The Race for a 2019-nCoV Vaccine Is On

As the world races to respond to 2019-nCoV, two immediate questions arise: 1) can a vaccine be developed, and 2) how long will it take. Researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Maryland are already working to answer those questions. On January 10, 2020, Chinese scientists provided public information about the genetic make-up of this new virus. Immediately, researchers at the NIH began the daunting task of developing a vaccine.

Researchers started by evaluating the genetic make-up of the virus and pin-pointing the best ways to attack it. Yet, even with tremendous resources behind this effort, developing a vaccine is a difficult and timely process. “It takes months and even years because the vaccines must undergo extensive testing in animals and humans. In the best case, it takes at least a year — and most likely longer — for any vaccine to become available to the public.” Yet, despite the difficulty, timelines for vaccine development are improving.

Improvements in medical technology and DNA sequencing are helping researchers more quickly map the genetic make-up of a virus. That, in-turn, allows researchers to figure of the best ways to render it ineffective. One of the most common ways of doing so is developing a vaccine that prevents a virus from binding with host cells. Due to the similarity of SARS to 2019-nCoV, researchers, “used the template for the SARS vaccine and swapped in just enough genetic code that would make it work for the new virus.” While still preliminary, this type of technique could drastically change the speed at which vaccine development occurs. If things go as planned, initial trails could begin in a matter of months. A remarkable advancement for a virus that came to light in late 2019. More to come.

Citation: Sheikh, Knvul and Katie Thomas. “Researchers Are Racing to Make a Coronavirus Vaccine. Will It Help?” The New York Times, 28 January 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/health/coronavirus-vaccine.html. Accessed 4 February 2020.

Post by Richard Hackmann

A New Class of Antivirals? Using Sugar-Based Drugs

While antiviral treatments against some viruses such as HIV have progressed significantly over the past couple of decades, for other bugs, our approach remains relatively crude and toxic to the body, which leads to a whole host of side effects. Furthermore, most current drugs prevent viral replication and growth, but viruses can evolve and mutate to become resistant. An international team of researchers designed “modified cyclodextrin” sugar drugs that attract the viruses, disrupt the capsid proteins and eliminate the virus essentially on contact. There are two additional benefits of this approach: 1) It is not toxic to the host, thereby limiting dangers and side effects; and 2) It is theoretically resistant to drug resistance! The researchers successfully tested the antivirals extensively on HSV-2 and also on RSV. With continued proof on concepts, the drug could be adapted to fight other viruses such as HSV-1, hepatitis C, HIV, and Zika. 

~Avi Kaye

Article: Jones et al. Modified cyclodextrins as broad-spectrum antivirals. Science Advances, 2020; 6(5). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aax9318

A Mismatch: Money and Vaccine

A friend, an MLA alum, told me over dinner that he and his wife were sick with the flu for more than five weeks during the holiday season. The obvious question was, “did you get the flu shot?” The predictable answer was (considering his wife is a pathologist at UCSF) “of course! We get it every year.” However, this year’s vaccine, anecdotally and news-wise (as reported last September in Scientific American), is a known mismatch with this season’s flu viruses (1). I became curious as to why we couldn’t develop a universal flu vaccine, or vaccines for other long known viral infectious diseases. What are the obstacles? Dr. Gregory A. Poland, Director of vaccine research in Mayo Clinic put it plainly to Donald G. McNeil in “Why Don’t We Have Vaccines Against Everything?”: “one is scientific, one is embarrassing” (2). The embarrassing one is the lack of willing investments in developing vaccines that could save lives.

 How much money does it take to develop a vaccine? Peter Hurford, a data scientist, made some rough estimates based on historical data: smallpox costed about $5.5M, while measles was roughly $38.3M, and rotavirus was expensive at $1,140M. He also estimated $24,500M would’ve been spent on developing an HIV vaccine by 2030 (3, 4). He also sourced from publicly available records the time it took to develop vaccines. Rabies vaccine took only four years while influenza took fourteen years and Hepatitis B was developed in thirty-eight years (4).

Vaccine development takes time, money, and scientific talent. Of the three obstacles, the easiest one to scale would be money. However, many companies are only interested in pursuing high-priced vaccines people in the developed countries demand. Viruses plaguing poor regions must wait for donor foundations. With the new coronavirus in Wuhan China, a global race to develop antiviral drugs and vaccine is on. If history is any indication, a coronavirus vaccine is still years away.

~~ You Jia Zhu

1. Helen Branswell, “Flu Vaccine Selections Suggest This Year’s Shot May Be Off the Mark”, Scientific America, Sep 30, 2019.

