A SHOT FOR ALL SEASONS: New technology has helped to identify parts of the influenza virus that might be universal targets for a vaccine. One group of researchers has developed a synthetic vaccine that might be able to protect against just about any type of flu in existence--or that might come into existence.
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/PRESSDIGITAL
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The annual jab fest for the seasonal flu is already underway, scaring needle-wary youngsters and leaving many grown-ups wondering if the annual stick in the arm is right for them.
In recent years research has shown that the mélange of strains in each year's flu shot and exposure to previous flus can provide some immunity decades later to people exposed to closely related influenza iterations. For example, people who were born before the mid-1950s (when H1N1 stopped circulating) showed a better defense against the recent H1N1 virus. But because the virus is so adept at eluding the body's immune system via mutation, many new varieties crop up each year. After its latest battle with H1N1, a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committee recommended in February that everyone six months and older get the annual vaccine, a step that should improve immunity against future pandemics as well as seasonal cycles of the flu.
The hunt for a universal flu vaccine, a single shot that would provide lifelong immunity, has been going on for decades, and many teams of researchers have been on the case. The effort is complicated because there are some 16 types of key surface proteins (hemagglutinin) that help the virus bind to host cells, in addition to the several varieties of viral neuraminidase proteins. (These proteins are what the "H" and "N" stand for in viral designations such as H1N1.) Flu vaccines work by introducing a killed version of circulating virus strains, which trains the body's immune system to recognize and attack similar invaders in the future. Changes in the viruses' proteins help it evade identification by the immune system.
A series of discoveries by different groups of researchers have zeroed in on a highly conserved (nonmutated) region of the virus. And a new study, published online October 18 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has piggybacked on these findings to develop synthetic vaccine that has been effective in warding off several different types of influenza in mice. How does it work—and could it work in humans?
Scientific American spoke with Peter Palese, a co-author of the new study and chair of the Department of Microbiology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, to find out the status of the quest for a universal flu shot.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
So, why do we have to get a flu shot every year?
Some viruses—for example measles, mumps, rubella, poliovirus—do not change over time. Therefore, one vaccination—or one course of vaccinations—may last, if not a whole lifetime, a very long time. The difference with influenza viruses is they undergo a dramatic change every one to five years. The virus is really changing because of what we call antigenic drift and shift.
But this makes it very complex for both vaccine production and administration. Surveillance programs must be used each year—and based on the selection of strains, we usually have three influenza strains in a vaccine each year.
Each year two or sometimes all three of the strains of influenza need to be changed. The need for every annual vaccination is a result of these antigenic changes in the virus each year.
Can some immunity from past shots or exposures protect you against seasonal or epidemic strains, like some older adults who seemed to already have some immunity to H1N1?
The new pandemic H1N1 actually turns out to be related to previous pandemic strains. So the older people are more protected than the younger ones, which is a very unusual situation. One of the few things that get better with old age.
Are we close to being able to develop a universal flu vaccine that would confer immunity against all strains of influenza?
The basis for the new understanding that there might be some universal vaccine possible is that several groups, including ours, identified and isolated monoclonal antibodies. There was some advance in the last one and a half years in that people were able to identify cross-reactive monoclonal antibodies—antibodies that can be protective against a variety of strains. That was not known before, and the reason for the discovery is that the technology has become much better.
We were able to identify what this antibody recognizes. This antibody recognizes this conserved region, which is called a conserved stalk of the virus's hemagglutinin, which is like a mushroom.
The antibodies were against the stalk of this mushroom, and by using this mushroom stalk only, we made synthetic peptides of this stalk. We were able to show in mice that this virus was able to induce a cross-reactive immunoresponse.
The second very exciting thing is that it's a synthetic peptide, which makes it much easier to put into use.
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentTo your question "So, why do we have to get a flu shot every year?" ... well, the truth is we DON'T!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of these vaccines do little to nothing to protect us against the new active virus of the season, but they do cause in many cases a serious sickness and long lasting discomfort.
Never got a flu shot, and was fine! I know persons who did, and got into real trouble!
@eco: "Little or nothing" is not how I read the available data. The CDC documents a general effectiveness of the seasonal flu shot of 71% in preventing the disease in adults under 41, and the effectiveness rises to between 70-90% when the prediction of which strains are active turn out to be especially accurate. This is why a "universal" vaccine is an exciting possibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMild side effects (soreness at the injection site, or flu-like symptoms lasting a day or two) are reasonably common. These are not surprising since these are immune reactions, and the vaccine is supposed to provoke an immune response. According to the CDC, serious side-effects (allergic reaction) have been monitored since 1960 and occur in less than 1% of those vaccinated.
