a new one when you get a much better return marketing the old non-efficaceous ones to the gullible?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by JDevers ( 83155 )

      Look up thalidomide before you throw out the long term testing on multiple different populations the FDA requests. Also as others said, the majority of potential drugs are no more effective than previous treatments.

      I'm not a big government proponent but corporate greed when it comes to food and drug can be a serious problem.

      Without the FDA, pretty good chance that all weight loss drugs would contain tape worms.

    • you're confused, most things that are tested are found to be harmful. The years of testing are necessary, pencil whipping things to the market would maim and kill. You foolishly believe every new medicine with glowing lab rat trial is good, most are not.

      • Just because it works in a rat doesn't mean it'll work - or be safe - in a human.

        Testing on (for example), chimpanzee-derived tissue lines would still leave you dealing with the smaller variation between chimpanzees and humans. And even after that, you'll have to cope with the fact that humans are significantly variable themselves. There was a first-in-humans trial in London a few years ago [wikipedia.org] which put 2 of the 6 given the trial drug onto life support machines and significantly injured the other 4. (2 people

  • It is interesting how long it takes to get approvals for drugs to market, even in veterinary. The fact that after successful trials there are still years worth of red tape to file and get FDA approval is unfortunate. I'm all for due diligence in making sure animal treatments do no harm to the animal or food supply, but that's largely accomplished by the trials and submission paperwork. The FDA is able to ask questions and reject incomplete applications so companies strive to get it right the first time.

  • ... is already on the market. It's called a Ruger 10/22.

  • I find it funny that scientists waste time with crap like this when there are many pressing issues to solve that actually matter. Allergic to a cat? Dont have a cat, or take an antihistamine. I can't fathom the millions of dollars spent researching something stupid like this

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close