2. Donald G. McNeil, Jr. “Why Don’t We Have Vaccines Against Everything?”, New York Times, Nov 19, 2018.

3. Peter Hurford, “How much does it cost to research and develop a vaccine?” Effective Altruism Forum, Feb 23, 2018.

3. Peter Hurford, “How long does it take to research and develop a new vaccine?” Effective Altruism Forum, Jun 28, 2017.

Quick diagnostic test for the coronavirus from Wuhan in development

According to an article in the January 31, 2020 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle, Dr. Charles Chiu, an infectious disease expert at UCSF, is trying to develop a quick diagnostic test for the coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China. He is partnering with Mammoth Biosciences, a San Francisco company, to develop a test that could diagnose the coronavirus in a matter of hours. The only current way to diagnose the virus is through a six-hour molecular test conducted at the CDC, but turnaround time could take up to 24 hours. The test that Chiu is working on could potentially be able to diagnose the presence of the virus in two hours in doctor’s offices and emergency rooms without needing to send samples to a central location. Nasal swabs would be collected, placed in a tube, mixed with a reactant, and then exposed to a testing strip which would react to the presence of the virus. The technique uses CRISPR technology which has already been used to detect other viruses, such as Zika.

UCSF is also working on two other issues. First, Dr. Chiu is hoping to develop a faster method of genome sequencing, a process that might sequence a virus’s genome in as little as 3-4 hours. Second, UCSF is also working on another diagnostic tool based on host response biomarkers. This test would be useful for diagnosing infected individuals who do not show any symptoms, in which case the nasal swab might not contain enough of the virus to produce a positive test.

~~ Steve Blasberg

Monkeypox in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

After having done my presentation on smallpox last week, I was disturbed to see on the CDC website that monkeypox has made an appearance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A most unpleasant illness involving fever, headache, muscle aches, swollen lymph nodes, exhaustion, and a rash, monkeypox lasts for 2-4 weeks, and is fatal in up to 10% of victims. I looked up photos of monkeypox to see if it looked as horrendous as smallpox, and it certainly does look miserable.

Monkeypox is a zoonotic disease, which can spread from infected rodents and primates to other animals (including humans) when they bite or scratch. People can also become infected by touching the meat of infected animals. The virus spreads from person to person through coughing, sneezing, and talking, and the body fluids and skin sores of an infected person are infectious.

Monkeypox is a rare disease, usually occurring near tropical rain forests in remote parts of Central and West Africa. The DRC is in the midst of an outbreak, so travelers should protect themselves by avoiding contact with wild animals, including wild animal products such as meat, washing hands often and thoroughly with soap and water, and avoiding touching the eyes, nose, or mouth when possible.

The CDC advises that if a resident or traveler in the DRC thinks he or she may have contracted monkeypox, he or she should stay home and avoid contact with others, with the exception of seeking prompt medical care. As always, people are advised to cover their mouths and noses with a tissue or sleeve (not the hands) when coughing or sneezing.

The CDC also provides information for clinicians, advising that if a patient arrives at a health care facility with a fever and vesicular or pustular rash, strict infection control precautions should be applied. If an airborne infection isolation room is not available, the website suggests that the patient should be placed in a private room with the door closed. If monkeypox is suspected, infection control personnel and the local health department should be notified immediately.

~~ Amy McPhie Allebest

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/notices/watch/monkeypox-democratic-republic-of-congo

How does it even work? Uncovering AAV entry mechanisms

Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) - our multi-functional, harmless parvovirus friend - is the most commonly used virus vector in gene therapy. However, we still largely do not know how the virus actually works, beginning with the first step of the dynamic phase: Cell entry. Recently, a research team discovered GPR108, a G-protein coupled receptor, and by knocking out the receptor in cells, they found that it is necessary for cell entry in most strains of AAV. They propose that the receptor acts like a “lock” that helps the virus gain access into its target cell. The discovery is an important first step in describing AAV mechanisms, and by understanding how the virus vector works, scientists could potentially create more effective and specific gene vectors. Gene therapy is already being used to treat many diseases and poses many potential possibilities for combating cancer and other genetically based maladies.

~Avi Kaye 

Article: Dudek et al. GPR108 Is a Highly Conserved AAV Entry Factor. Molecular Therapy, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2019.11.005.

We Made the Coronavirus Epidemic

David Quammen’s article titled, We Made the Coronavirus Epidemic reveals mankind can be blamed for the current coronavirus epidemic that plaguing the world today. For example, he blames the use for “wildlife for food” which caused animal markets that sold bats, civets, porcupines, turtles, rats and more to exist in Wuhan, the epicenter of the virus. Furthermore, by invading the tropical forests and cutting their trees down we essentially “shake viruses loose from their natural hosts.” He also blames governments for lying to conceal bad news and lack of funding for public health and research. The author poses a bigger statement, which is mankind caused the virus through our actions.

This article relates directly to our “Virus in the News” class because it covers the current epidemic, we are facing with the coronavirus spreading to the United States. The author offers an uncomfortable insight, which focuses on blaming mankind for the current situation. This article sheds light on the unintentional consequences from mankind’s travel, destruction of the rain forests for profit and attempt to feed mankind through “wildlife animals.” I believe some of the blame can be placed on mankind but would rather see us search for solutions rather than place blame. 

~~ John Sikora

 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/opinion/coronavirus-china.html