An average of about 25,000 people in the U.S. died per year from influenza-related causes using data from the period 1977-1999, and more than 200,000 are hospitalized annually.
Most people in a given year will be "fine" and never get the flu, but you don't get to pick which year is yours ahead of time. My wife an I get our flu shots every year, not just because of ourselves, but also because of those around us who are vulnerable, and cannot be vaccinated: those under 6 months old, or with compromised immune systems, or those who are allergic to eggs.
--James
I'm a geologist and know little about flu viruses,etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe stat that struck me is that in Canada over half of health professionals do not get a flu shot and this figure was even 43% when it came to the swine flu. We are an affluent country and the shots are readily and conveniently made available to everyone.
I never get sick but admit that a bad virus could knock me down tomorrow. At this stage of my life I'd prefer a few days discomfort every few years (if that) to introducing this 'whatever' into my body.
Back to being a geologist...i'm a scientist. I listen to rational discussion. Those who claim there is no risk from these shots base it on what? They are simply parroting 'facts' that may or may not be valid.
I don't trust the numbers the CDC provides for flu related deaths. It's simple really how they count causes of death, they just ask a few questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Did you have x?
2. Did you die?
Conclusion: you died from x.
I'm not joking or exaggerating either. A friend of mine was a bipolar schizophrenic who committed suicide by downing a bottle of pain pills, a bottle of jack and then going to bed with a plastic bag over his head. He was a smoker, on his death certificate his death was listed as being smoking related. When his wife called to question how a suicide could be smoking related, she was told that they didn't have the time or the resources to determine if each and every death was the result of the things they were tracking.
So, if you had the flu when you died, you died from the flu, even if you got hit by a bus.
This isn't to say that smoking or the flu cannot lead to death, they can, but the numbers are grossly exaggerated because the method they use to gather the data is just absurd. I would wager that most cases of REAL flu related deaths were actually caused by secondary infections like pneumonia. The flu might lead to pneumonia and the pneumonia may lead death, but that to argue that it was the flu that caused the death is a bit of a stretch.
From what I understand, by their own admission, the flu shot has a 30% protection rating. That is, you are about a third less likely to catch the flu if you got the shot... but I am willing to bet that the reporting of this is just as flawed as before and doesn't take into account other factors. Firstly, I'm sure that they under-report instances of the flu CAUSED by the shot as "side effects" of the shot. Secondly, people who get the flu shot are obviously concerned about getting the flu and would take other precautions to prevent infection.
Also, it must be noted that in years when the flu vaccine had limited availability, there were no statistically significant declines in rates of flu infection. In fact, I would argue that any declines at all in the rates of flu infect are due mostly to people being more cautious and doing things like washing their hands and covering their mouths when they sneeze/cough. Hygiene and courtesy are more effective than a sugar shot.
I am wondering if all new flu strains are really completely new or is the virus just cycles through a limited number of possibilities?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause if it is just cycling (and the total number of possibilities is not too big) then another way to make a universal vaccine maybe just produce a vaccine mixture that contains all possible strains.
Why did your friend's wife call the CDC about a suicide?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This isn't to say that smoking or the flu cannot lead to death, they can, but the numbers are grossly exaggerated because the method they use to gather the data is just absurd."
Tell us more about the method they are using. For your argument to work EVERY cause of death in the country would need to be mistaken. Hardly likely.
"The flu might lead to pneumonia and the pneumonia may lead death, but that to argue that it was the flu that caused the death is a bit of a stretch."
This is like saying HIV doesn't kill people.
"From what I understand, by their own admission, the flu shot has a 30% protection rating."
Why do you wear a seat belt? Because it makes you invincible?
"Also, it must be noted that in years when the flu vaccine had limited availability, there were no statistically significant declines in rates of flu infection."
How do you determine if something is statistically significant? Can you explain that? If you can't, then would you know if the decline differed from random variation?
Denialist nonsense aside, I have a serious question:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Right now, worldwide, probably only 5 percent of old people take the influenza vaccine, so it is unlikely that this mutation would happen very fast. So it's a bit like antibiotics: Only if you have excessive use of antibiotics, does resistance become a major problem."
I think this is a murky statement. If herd immunity is the goal, then clearly we'd use this vaccine as much as possible. His statement seems to suggest we shouldn't.
