New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

"Imperfect" Vaccines May Aid Survival of Ultrahot Viruses

Certain vaccines prevent sickness and death, but don't block transmission—meaning they may actually give some viral strains an extra shot at survival. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In the 1960s a cancer-causing herpes virus was ravaging the poultry industry. The virus caused what's called Marek's disease—and killed 1 to 2 percent of the birds. "Given that there are billions of birds in the industry, that's a lot of birds." Andrew Read, an evolutionary biologist at Penn State University. He says the virus was easy to catch. "The dander of chickens if full of the virus. If you shake a chicken, the virus drops out."

Then, in 1970 a new vaccine put an end to most of the deaths. But the poultry vaccine, unlike most, was a so-called "leaky" or "imperfect" vaccine. "The vaccine is lifesaving, but it allows the infection to persist and transmit from the host." Meaning you could still shake a vaccinated chicken—and make it rain viruses.

Now, Read and his colleagues have shown that these leaky vaccines may actually give some viral strains an evolutionary leg up. Because the most virulent strains usually wipe out unvaccinated birds in just 10 days—not enough time for the birds to infect many others. These viruses are essentially so "hot" they burn themselves out. But vaccinated birds survive infection with the hot virus, and shed it for weeks—allowing strains that would otherwise die out to stick around, and kill any unprotected birds. The study appears in the journal PLoS Biology. [Andrew F. Read et al, Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Of course, none of this is reason to doubt the efficacy of vaccines. "Vaccines have been one of the most important public health interventions. And the most cost effective we've ever had. And they're critically important in food chain security as well. So vaccines themselves are fantastic." But several imperfect vaccines for malaria are currently being tested. If they're approved, he says, we'll need to use other measures, like bed nets, to block transmission—remembering that not all vaccines are a one-shot deal.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe