Researchers Develop Universal Flu Vaccine With Nanoparticles That Protect Against Six Different Viruses (gsu.edu) 46
clm1970 shares a report from Georgia State University: A novel nanoparticle vaccine that combines two major influenza proteins is effective in providing broad, long-lasting protection against influenza virus in mice, showing promise as a universal flu vaccine, according to a study by the Institute for Biomedical Sciences at Georgia State University. The double-layered nanoparticle vaccine contains the influenza virus proteins matrix protein 2 ectodomain (M2e) and neuraminidase (NA). Mice were immunized with the nanoparticle vaccine before being exposed to influenza virus, and they were protected against six different strains of the virus. The findings, which suggest this unique vaccine combination has potential as a universal influenza vaccine or component of such vaccines, are published in the journal Advanced Healthcare Materials.
The influenza virus protein M2e is found in all influenza virus strains, with each strain having a very similar version, and the protein has mutated very slowly over time. The protein NA is found on the surface of influenza virus and has also mutated much slower than other influenza proteins. This double-layered nanoparticle vaccine uses M2e as its core, and NA is coated on the surface. In the study, mice were exposed to one of six influenza virus strains after receiving the nanoparticle vaccine by intramuscular injection. The vaccine proved to have long-lasting immune protection, which was unchanged against viral challenges up to four months after immunizations.
The influenza virus protein M2e is found in all influenza virus strains, with each strain having a very similar version, and the protein has mutated very slowly over time. The protein NA is found on the surface of influenza virus and has also mutated much slower than other influenza proteins. This double-layered nanoparticle vaccine uses M2e as its core, and NA is coated on the surface. In the study, mice were exposed to one of six influenza virus strains after receiving the nanoparticle vaccine by intramuscular injection. The vaccine proved to have long-lasting immune protection, which was unchanged against viral challenges up to four months after immunizations.
Sounds awesome, when can I get it? (Score:2)
I haven't been getting the flu vaccine, not because I am against vaccines but because I hate needles, and it seems like in recent years it's been pretty poor at protecting people anyway (and I've hardly gotten sick as a result).
However if this came out I am pretty sure I'd go for it every year. For one thing it's not a shot, it's a micro-needle patch so it should be a lot more comfortable. Secondly the approach really does sound broadly effective.
I read through the article but it gave no clue as to when s
Re: Sounds awesome, when can I get it? (Score:2)
I stopped taking the flu vaccine some 20 years ago because every time I took it I got really sick afterwards - so I might as well take my chances with the flu itself. Not sure if itâ(TM)s related or not but I hardly get it nowadays - once every few years - and it doesnâ(TM)t drag me down as bad as it would.
I wouldnâ(TM)t want to convince others of not taking it though - each to their own and Iâ(TM)m sure there are good reasons for others to take it.
Re: Sounds awesome, when can I get it? (Score:1)
Wanted to add - Iâ(TM)d be keen on a universal one though - not the other annual ones as above.
And damn this site ffs whatâ(TM)s up with all my single and double quotes looking all broken when typing from an iDevice!?
Re: Sounds awesome, when can I get it? (Score:1)
Yea I figured that much :(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sounds awesome, when can I get it? (Score:2)
Re: Sounds awesome, when can I get it? (Score:2)
Re: Sounds awesome, when can I get it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. I've been getting on every year for decades (my wife taught kids), and I haven't gotten sick once...well, not flu. But I had several rather bad bouts in the 1960's. Of course, that was before they started offering flu vaccine. By the time they started offering it I was only getting a rather weak case. Either the flu varieties calmed down, or I was carrying a residual resistance to numerous strains.
So even if I trust someone complaining of "getting the flu" after getting a vaccination, I don't take
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mostly are not anyway (Score:3)
If we get a really bad flu season and you're not vaccinated you won't contribute to the herd immunity
Except in the last few years that wasn't true anyway, as a ton of people who had the flu shot still got sick!
