Showing posts with label H5N1 virus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label H5N1 virus. Show all posts

Saturday, 23 June 2012

Bird Flu


H5N1 Paper Published: Deadly, Transmissible Bird Flu Could Be Closer than Thought
After an epic debate over whether to release research detailing how scientists created H5N1 in the lab, Nature finally published one of the two controversial papers on Wednesday


3 May, 2012

You might not have noticed, but the influenza world has been in a bit of an uproar since late last year, when news leaked out that two teams of researchers had purposefully tweaked H5N1 bird flu in the lab to potentially make it more transmissible among human beings. (H5N1 spreads like wildfire among birds — and usually kills them — but the virus only rarely seems to jump to human beings, though when it does the infections are often fatal.)

The two scientists — Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin–Madison and TIME 100 honoree Ron Fouchier of Erasmus University in the Netherlands — had submitted their research to Nature and Science, respectively, with the expectation of swift publication. In December, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) did something unprecedented: they ruled that the two papers should be censored if published, that they should be scrubbed of the complete methods and viral mutations that the researchers studied, in order to head off the risk that terror groups could use the information to craft a deadly bioweapon.


(PHOTOS: The Bird Flu Outbreaks in 2008)


That led to intense fighting within the scientific community. Some researchers wanted the papers published in full, both because they believed the work could help arm us against a future flu pandemic, and because they worried about the chill of government censorship on science. Other scientists were against publication and even the experiments themselves, believing that nothing gleaned from the work could be important enough to offset the risk of creating a potentially deadly flu virus.


In the end, Fouchier explained that his man-made flu virus wasn’t the merciless killer that early media reports had made it out to be — Kawaoka’s man-made virus was always believed to be less dangerous — and in March the NSABB took a look at revised papers submitted by the two research teams and voted to recommend that they be published.


On Wednesday, Nature finally published Kawaoka’s research. (We’re still waiting for the Fouchier paper, though the Dutch scientist was recently granted an export license for his work, so it should appear soon.) The sobering takeaway: avian H5N1 flu viruses in nature may be only one mutation away from spreading effectively between mammals, likely including human beings. If that happens — and if H5N1 retains its apparently sky-high mortality rate — we could be in for serious trouble.


For all the controversy, the research itself is actually quite fascinating. Kawaoka and his team mutated H5N1′s hemagglutinin (HA) gene — the H in H5N1 — which produces the protein the virus needs to attach itself to host cells. They produced millions of genes, mimicking the effect of random mutation in nature, and found one version of H5N1 hemagglutinin that seems particularly effective at invading human cells.


(MORE: Dangers of Man-Made Bird Flu Are Exaggerated, Its Creators Say)


The genes for that protein contained four new mutations, three of which altered the shape of the gene, while the fourth one changed the pH level at which the protein attaches to the cell and injects the virus’s genetic material inside. (It’s a bit reminiscent of Alien, if the virus is the face-hugger and this poor guy’s face is the cell.) The team combined the mutated HA gene with seven other genes — flu viruses have eight genes in all — from the highly transmissible if not highly deadly H1N1 strain, which caused the 2009 flu pandemic. The result was an H1N1 virus with mutant H5N1 hemagglutinin proteins on the outside.


Kawaoka and co. then introduced the hybrid flu virus into the noses of ferrets — an animal that has long been used in flu research as stand-ins for human beings — and the bug replicated within the test subjects. Later the researchers discovered that the mutant flu also spread from ferret to ferret relatively easily, something the real-world H5N1 isn’t yet able to do. It’s not clear whether the mutant virus would spread as easily among human beings as it does between ferrets, however, and the new virus remained vulnerable both to the antiviral Tamiflu and a prototype vaccine against H5N1.


Still, it’s possible that the H5N1 bird flu might naturally be able to hit upon the same mutations that Kawaoka created in the lab, while still retaining its current virulence. In any case, as the virologist Jeremy Farrar of the Oxford University Clinical Research Unit in Vietnam told Ed Yong for Nature News: “This work reminds us just how vulnerable we potentially are to relatively small changes.” It didn’t take much for this virus to change completely.


Bigger news will likely be made when Fouchier’s paper comes out. That’s because Fouchier introduced mutations directly into an H5N1 virus, then let the new strain spread and evolve inside the ferrets. Those changes eventually turned what had been a bird flu into a mammal flu, albeit one that ended up not to be deadly to the ferrets. But Fouchier’s work would provide a much more direct formula for terrorists to alter H5N1 viruses themselves.


(MORE: A Bus Driver in Southern China Dies of Bird Flu. Could the Deadly Virus Strike Again?)
That’s still not terribly likely, though — it would require a lot of work on the part of any terrorists, and there’s no guarantee they’d even be able to create anything particularly dangerous. (A bigger threat, in mine and other people’s views, is the possibility of an accidental release of a mutated virus from the lab — something that has happened in the past.) But the debate goes beyond security concerns. The Nature paper marks a new era in science, as Carl Zimmer wrote on Wednesday for Discover:
This episode is just the start of something much bigger. Roger Brent, a biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, put it into history of modern biology. In the 1970s, biologists discovered how to move individual genes from one organism to another. The power to rewrite the book of life caused a lot of consternation, and led to a gathering called Asilomar in 1975, where scientists tried to work out a system for ensuring that no monstrous new creatures would escape a lab and wreak havoc on the world. At the time, just about everyone on Earth who had the wherewithal to perform genetic engineering could get together at Asilomar. Over the past 37 years, these manipulations have become democratized. A far broader group of researchers now have far more power than anyone did in 1975.
All of the furor over Kawaoka and Fouchier’s research came well after the research had already been completed, the mutant flus created and cooling in the lab. Our ability to manipulate life — even the those sub-microscopic, sometimes deadly forms of life known as viruses — grows by the day, but there’s been no concurrent development in how we, as a world, should govern those abilities. It turns out that may be an even bigger challenge then inventing a killer flu from scratch.