@ecoChoices, this site is for science not paranoid delusions. The fact that you would provide anecdotal evidence in the form of you and your associates' personal experiences in an attempt to demonstrate the effectiveness of vaccines world-wide indicates that not only do you not understand immunology and epidemiology but you don't understand the scientific process. Why don't you save the heavy thinking for those who got the fancy book learnin, instead of killing people with your ignorance?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to agree with this I didn't get a flu shot either and I didn't have any troubles but I knew a girl who was sick for weeks because of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm 62. Whew!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am diabetic and congestive heart failure. I don't miss the annual flu shot! Sore arm? Yup!
Life threatening flu? Nope!
Get the shot. Don't get the shot. Your choice.
34,000 Americans die each year from the Flu.
From the shot? Not so many.
CDC's methods for determining flu-related deaths are described here: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBus-related endpoints are not included. :) It is true that the numbers are only as accurate as the death certificates on which they are based, but this appears to be the best data available.
How they determine effectiveness is described here: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectivenessqa.htm
Double-blind studies and laboratory confirmations of flu are good methods for measuring vaccination effectiveness against flu viruses. A difficulty in measuring effectiveness in the whole population is that flu is only one of several causes of similar illnesses. I don't know where your 30% number comes from, could you give a source?
I will absolutely second your recommendation on handwashing and other hygenic practices.
--James
Christopher505: "I think this is a murky statement. If herd immunity is the goal, then clearly we'd use this vaccine as much as possible. His statement seems to suggest we shouldn't."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy reading of the "only 5 percent of old people" comment is that it is a modification to the previous paragraph.
He's saying in the first paragraph that a mutation of the "stalk" region has not happened in the last 50-80 years, and that this probably means that the virus cannot mutate it easily without disrupting something vital to itself.
In the second paragraph he qualifies the reasoning, saying people getting flu shots have not put much pressure on the virus yet, since the older population has only been getting vaccinated 5% of the time worldwide. Once a lot of people start getting a universal vaccine, the pressure will increase, and a mutation in the "stalk" region might become viable.
--James
The virus H1N1, first was an epidemic, after it be came a pandemic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe vaccine has antibodies, so when the vaccine is applied people should be sure they are not sick, because there can be consequences.
Ascencion
The virus H1N1, first was an epidemic, after it be came a pandemic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe vaccine has antibodies, so when the vaccine is applied people should be sure they are not sick, because there can be consequences
excellent article....some thing to stop the invasion from occurring is way better than treating the resulting "infection/infestation"....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi, Robert. I have to say that @ecoChoices' comment seems par for the course for (at least some) eco-minded folks. Would that it were not true. I consider myself eco-minded, though not as radical as some, but I whole-heartedly support vaccination.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd yet, I find @Astrodont's comments above far more troubling, if s/he is indeed a scientist and not an antivaccinationist troll in disguise, when s/he writes "At this stage of my life I'd prefer a few days discomfort every few years (if that) to introducing this 'whatever' into my body." I'm not sure where s/he has heard anyone saying that vaccinations are without risk, but any small risk from vaccination pales in comparison to the deaths brought about by not vaccinating in those who are able (thus reducing herd immunity)--as we're seeing with the 10 dead babies in the California pertussis crisis, babies who could not be (fully) vaccinated. I just don't understand how people don't get that their antivaccination choices have consequences, sometimes deadly, on people in their community--e.g., in the immunocompromised who can't receive vaccinations or in those with egg allergies (for whom flu vaccinations are contraindicated).
That all said, like you, Robert, I don't intend to give up the fight to convince the parents and others I know to vaccinate themselves and their children. I just hope that other so-called scientists don't try to convince any gullible nonscientists they know that getting vaccinated with "whatever" is riskier than being sickened or dying of flu, pertussis, measles, or the like (@Astrodont: it's not 'whatever.' It's a killed virus, for one instance; do some reading on infectious disease, epidemiology, biology, immunology--while you're at that, google Influenza Pandemic of 1918-1919 in which 20-40 MILLION people died globally). Okay, I did it for you: http://virus.stanford.edu/uda/
After doing some reading (here are others: CDC's MMWR mortality tables, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5938md.htm?s_cid=tw_mmwr49 and the excellent History of Vaccines, http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/top-20-questions-about-vaccination), please reconsider your ill-informed stance on vaccinations. Finally, you might also benefit from looking at the "Misconceptions about Vaccines" at the History of Vaccines site.
WWJD?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this