If you're talking about a vaccine that is nearly 100% effective then I would agree, otherwise bringing up herd immunity is simply wrong.
My personally, when I am sick I don't go out so it's not me endangering anyone, thank you very much.
What people don't get is that the vaccine isn't really meant to pr
Re: (Score:3)
If we get a really bad flu season and you're not vaccinated you won't contribute to the herd immunity
Except in the last few years that wasn't true anyway, as a ton of people who had the flu shot still got sick!
Do you know enough math to back that up? My assumption is that it's just a difference of degree: herd immunity is not very effective without strong adoption of a strong vaccine, but it still exists. In other words, more people taking a weak vaccine won't make as much difference as more people taking a strong vaccine, but it will still reduce the spread of the flu through society, not only for the people that took the vaccine.
It seems like you are saying it has almost no effect on the herd, and I find that d
Re:You mostly are not anyway (Score:5, Informative)
There is missing information here.
It takes nearly a year to develop enough vaccine for the upcoming season.
There are many strains of the virus and new ones arise from time to time.
Next year's vaccine (now in production) has to be a guess as to which strain(s) are most likely to cause a pandemic.
Most years the guess is correct and "miraculously" most people do not contract flu because it is suppressed by the widespread take up of the vaccine.
Some years are a miss and the most aggressive strain is not protected against by the vaccine. Pandemic ensues.
People do get sick after receiving the vaccine. You can be vaccinated too early and for a couple of reasons, the effect reduces over time.
You can be vaccinated too late and the body doesn't have time to build an immunity which can take 2 weeks to a month.
You might be allergic to elements of the vaccine other than the flu virus - such as albumen.
The northern hemisphere watches the southern winter and takes note of which strains seem to be most prevalent as they decide what to protect against next season. The south does the same and watches the north and notes the ravages of the flu season as they develop their vaccine.
This works ok other than the problem that most strains arise in the north (seemingly mostly in China). The north gets less time to react to this year's flu.
If you want to know what respiratory disease is going to kill you this winter - look to see what is exploding out of central China this winter. At least you will die happily in the knowledge that the southern hemisphere will have a little more time to develop a response. Good job all.
Re: (Score:2)
My personally, when I am sick I don't go out so it's not me endangering anyone, thank you very much.
So for the day before your flu symptoms are noticeable, but while you're still contagious during the flu incubation period, you're able to predict that you have to flu, so that you can stay home and not go out endangering anyone? Very impressive!
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously not a foolproof solution, but the general idea is still sound. It should at least help to minimize it's spread some.
If you get stick, and have the option of using sick days (not everyone does), then please do. I can't stand the macho attitude some people have that they just can't miss a day of work, due to some odd misplaced sense of pride or duty, and then they get everyone else sick too, and their families as well. In the long run, that does more damage to workplace productivity than one perso
Re: You mostly are not anyway (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My personally, when I am sick I don't go out so it's not me endangering anyone, thank you very much.
The incubation period for flu is typically a day, but may be as long as four days. During that time you are still contagious, although less so than when you're experiencing the symptoms. It's good that you stay away from other folks when you feel sick - but that doesn't mean you're not passing the flu around before you feel sick. This is especially so for members of your household, with whom you're likelier to be in close physical contact.
The flu vaccine is ineffective for herd immunity (Score:4, Informative)
Herd immunity only works if a fairly high proportion of the population becomes immune as a result. The flu vaccine demonstrably does not meet that requirement.
From the CDC, past seasonal flu vaccination effectiveness is discussed here:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccin... [cdc.gov]
It has ranged from 10% to 60%, with an average of 41% effective over 15 years. In other words, out of the people who got immunized, only that percentage actually became immune.
The estimated minimum threshold for effective herd immunity for the flu vaccine is 50%, based on this analysis:
https://www.quantamagazine.org... [quantamagazine.org]
In the time frame of the analysis in the first link above, only 4 out of 15 years reached that 50% threshold.
