Most people would probably prefer if traces of dairy cows' vaccinations don't show up in their milk, but one research team is looking into deliberately adding antibodies to milk as a way to help malnourished children in developing countries.

Seven years ago Alan Cross, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, published the results of a successful phase I clinical trial of a vaccine against sepsis he had developed. His next step, however, is to vaccinate dairy cows, not people. The cows will then produce an antibody-rich colostrum—the first milk mammals make after giving birth that transfers immunity to newborn animals—which organizations can give to malnourished children as a nutritional supplement.

Malnutrition causes the interior walls of the intestines to break down, allowing bacteria to move from the gut into the bloodstream, which leads to sepsis and a weakened immune system. For a child who has been malnourished for awhile, starting back on food is often insufficient to prevent illness and diarrhea, says Zeil Rosenberg, CEO of Bali Biosciences, LLC. The company has a license agreement with the University of Maryland, Baltimore, to produce the sepsis antibody colostrum. Rosenberg hopes that the milk, used along with food aid, will help break the "viscous cycle of malnutrition." In the past Rosenberg worked with Indonesia's Ministry of Health in Jakarta as a U.S. Agency for International Development advisor.

Once a child takes the colostrum, sepsis antibodies should enter his or her digestive system where they can bind to the toxins produced by sepsis-causing gram-negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Rosenberg says. The antibody-neutralized toxins might then leave the body via the feces, although researchers are not yet sure exactly how the colostrum will promote such evacuation.

Cross and Rosenberg also hope the antibody-rich milk will help trauma and burn patients, who are especially vulnerable to sepsis, but the first target audience for their product are malnourished children.

"It's an absolutely fascinating idea and completely original," says William Schaffner, a physician who researches infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. Charles Arntzen, an Arizona State University School of Life Sciences biologist who studies vaccine development, says the idea sounds feasible as a way to block the onset of blood infection from the gut.

The colostrum should cost far less than conventional vaccine shots or intravenous treatment, making it less of a financial burden for developing nations. Rosenberg couldn't guess how much the final product might cost, but Arntzen notes that dairy cows make great quantities of colostrum, and immunizing cows is a common and inexpensive procedure.

Experts also expect the treatment to be very safe. Bali Biosciences will remove some of the lactose in the colostrum to make it more digestible for people who are lactose-intolerant, says Rosenberg. "As far as I can tell, they're not going to have any safety issues," Schaffner says. "This is like drinking [regular] cow's milk." The expected safety of the colostrum will help keep its test costs down.

Bali Biosciences continues to seek an organization to help distribute their product if it works, Cross says. Meanwhile, he'll be immunizing pregnant cows and testing their colostrum for the antibodies he's interested in. If the antibodies show up, he'll test the milk in animal models. He received a yearlong Maryland Proof of Concept Alliance grant last week to run his experiments.

In spite of billions of dollars spent in food aid, more than three million children die of malnutrition every year, according to the World Health Organization. Part of that mortality comes from infections that cross from the children's digestive systems into their blood, Rosenberg says. "We don't think there's one solution," he says, "but we think we can be part of a package of solutions."

6 Comments

1. 1. JamesDavis 07:33 AM 1/31/11

   Isn't there something you can use that is better and safer for both genders than animal milk? If milk is so good for us, then why does nature wane everything from it at such a young age? You shouldn't use animal milk for the same reason you shouldn't use soy milk...it has large amounts of female hormones in it that can't be extracted and that is not good for male children, male children in America is taking longer to mature and female children in America is maturing years earlier than they should...the risks are too high for its little benefit. You want to lessen population, not increase it with more hungry people.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Mpaiva 11:36 AM 1/31/11

   Are the scientists aware that milk is about the worst thing to give to anyone with any digestive issues? Even in our backward western world medical care, even doctors will tell a young parent to omit dairy from a child's diet even if the child is healthy and simply nauseous.
   
   There are many cultures that do not even digest lactose well, and have firm beliefs to not ingest milk at all for other reasons, all of which are valid and often, based upon historical traditions of milk being a negative force.
   
   I'm a little taken back that of all the research done on digestive curatives, that the focus on milk to help someone wish a digestive tract issue, is even considered. Wasn't there an initial meeting where someone raised this very red flag?
   
   Additionally, if you look at Chinese medicine or other cultures, or even in our own culture, people who do not eat dairy tend to have a better digestive health thus, are able to nourish themselves better.
   
   James David who posted on 1/31/11 at 7:33 AM brought up other fantastic points.
   
   Blinded science... what a waste. Unless I'm simply not seeing the bigger picture, and I hope I'm wrong.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Mpaiva in reply to JamesDavis 11:36 AM 1/31/11

   Couldn't agree more.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. S. Westra 06:17 PM 1/31/11

   I wonder why these researches use the principle of antibody in milk, aren't those sensetive to stomach acid and the lower pH in the intestines? Why not use inactivated bacteria as an antigen and let the host's immune response do the rest? Somewhat like the Sabin vaccin for polio. Is this not fast enough or is immunity to short?
   And another question; what about other intestinal flora like gram-positive bacteria or yeasts? Are they less likely to cause sepsis?
   
   I'm interested to hear the arguments of the researchers to continue in this direction.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. bucketofsquid in reply to stew6302 10:24 AM 2/4/11

   Considering that almost all of Nostradamus's predictions have been proven false, I find it particularly funny that someone posting on a science magazine would refer to such fantasy. Even his prediction of "Histler" was rather amusing when one considers the meaning of the name. It is roughly comparable to naming the bad guy "Dr. Evil" or "Imperious Overlord". Particularly in light of the fact that Adolf changed his last name to be Hitler rather than use his actual name.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. calaquendi42 01:45 PM 4/4/11

   The big issue here appears to be cost. The whole point is that these malnourished children are in countries that cannot afford to individually vaccinate. So, the whole concept of using inactivated bacteria is out. that would require vaccinating too many people at inhibitive costs. And why cow milk, as opposed to other milks? well the article carefully mentions that cows produce a large amount of colostrum; thus one vaccination of a cow-> many many liters of antibody enriched colostrum. Also, nothing in this article says that the treatments are more than a couple glasses of milk. so, these hilariously anti-cowmilk statements are nullified by the fact that no one is making anyone drink a lot of cow milk. this would be just a few doses for already malnourished children. not saying that cow milk is good, but its foolish to be worrying about giving a child who might die from an intestinal disease a substance that might also, minorly, inhibit growth and deliver a couple unwanted hormones. The experimenters even mention they are going to take out the lactose.
   So, yes Mpaiva, you missed the big picture. this milk solution isn't the greatest solution ever, but it does appear to have some positive effect and for a rather inexpensive cost.
   
   and S. Westra in answer to your pH question, i would assume that the colostrum takes care of that problem. this substance is different from normal milk and its purpose is to ensure delivery of antibodies and their ilk. so possibly the pH stuff isn't an issue. I don't know for certain though. I imagine the researchers can solve the issue. if not then the whole venture is void anyways.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this