20 September 2007

I've been shot

As the threat of bioterrorism grows, the military must keep pace by protecting their soldiers against potential biological agents such as Anthrax. Currently, the US military uses an injectable form of vaccine to immunize its soldiers against the threat of anthrax spores. This vaccine requires six does and annual boosters to remain effective (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20323558/). As any individual who has been immunized by the fine staff of the UCHSC mouse colonies can tell you, even a single immunization can be painful and traumatic. Recently, a more effective, inhalation vaccine has been discovered and brought to market by a company called NanoBio Corporation of Ann Arbor, MI.

This new vaccine relies on technology discovered at the University of Michigan in James Baker’s lab that uses a new adjuvant/delivery method to increase the uptake efficiency of antigens by dendritic cells, increasing the vaccine’s overall effectiveness. An adjuvant is a substance that elicits an immune response and activates the innate immune system, resulting in inflammation and enhancing the action of the vaccine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunologic_adjuvant). In this new technology, protective antigen (PA) of B anthracis, is presented to dendritic cells in a “nanoemulsion”. These nanoemulsion particles lyse viruses and retain some of their antigenic determinants. Due to the small size of these particles, endocytosis by antigen presenting cells becomes a more efficient process, resulting in an enhanced adaptive immune response. This in turn leads to better immunological memory cell formation and a more complete protective immunity to Anthrax (Bielinska et al. 2007. “Mucosal Immunization with Novel Nanoemulsion-Based Recombinant Anthrax Protective Antigen Vaccine Protects against Bacillus anthracis Spore Challenge.” Infection and Immunity 75:4020-4029)

In contrast, conventional adjuvants include aluminum potassium sulfate or aluminum hydroxide. These along with biological pathogen associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) elicit a weaker immune response than this nanoemulsion technology. Furthermore, current vaccines carry the risk of toxicity and other side effects, whereas the NanoBio Corporation swears up and down on their website that this is an impossibility with their product (http://www.nanobio.com/Products/Mucosal-Vaccines.html). If their claims are accurate and this product completes clinical trials successfully, it could signal a time when the military no longer pokes and prods its recruits with needles.

7 comments:

TeriH7630 said...

Interesting...another application of biotechnology. I wonder, did you run across any information on the ethical implications of this new Anthrax vaccine? Or, are there any? I know that in general, when considering biotechnology and its implications, there is always a downside. For example, therapeutic cloning (i.e., for the purpose of organ transplant) is laced with ethical/moral concerns, as is the idea of biotechnological applications to agriculture (i.e., there are ecological concerns). In the case of this vaccine, it seems wonderful...but I started wondering about the other side. It is expensive to manufacture? Is there another side to the story? Why isn't the miliatary using it already? Just wondering if you'd have something further to share. TLH

BrandtL7630 said...

Ethical implications for the anthrax vaccine center around concepts like informed consent or relate to safety (http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/anthrax.htm). As this is undergoing FDA clinical trials for just that reason, I would say it is safe to assume that the vaccine will be safe/efficacious and assuming that anyone it is administered to gives their concent this is an entirely ethical venture.

I must take issue with your statement about there "always being a downside [to biotech applications]", particularly cloning and agbio. Scientific development requires and thrives on change of the status quo. To assume that something is bad because it alters dogma is naive and closed-minded. What would have happened if people viewed penicillin with such mistrust because it had the potential to alter medical practices established by trial and error over thousands of years?

Your allusion to agbio being problematic is a current trend in the food industry. What grocery store doesn't carry a line of organic crap? Consider the arguments for a second of these companies and groups that profit from "organic" and "natural" labels;

1)consumer safety
All food is subject to various safety standards and large farming coops moreso than little "organic" operations. These standards are meant to keep the public safe and are enforced actively for gmo as well as non-gmo food producers.

2)dependence of developing countries on industrialized ones (for seed)

The concept that genetically modified organisms would cause developing nations to lose some economic autonomy is valid, however these nations could not exist in an isolated state anyway. The same argument could be used against medical research. Pharmaceutical development would also cause developing countries ie. countries without active pharma companies, to rely on wealthier ones to maintain the health of their nation.

3)corrupting the good lord's genetic code for our own purposes
I will revisit the idea once again of the status quo not being some sort of golden standard that all development should strive to meet. The current genome of corn for example, is a product of millenia of viral integrations, transposons, recombination events and other genome events. The idea that we would corrupt current corn genomes by introducing genes allowing for longer grow seasons, quicker cell differentiation rates or pest resistance is ludicrous in light of the fact that this genome is certainly always in a state of flux.

4)labeling
Labeling is not worth argument, it presupposes that their is a substantial difference in products.

5)environmental safety
Finally, the environmental safety concern is the strongest argument that supporters of organic foods cite. Their argument is that agbio foods lead to genomic homogeniety sp? and reduce species wide resistance to new challenges. They are absolutely right. This would also be true however, of conventional farming methods that sprinkle only one type of corn seed. Unfortunately, some seasons, whole fields become decimated by a single pest due to this homogeny phenomenae. Sucks huh?

I know that that was quite a rant but as a scientist you should consider the merits and motivations behind groups calling into question scientific development on shaky (non cited) grounds.

FritzJ7630 said...

Nasal administration of a vaccine sounds great, but is it as heat and shock stable? Cost is always an issue, but stability and ease of transport are also critical.
Funny story:
Got 5 of the 6 shots, and then the Michigan-based company recalled the series; seems there was only adjuvant, and they forgot to add the actual viral fragments!

TeriH7630 said...

brandtl7630...all I can say is wow. No offense was meant, only wondering about the other side of the coin.Since I have neither the space nor the inclination to cite my comments...and was only asking YOUR view on the ethical side of this, I would say I got what I asked for. Without those other views and questions (which frankly are not necessarily my own views), scientific endeavor would become stagnant. Thanks for the rant.

TeriH7630 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
stephenb7630 said...

It was an impressive rant. The ethical question is not specific to this vaccine. I have seen news reports that show that soldiers are forced to use vaccines even if they don't want to(not that this is neccesarily a bad thing because vaccines are important). They are threatened or put in the brig until they comply. That might be the ethical issue TERIH was reffering too. Soldiers have been used as guinea pigs in the past. Just a thought. The vaccine sounds really cool.

BrandtL7630 said...

StephenB, you are absolutely right, the ethical questions involved in the anthrax vaccine center squarely on informed consent. Doesn't it scare you to think that you might be forced to have various pathogens (heat killed as they may be) injected into your body without your consent or possibly even your knowledge. It smacks of a 1984 world where the government has complete control over all aspects of your life. It makes me want to reread Orwell's classic and then move to Canada.