In other words, the flu vaccine is woefully ineffective at reaching herd immunity thresholds, even if 100% of the population were to be immunized every year. And we all know that has no chance of happening. According to this CDC study,
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvax... [cdc.gov]
the typical rate of vaccination is maybe 40% of the population at best.
So the IMMUNITY rate is something like 20%, less than half of that required for herd immunity for flu. Even at a very high compliance, say 80%, the herd immunity threshold would still not be reached.
Given the anecdotal rate of flu or flu-like symptoms actually CAUSED BY the vaccine, and its demonstrated inability to provide herd immunity, I'm not willing to be vaccinated for the flu simply to reduce the transmission rate, when I'm far more likely to become ill as a result of getting vaccinated.
To be perfectly clear, on the other hand I absolutely DO support vaccination for diphtheria, polio, tetanus, and measles, which have very high transmissibility and also very high success rates for vaccination immunity, and where herd immunity has been well-demonstrated.
Re: (Score:1)
Strong healthy people can survive most strains. Whilst they are contagious and out spreading the disease there is a real danger to a proportion of the population. If they stay home and recover, they will in the future carry some immunity that adds to the "herd". Think of it as a painful inoculation.
If they head over to visit grandmother in the old people's home on their day off from the office because they are sick - they are about to become a mass-murderer. Perhaps drop-in to a maternity ward on the wa
Re: The flu vaccine is ineffective for herd immuni (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are getting ill from the flu shot have you thought to try a different variety? For example, I know someone who gets sick every time. Turns out they are allergic to eggs. They found a pharmacy that carries the version not made in eggs. No more illness.
I myself get no ill effects from the vaccination. It's free and I get it every year. Even at 40% average effectiveness that is worth it.
Not true (Score:2)
Do you have any evidence to support the statement (lie) that you're "far more likely to become ill as a result of getting vaccinated"?
Re: (Score:2)
I hate needles
I guess vinyl is out of the question, then.
I can't wait until they can deliver vaccines via flac.
Brawndo has electrolites (Score:4, Funny)
that's all my body craves.
Who needs anything else?
Re: Brawndo has electrolites (Score:1)
6 is now universal? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
AHuxley queried:
6 strains vs 3 or 4 strains?
Dude, can you read English?
The researchers found it was effective in preventing 6 different strains of flu virus. The fact that it protected the mouse subjects from all 6 strains is a pretty clear sign that it might actually protect against every flu virus - which is why TFS says it "shows promise" as a universal flu vaccine.
Influenza viruses mutate like a sonofabitch, and a pretty large percentage of the population acquired immunity to older strains the hard way: by getting the flu they cau
Re: (Score:1)
vs say 4, 3 in the past?
Re:6 is now universal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Presumably (it's late, I haven't read the paper), they used six very different strains. Common influenza strains evolve over time in somewhat coherent ways, that's what allows vaccine makers to make a decent guess at what to put in a vaccine for next year. There's a picture here: http://www.antigenic-cartograp... [antigenic-...graphy.org]
Governments and labs keep virus samples from each year. If you want to demonstrate that your vaccine is broadly protective you don't use the six strains that were circulating last year (like you might put in a conventional vaccine), you test against strains that are as different as you can get.
It's a big universe (Score:2)
I'm going to guess 'universal' is an exaggeration but it does sound not only promising therapeutically but fascinating as science.
Yay biochemistry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That’s what they said in the seventies, and it would have been true if the number of morons on this planet wouldn’t have increased exponentially since 2000 or so.
Re: Yay biochemistry (Score:1)
No. (Score:2)
Anti-Vaxxers [livescience.com]
Misleadig term "nanoparticles". (Score:2)
I'm sure some less clueful people will object to that term, due to giving assciations with microplastics, asbestos, fine particulate matter, etc.
When really, this is just proteins. Something they happily ingest every day.
And no, they are not stupid. Just not experts in that particulate subject matter.
Damn commies! (Score:2)
Re: Damn commies! (Score:2)