Friday, 22 June 2012

Bird Flu threat


Bird flu 'could mutate to cause deadly human pandemic'
The H5N1 bird flu virus could change into a form able to spread rapidly between humans, scientists have warned.



BBC,
21 June, 2012

Researchers have identified five genetic changes that could allow the virus to start a deadly pandemic.

Writing in the journal Science, they say it would be theoretically possible for these changes to occur in nature.
A US agency has tried unsuccessfully to ban publication of parts of the research fearing it could be used by terrorists to create a bioweapon.
According to Prof Ron Fouchier from the Erasmus Medical Centre in the Netherlands, who led the research, publication of the work in full will give the wider scientific community the best possible chance to combat future flu pandemics.
"We hope to learn which viruses can cause pandemics and by knowing that we might be able to prevent them by enforcing strict eradication programmes," he told BBC News.
He added that his work might also speed the development of vaccines and anti-viral drugs against a lethal form of bird flu that could spread rapidly among people.
The H5N1 virus has been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of birds and has led to hundreds of millions more being slaughtered to stop its spread.
The virus is also deadly to humans but can only be transmitted by close contact with infected birds.
Coughs and sneezes
It is for this reason that relatively few people have died of bird flu. Latest World Health Organization (WHO) figures indicate 332 people have died of the illness since 2003.
Health officials are concerned though that the H5N1 virus could one day mutate into a form that could be spread between humans through coughs and sneezes through the air.
This could, they fear, result in a lethal pandemic that could spread rapidly across the world killing tens of millions of people.
It is only now that a study has confirmed that the emergence of such a deadly virus is theoretically possible.
A group led by Prof Fouchier wanted to find out which genetic changes were required to enable the H5N1 virus to mutate into a form that could be transmitted from person to person through the air.
Men in protective clothing capturing Bird Flu infected chicken
Bird flu can only be spread by close contact but the virus could mutate to be transmitted through coughs
His team compared the genetic structure of the bird flu virus with those responsible for earlier human flu pandemics.
The researchers found five key differences, which they reasoned could be the mutations required for airborne transmission of the virus.
They confirmed their theory was correct by genetically engineering those changes into the H5N1 virus which they found could then be spread between ferrets through coughing and sneezing.
A team from Cambridge University then looked to see whether such a mutation could emerge naturally and if so its likelihood.
The researchers studied the genetic structure of 3,000 bird viruses and 400 that occur in humans.
They found some of these viruses had two of the key changes needed to become airborne. Mathematical modelling suggested it was indeed possible for a virus to develop the three further changes required during the course of an epidemic.
Bioweapon
It is the first time it has been shown that it is possible for bird flu to become airborne, but the research team was unable to determine precisely how likely this was to happen.
Prof Derek Smith, who led the analysis, said more information was needed.
He said researchers required a better understanding of how flu viruses were transmitted between people in order to develop a clearer idea of the likelihood of the emergence of an airborne strain of bird flu.
"These are difficult things to find out," Prof Smith told BBC News.
"What this work enables us to do is to prioritise particular experiments to obtain this information".
It is clear though that the emergence of an airborne mutation of H5N1 is unlikely. Were it not it would have emerged already.
But researchers want to be able to calculate the risk of such a virus emerging more precisely in order to help public health officials in their contingency planning.
News of Prof Fouchier's work, and another similar study by Yoshihiro Kawaoka published this May in the journal Nature, prompted the US National Security Advisory Board for Biotechnology (NSABB) to ask both journals last November to redact some sensitive parts of the research.
The NSABB believed the information could be used by terrorists to create a bioweapon.
The scientists who carried out the research, and the journals concerned, considered suggestions as to how the results could be redacted in the journals, but distributed to bona fide researchers who urgently needed the information.
But they concluded such a system was unworkable.
"You can't share information with so many people in the field and keep it confidential," according to Prof Fouchier.
Editor in chief of the journal Science, Dr Bruce Alberts, said the publication of the research in both Science and Nature had "shone a spotlight" on the need to deal more effectively with research that could be misused by terrorists - so called "dual use research of concern" (Durc).
"It has become clear that we will need to work toward the establishment of a comprehensive, international system for assessing Durc, one that includes transparent procedures to allow selected access to any information omitted from a scientific publication to those with a need to know".
But Prof Fouchier questioned whether a system of asking scientific journals to censor Durc work is ever workable or even appropriate.
"The general mode should be that science should be freely available so that the wider scientific community can build on the research," he said.
"I have a hard time identifying research papers that you shouldn't publish. So I'm not sure whether we should ever go down this alley".