Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday May 17 2020, @04:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the getting-closer dept.

From the latest blog post of Derek Lowe :

One of the big (and so far unanswered) questions about the coronavirus epidemic is what kind of immunity people have after becoming infected. This is important for the idea of “re-infection” (is it even possible?) and of course for vaccine development. We’re getting more and more information in this area, though, and this new paper is a good example. A team from the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, UNC, UCSD, and Mt. Sinai (NY) reports details about the T cells of people who have recovered from the virus.

[...] So overall, this paper makes the prospects for a vaccine look good: there is indeed a robust response by the adaptive immune system, to several coronavirus proteins. And vaccine developers will want to think about adding in some of the other antigens mentioned in this paper, in addition to the Spike antigens that have been the focus thus far. It seems fair to say, though, that the first wave of vaccines will likely be Spike-o-centric, and later vaccines might have these other antigens included in the mix. But it also seems that Spike-protein-targeted vaccines should be pretty effective, so that’s good. The other good news is that this team looked for the signs of an antibody-dependent-enhancement response, which would be bad news, and did not find evidence of it in the recovering patients (I didn’t go into these details, but wanted to mention that finding, which is quite reassuring). And it also looks like the prospects for (reasonably) lasting immunity after infection (or after vaccination) are good. This, from what I can see, is just the sort of response that you’d want to see for that to be the case. Clinical data will be the real decider on that, but there’s no reason so far to think that a person won’t have such immunity if they fit this profile.

Onward from here, then – there will be more studies like this coming, but this is a good, solid look into the human immunology of this outbreak. And so far, so good.

Be sure to read the article if you’ve been wondering what your thymus has done for you lately.

Journal Reference
Alba Grifoni, Daniela Weiskopf. Targets of T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in humans with COVID-19 disease and unexposed individuals, Cell (DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.015)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by NickM on Sunday May 17 2020, @09:13PM (9 children)

    by NickM (2867) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 17 2020, @09:13PM (#995463) Journal

    The other good news is that this team looked for the signs of an antibody-dependent-enhancement response, which would be bad news, and did not find evidence of it in the recovering patients (I didn’t go into these details, but wanted to mention that finding, which is quite reassuring).

    As far as I know it was scrapped because the disease died out. According to https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00533741 [clinicaltrials.gov] 0 person were enrolled into it's trial. How can you claim that the vaccine outcome was worse than the disease when it was not even tested ? If you have some credible references contradicting what I have posted, please share them. If you don't, please refrain from spreading unsubstantiated disinformation.

     

    --
    I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by PocketSizeSUn on Sunday May 17 2020, @11:35PM (8 children)

    by PocketSizeSUn (5340) on Sunday May 17 2020, @11:35PM (#995506)

    https://theconversation.com/the-mysterious-disappearance-of-the-first-sars-virus-and-why-we-need-a-vaccine-for-the-current-one-but-didnt-for-the-other-137583 [theconversation.com]

    What about a SARS vaccine? Vaccine studies for SARS-CoV-1 were started and tested in animal models. An inactivated whole virus was used in ferrets, nonhuman primates and mice. All of the vaccines resulted in protective immunity, but there were complications; the vaccines resulted in an immune disease in animals.

    Hence clincial study withdrawn.

    As to the obvious follow-on question of why did research in to SARS-CoV-1 vaccines stop ... it didn't. That's why there a hundreds of samples of bat virii and GoF testing being done.

    • (Score: 2) by NickM on Sunday May 17 2020, @11:41PM

      by NickM (2867) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 17 2020, @11:41PM (#995507) Journal
      Thank you for the link.
      --
      I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
    • (Score: 2) by NickM on Sunday May 17 2020, @11:46PM (1 child)

      by NickM (2867) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 17 2020, @11:46PM (#995511) Journal
      But why did you excluded the following paragraph from your quote ?

      No human studies were done, nor were the vaccine studies taken further because the virus disappeared. Many factors were involved in the end of SARS-CoV-1, perhaps including summer weather, and certainly strict quarantine of all those who had contact with infected individuals, but we don’t really know why the epidemic ended. Viruses are like that, unpredictable!

      --
      I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by PocketSizeSUn on Monday May 18 2020, @12:05AM

        by PocketSizeSUn (5340) on Monday May 18 2020, @12:05AM (#995521)

        Because the author's assertion is mostly inaccurate.

        There were human trials with other attempts at SARS vaccines. The SARS family virii continue to be studied and attempts at vaccines continue to be developed.

        The *pace* of development may have changed but is rather typical in these cases ..

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by PocketSizeSUn on Sunday May 17 2020, @11:52PM (4 children)

      by PocketSizeSUn (5340) on Sunday May 17 2020, @11:52PM (#995514)

      And one with human subjects in China:
      https://www.intmedpress.com/serveFile.cfm?sUID=bba35bb3-9126-4c66-ae0f-4e96b8291dea [intmedpress.com]

      This one protected 83.33% of the study subjects for > 210 days. It used two vaccinations and ~8 weeks to achieve seropositive, had complications (not immediately life threatening) however some test subjects ended up with impaired liver functions.

      More research on the influences of SARS-CoV on liver functions in animal experiments are need to address the potential liver damage of SARS virus vaccine candidates.

      It did not progress to a clinical trial.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 17 2020, @11:58PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 17 2020, @11:58PM (#995516)
        Did you read the abstract of your link ?

        Conclusion: The inactivated vaccine was safe and well tolerated and can elicit SARS-CoV-specific neutralizing antibodies.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by PocketSizeSUn on Monday May 18 2020, @12:28AM (1 child)

          by PocketSizeSUn (5340) on Monday May 18 2020, @12:28AM (#995533)

          Yes .. I actually read the whole study which you obviously did not.

          The vaccine achieved seropositive results (that's good) but also cause liver disease (that's bad).
          The level of seropositive achieved is believed to be 'enough' but was below the level of seropositive of people who had SARS and survived (this is not atypical of a vaccine).
          So this vaccine may work but you have to get it in stages to get enough immunity to maintain any realistic possibility of protection from SARS.

          Also the trial size 36 healthy adults. That means that even 1 case of liver disease => 3% chance, 2 => 6% chance.
          Any sane person would RTFA (run-the-*-away) from this one.

          • (Score: 2) by NickM on Monday May 18 2020, @01:00AM

            by NickM (2867) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 18 2020, @01:00AM (#995548) Journal
            A transient increase in serum ALT is not that relevant in this study, again you selectivly choose not to state that it also occured in the placebo control group (1/12)...
            --
            I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
      • (Score: 2) by NickM on Monday May 18 2020, @12:06AM

        by NickM (2867) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 18 2020, @12:06AM (#995522) Journal

        Although a group has reported that they observed severe liver inflammation when a recom- binant vaccine, created by genetically modifying a pox virus to produce SARS-CoV spike (S) protein, was tested in ferrets [14], our previously performed pathological study on monkeys [15] and another study [16] did not find any evidence of liver damage. More research on the influences of SARS-CoV on liver functions in animal experiments are needed to address the potential liver damage of SARS virus vaccine candidates.

        --
        I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !