EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Nov 20, 2014 4:54 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:12 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

That makes a difference how? Do you suppose they call spay/neuter vivisection because it is invasive? Do you suppose they call the vaccinations vivisection because it is invasive? I hope not, but again ignorance is cured by education.


I can safely say she was referring to vivisection when writing invasive. I suppose you would like a copy of the email?


No, I don't need to know her level of ignorance/misrepresentation as it really does not matter.


:lolno:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:02 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20577
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
A new direction that just happened to be the SAME new direction of the research involving chimps? The odds of that happening are extraordinarily high.


Are you for real?

"A key feature of the study, is that the Oxford researchers, with colleagues from an Italian biotech company and the University of Birmingham in the UK, departed from a traditional approach and went in a new direction.

The reason they went a different way is because of another feature of HCV: it is always changing its make up, in that respect it is similar to HIV. This makes it difficult to pick a target that will be there for some time and make an effective building block for a vaccine.

So the researchers turned to a new idea: they picked a target in the virus that is less likely to change: an internal part, rather than the more traditional approach of picking something on the surface of the virus. "

No collaboration, not even a mention in the study, unusual don't you think?


Not really, since it would not be something that would be popular given the attitude on animal research.


Quote:

Quote:
The European trial is connected to the others unless EVERYONE is departing "from a traditional approach and went in a new direction" together.


Why is their study connected, funding, joint research? You would have though the Canadian researcher at least got a mention for a part in it, wouldn't you?


Joint research. What part of the odds of two separate groups taking the SAME departure from the traditional approach at the same time being astronomically high do you not comprehend?


Quote:
The studies are separate from each other, different groups of people in the race for the hep c vaccine. They aren't the only ones either.


Both using the same non-traditional approach and the one with the chimp research prior to the one listing the human clinical trials? Not very likely at all.


Quote:
Quote:
Two different PUBLICATIONS by two different groups on the SAME research and research that is a new and non-traditional direction which makes it very, very unlikely to not be connected.


Is that right? I would love to see you show the link.


I have several times, but you do not seem to be able to grasp the concept of how someone in Canada would write about a new non-traditional approach before the clinical trials and not be part of the over all research project. Most non-traditional paths are not chosen by multiple research groups at the same time

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:22 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
A new direction that just happened to be the SAME new direction of the research involving chimps? The odds of that happening are extraordinarily high.


Are you for real?

"A key feature of the study, is that the Oxford researchers, with colleagues from an Italian biotech company and the University of Birmingham in the UK, departed from a traditional approach and went in a new direction.

The reason they went a different way is because of another feature of HCV: it is always changing its make up, in that respect it is similar to HIV. This makes it difficult to pick a target that will be there for some time and make an effective building block for a vaccine.

So the researchers turned to a new idea: they picked a target in the virus that is less likely to change: an internal part, rather than the more traditional approach of picking something on the surface of the virus. "

No collaboration, not even a mention in the study, unusual don't you think?


Not really, since it would not be something that would be popular given the attitude on animal research.


Quote:

Quote:
The European trial is connected to the others unless EVERYONE is departing "from a traditional approach and went in a new direction" together.


Why is their study connected, funding, joint research? You would have though the Canadian researcher at least got a mention for a part in it, wouldn't you?


Joint research. What part of the odds of two separate groups taking the SAME departure from the traditional approach at the same time being astronomically high do you not comprehend?


Quote:
The studies are separate from each other, different groups of people in the race for the hep c vaccine. They aren't the only ones either.


Both using the same non-traditional approach and the one with the chimp research prior to the one listing the human clinical trials? Not very likely at all.


Quote:
Quote:
Two different PUBLICATIONS by two different groups on the SAME research and research that is a new and non-traditional direction which makes it very, very unlikely to not be connected.


Is that right? I would love to see you show the link.


I have several times, but you do not seem to be able to grasp the concept of how someone in Canada would write about a new non-traditional approach before the clinical trials and not be part of the over all research project. Most non-traditional paths are not chosen by multiple research groups at the same time



Not the same approach at all, show it. :crazy:

Both have nothing to do with each other, you have not provided a link. Each study doesn't even mention each other and only name them involved.

come on man, make the link.

He can't because there isn't one [-X


Oh, by the way, the UK study started in 2006


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:51 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
For more information please contact Professor Paul Klenerman on +44 (0)1865 281885, +44 (0)7769 861085 or paul.klenerman@medawar.ox.ac.uk

Or the University of Oxford press office on +44 (0)1865 280530 or press.office@admin.ox.ac.uk

No link pal :-


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:22 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2300
Location: Central Colorado
Does it all really matter when humans, if they don't reduce HGHGs enough, cause an ELE???

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Last edited by Johhny Electriglide on Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:22 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20577
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
A new direction that just happened to be the SAME new direction of the research involving chimps? The odds of that happening are extraordinarily high.


Are you for real?

"A key feature of the study, is that the Oxford researchers, with colleagues from an Italian biotech company and the University of Birmingham in the UK, departed from a traditional approach and went in a new direction.

The reason they went a different way is because of another feature of HCV: it is always changing its make up, in that respect it is similar to HIV. This makes it difficult to pick a target that will be there for some time and make an effective building block for a vaccine.

So the researchers turned to a new idea: they picked a target in the virus that is less likely to change: an internal part, rather than the more traditional approach of picking something on the surface of the virus. "

No collaboration, not even a mention in the study, unusual don't you think?


Not really, since it would not be something that would be popular given the attitude on animal research.

Quote:
The European trial is connected to the others unless EVERYONE is departing "from a traditional approach and went in a new direction" together.


Why is their study connected, funding, joint research? You would have though the Canadian researcher at least got a mention for a part in it, wouldn't you?


Joint research. What part of the odds of two separate groups taking the SAME departure from the traditional approach at the same time being astronomically high do you not comprehend? The latter paper was on the clinical trial of which the Canadian was not a part.


Quote:
The studies are separate from each other, different groups of people in the race for the hep c vaccine. They aren't the only ones either.


Both using the same non-traditional approach and the one with the chimp research prior to the one listing the human clinical trials? Not very likely at all.


Quote:
Quote:
Two different PUBLICATIONS by two different groups on the SAME research and research that is a new and non-traditional direction which makes it very, very unlikely to not be connected.


Is that right? I would love to see you show the link.


I have several times, but you do not seem to be able to grasp the concept of how someone in Canada would write about a new non-traditional approach before the clinical trials and not be part of the over all research project. Most non-traditional paths are not chosen by multiple research groups at the same time[/quote]


tommee wrote:
Not the same approach at all, show it. :crazy:


Look at the highlighted portions to see where you are mistaken.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/239982.php

An experimental vaccine against the chronic liver disease hepatitis C has shown promising results in its first clinical trial in humans, say researchers from the University of Oxford, UK, who write about their findings in the 4 January online issue of Science Translational Medicine. However, they caution there is still a long way to go before we have an effective vaccine ready for clinical use.

<snip>

In their paper the researchers describe how they adapted two adenoviruses to carry NS (nonstructural) proteins from HCV genotype 1B. One adenovirus was sourced from a rare human serotype (Ad6, human adenovirus 6) and the other from chimpanzee (ChAd3, chimpanzee adenovirus 3).


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21198667

Prospects for prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines against the hepatitis C viruses.
Houghton M.

Source
Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Li Ka Shing Institute of Virology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. michael.houghton@ualberta.ca

Abstract
Encouraging efficacy data have been obtained in the hepatitis C virus (HCV) chimpanzee model using prophylactic vaccines comprising adjuvanted recombinant envelope gpE1/gpE2 glycoproteins or prime/boost immunization regimens using defective adenoviruses and plasmid DNA expressing non-structural genes. While usually not resulting in sterilizing immunity after experimental challenge, the progression to chronic, persistent infection (which is responsible for HCV-associated pathogenicity in human) is inhibited. These and other vaccine candidates are in clinical development for both prophylactic as well as possible therapeutic applications. Given that other vaccines tested in the chimpanzee model may be possibly increasing the rate of chronicity, it is very important that this model continues to be available and used prior to initiation of clinical development. Several vaccine monotherapy trials in chronically infected HCV patients are resulting in small declines in viral load, suggesting that in future, combining vaccination with antiviral drug treatment may be beneficial.

Quote:
Both have nothing to do with each other, you have not provided a link. Each study doesn't even mention each other and only name them involved.


The earlier would not mention the later because it had not been published and the later probably does not want the chimp model connection published.

Quote:
come on man, make the link.


Come on get someone to explain it to you so you can understand.



Quote:
Oh, by the way, the UK study started in 2006


And?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:36 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
"Viral vectors are a tool commonly used by molecular biologists to deliver genetic material into cells. This process can be performed inside a living organism (in vivo) or in cell culture (in vitro). Viruses have evolved specialized molecular mechanisms to efficiently transport their genomes inside the cells they infect. Delivery of genes by a virus is termed transduction and the infected cells are described as transduced. Molecular biologists first harnessed this machinery in the 1970s. Paul Berg used a modified SV40 virus containing DNA from the bacteriophage lambda to infect monkey kidney cells maintained in culture.[1]"

You would expect all studies in this field to use adenovirus vectors, it's a tool :lolno:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:52 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20577
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
"Viral vectors are a tool commonly used by molecular biologists to deliver genetic material into cells. This process can be performed inside a living organism (in vivo) or in cell culture (in vitro). Viruses have evolved specialized molecular mechanisms to efficiently transport their genomes inside the cells they infect. Delivery of genes by a virus is termed transduction and the infected cells are described as transduced. Molecular biologists first harnessed this machinery in the 1970s. Paul Berg used a modified SV40 virus containing DNA from the bacteriophage lambda to infect monkey kidney cells maintained in culture.[1]"

You would expect all studies in this field to use adenovirus vectors, it's a tool :lolno:


Really? Then why was it called a new idea other than the traditional approach? The use of the specific virus combinations and nonstructural proteins is not new now or what?

Quote:
So the researchers turned to a new idea: they picked a target in the virus that is less likely to change: an internal part, rather than the more traditional approach of picking something on the surface of the virus.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:56 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Choosing a more constant internal virus part as a target would also stimulate a different type of immune response from what had been attempted in previous studies to develop an HCV vaccine.

".. we need T cells and not antibodies to be able to react to the inner components of the virus," said Klenerman.

So he and his colleagues set out to boost HCV-specific T cells using a "recombinant adenoviral vector strategy" in human volunteers. In total, 41 healthy adults took part in the study.

In their paper the researchers describe how they adapted two adenoviruses to carry NS (nonstructural) proteins from HCV genotype 1B. One adenovirus was sourced from a rare human serotype (Ad6, human adenovirus 6) and the other from chimpanzee (ChAd3, chimpanzee adenovirus 3).

The Oxford study also used a flu virus.

Cry me a river.

:-({|=


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:22 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20577
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Choosing a more constant internal virus part as a target would also stimulate a different type of immune response from what had been attempted in previous studies to develop an HCV vaccine.

".. we need T cells and not antibodies to be able to react to the inner components of the virus," said Klenerman.

So he and his colleagues set out to boost HCV-specific T cells using a "recombinant adenoviral vector strategy" in human volunteers. In total, 41 healthy adults took part in the study.

In their paper the researchers describe how they adapted two adenoviruses to carry NS (nonstructural) proteins from HCV genotype 1B. One adenovirus was sourced from a rare human serotype (Ad6, human adenovirus 6) and the other from chimpanzee (ChAd3, chimpanzee adenovirus 3).


What part of that is different from the Canadian paper on the chimp model using adenoviruses to carry nonstructural proteins? That seems like the NEW and novel approach in the first paragraph quoted. All you are doing is bouncing back and forth trying to make a different step in the same process become a different process because you really want it to be so, but it is not.

If it is such a new approach, as the one article stated, the use of the same approach indicates a clear connection. The process is to develop a potential treatment approach, develop the approach using whatever technology is required, test that technology approach on animal based models or actual animal models, then test on humans in various stages until the treatment is approved.

Quote:
Cry me a river.


I will not as you are floundering so badly now that you would likely drown with even the first tear.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:16 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Choosing a more constant internal virus part as a target would also stimulate a different type of immune response from what had been attempted in previous studies to develop an HCV vaccine.

".. we need T cells and not antibodies to be able to react to the inner components of the virus," said Klenerman.

So he and his colleagues set out to boost HCV-specific T cells using a "recombinant adenoviral vector strategy" in human volunteers. In total, 41 healthy adults took part in the study.

In their paper the researchers describe how they adapted two adenoviruses to carry NS (nonstructural) proteins from HCV genotype 1B. One adenovirus was sourced from a rare human serotype (Ad6, human adenovirus 6) and the other from chimpanzee (ChAd3, chimpanzee adenovirus 3).


What part of that is different from the Canadian paper on the chimp model using adenoviruses to carry nonstructural proteins? That seems like the NEW and novel approach in the first paragraph quoted. All you are doing is bouncing back and forth trying to make a different step in the same process become a different process because you really want it to be so, but it is not.

If it is such a new approach, as the one article stated, the use of the same approach indicates a clear connection. The process is to develop a potential treatment approach, develop the approach using whatever technology is required, test that technology approach on animal based models or actual animal models, then test on humans in various stages until the treatment is approved.

Quote:
Cry me a river.


I will not as you are floundering so badly now that you would likely drown with even the first tear.



Well get you.. The UK study is not for treatment, they are trying to develop a vaccine for the PREVENTION of hep c not the treatment [-X

The UK study used human together with chimp adenoviral vectors to boost t-cells and target the virus internally not externally, went in a totally different direction from playing around with anti bodies. The humans in the test didn't have hep c unlike the chimps in the Canadian study, this is because the UK study were testing the long term immune response to prevent hep c not to treat already infected people. :lolno:

You honestly think that scientist would spend years developing and not get a sniff of a mention when they publish?

You have made no connection because there is none, this is two different groups of scientists with separate approaches in more than one respect.

Yes you are floundering, stating they used chimps to test the vaccine before human trails when infact they didn't, they used MICE and now this tripe :crazy:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:29 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20577
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Choosing a more constant internal virus part as a target would also stimulate a different type of immune response from what had been attempted in previous studies to develop an HCV vaccine.

".. we need T cells and not antibodies to be able to react to the inner components of the virus," said Klenerman.

So he and his colleagues set out to boost HCV-specific T cells using a "recombinant adenoviral vector strategy" in human volunteers. In total, 41 healthy adults took part in the study.

In their paper the researchers describe how they adapted two adenoviruses to carry NS (nonstructural) proteins from HCV genotype 1B. One adenovirus was sourced from a rare human serotype (Ad6, human adenovirus 6) and the other from chimpanzee (ChAd3, chimpanzee adenovirus 3).


What part of that is different from the Canadian paper on the chimp model using adenoviruses to carry nonstructural proteins? That seems like the NEW and novel approach in the first paragraph quoted. All you are doing is bouncing back and forth trying to make a different step in the same process become a different process because you really want it to be so, but it is not.

If it is such a new approach, as the one article stated, the use of the same approach indicates a clear connection. The process is to develop a potential treatment approach, develop the approach using whatever technology is required, test that technology approach on animal based models or actual animal models, then test on humans in various stages until the treatment is approved.

Quote:
Cry me a river.


I will not as you are floundering so badly now that you would likely drown with even the first tear.



Well get you.. The UK study is not for treatment, they are trying to develop a vaccine for the PREVENTION of hep c not the treatment [-X


It is a medical procedure or treatment. Sorry if that confused you so greatly.

Quote:
The UK study used human together with chimp adenoviral vectors to boost t-cells and target the virus internally not externally, went in a totally different direction from playing around with anti bodies.


Just like the Canadian paper, which is either a different approach or a common approach depending on which of your posts one reads.


Quote:
The humans in the test didn't have hep c unlike the chimps in the Canadian study, this is because the UK study were testing the long term immune response to prevent hep c not to treat already infected people. :lolno:


So the confusion over "procedure" and "treament" was too much for you.

From the Canadian paper, just so you are not quite as confused:

Encouraging efficacy data have been obtained in the hepatitis C virus (HCV) chimpanzee model using prophylactic vaccines comprising adjuvanted recombinant envelope gpE1/gpE2 glycoproteins or prime/boost immunization regimens using defective adenoviruses and plasmid DNA expressing non-structural genes.

Quote:
You honestly think that scientist would spend years developing and not get a sniff of a mention when they publish?


They did get a mention in the pubilcation, one was for the basic research and one was for the clinical trials, both of which involved different groups.

Quote:
You have made no connection because there is none, this is two different groups of scientists with separate approaches in more than one respect.


Separate approaches? Using the same approach to attack the interior rather than the exterior using a new non-traditional method is now a separate approach? You really are confused.

Quote:
Yes you are floundering, stating they used chimps to test the vaccine before human trails when infact they didn't, they used MICE and now this tripe :crazy:


Nope, the papers indicate the use of chimps in the same process of using virus combinations to insert nonstructural proteins to develop a procedure.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 3:03 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Michael Houghton, Ph.D., Canada Excellence in Research Chair and Professor, Medical Microbiology & Immunology, University of Alberta
"We can be optimistic about HCV vaccine development based on 1) the demonstration of significant natural immunity in the chimpanzee challenge model and in man, 2) the identification of cellular and humoral correlates of immunity, 3) the demonstration of vaccine efficacy in the chimpanzee challenge model & 4) the recent demonstration of a vaccine able to elicit broadly cross-neutralising antibodies against all major, global genotypes. Current vaccine candidates in clinical development elicit either broad, cross-reactive cellular immune responses or broad, cross-neutralizing antibody responses but combining both is likely to result in at least a partially effective vaccine against this highly heterogeneous virus that is estimated to infect many hundreds of thousands each year around the globe. "

Example

Candidate HCV vaccines have shown limited efficacy in clinical trials. Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) are a key component of all licensed vaccines. In HCV infection, NAbs are primarily directed to the major surface glycoprotein E2 and have been correlated with viral clearance. However, most HCV specific NAbs are directed to the hypervariable region 1 (HVR1), which are type-specific as the name suggests. By contrast, NAbs directed to the HCV receptor (CD81) binding site show the capacity to mediate broad neutralization, but these antibodies are rarely produced in the presence of the immunodominant HVR1. We have investigated how different oligomeric forms of Δ123 E2 (monomer, dimer and higher order forms) induce different levels of neutralizing antibodies.

http://www.imvacs.com/novel-vaccines


Oxford study

""Both vectors primed T cell responses against HCV proteins; these T cell responses targeted multiple proteins and were capable of recognizing heterologous strains (genotypes 1A and 3A)."

""The outside shell of the hepatitis C virus is very variable but the inside of the virus is much more stable. That's where the engine of the virus is, where we may be able to successfully target many of the crucial pieces of machinery."

Choosing a more constant internal virus part as a target would also stimulate a different type of immune response from what had been attempted in previous studies to develop an HCV vaccine.

.. we need T cells and not antibodies to be able to react to the inner components of the virus," said Klenerman."

Canada

"Houghton, also the Li Ka Shing Chair in Virology at the University of Alberta, says the vaccine, developed from a single strain, has shown to be effective against all known strains of the virus. It took more than 10 years to develop and started while he was working for the drug company Novartis. Following previous vaccine tests funded by the National Institutes of Health that yielded promising results, he said there remained two critical questions."


"The challenge, Houghton said, was that hepatitis C is more virulent than HIV, thus coming up with a vaccine that would neutralize the different strains around the world was believed to be impossible. Using a vaccine developed and tested on humans in his University of Alberta lab, Houghton and his co-investigator John Law discovered that the vaccine was capable of eliciting broad cross-neutralizing antibodies against all the different major strains. Houghton says that this finding bodes good news for those with hep C and those who live or travel to areas where the disease is prevalent."

http://www.hepctrust.org.uk/News_Resour ... +C+Vaccine



Please do link the studies #-o


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 3:38 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20577
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Michael Houghton, Ph.D., Canada Excellence in Research Chair and Professor, Medical Microbiology & Immunology, University of Alberta
"We can be optimistic about HCV vaccine development based on 1) the demonstration of significant natural immunity in the chimpanzee challenge model and in man, 2) the identification of cellular and humoral correlates of immunity, 3) the demonstration of vaccine efficacy in the chimpanzee challenge model & 4) the recent demonstration of a vaccine able to elicit broadly cross-neutralising antibodies against all major, global genotypes. Current vaccine candidates in clinical development elicit either broad, cross-reactive cellular immune responses or broad, cross-neutralizing antibody responses but combining both is likely to result in at least a partially effective vaccine against this highly heterogeneous virus that is estimated to infect many hundreds of thousands each year around the globe. "



You do realize this is an opening speaker on the range of research for this vaccine, do you not?

Quote:
Example

Candidate HCV vaccines have shown limited efficacy in clinical trials. Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) are a key component of all licensed vaccines. In HCV infection, NAbs are primarily directed to the major surface glycoprotein E2 and have been correlated with viral clearance. However, most HCV specific NAbs are directed to the hypervariable region 1 (HVR1), which are type-specific as the name suggests. By contrast, NAbs directed to the HCV receptor (CD81) binding site show the capacity to mediate broad neutralization, but these antibodies are rarely produced in the presence of the immunodominant HVR1. We have investigated how different oligomeric forms of Δ123 E2 (monomer, dimer and higher order forms) induce different levels of neutralizing antibodies.

http://www.imvacs.com/novel-vaccines


This was yet another speaker at the same symposium, which again seems to be more general than specific on a specific program.


Quote:
Oxford study

""Both vectors primed T cell responses against HCV proteins; these T cell responses targeted multiple proteins and were capable of recognizing heterologous strains (genotypes 1A and 3A)."

""The outside shell of the hepatitis C virus is very variable but the inside of the virus is much more stable. That's where the engine of the virus is, where we may be able to successfully target many of the crucial pieces of machinery."

Choosing a more constant internal virus part as a target would also stimulate a different type of immune response from what had been attempted in previous studies to develop an HCV vaccine.

.. we need T cells and not antibodies to be able to react to the inner components of the virus," said Klenerman."


Look at the method used to introduce the proteins in both cases and the fact they are introducing nonstructural protiens.

Quote:
Canada

"Houghton, also the Li Ka Shing Chair in Virology at the University of Alberta, says the vaccine, developed from a single strain, has shown to be effective against all known strains of the virus. It took more than 10 years to develop and started while he was working for the drug company Novartis. Following previous vaccine tests funded by the National Institutes of Health that yielded promising results, he said there remained two critical questions."


"The challenge, Houghton said, was that hepatitis C is more virulent than HIV, thus coming up with a vaccine that would neutralize the different strains around the world was believed to be impossible. Using a vaccine developed and tested on humans in his University of Alberta lab, Houghton and his co-investigator John Law discovered that the vaccine was capable of eliciting broad cross-neutralizing antibodies against all the different major strains. Houghton says that this finding bodes good news for those with hep C and those who live or travel to areas where the disease is prevalent."

http://www.hepctrust.org.uk/News_Resour ... +C+Vaccine


So you showed this earlier:

Current vaccine candidates in clinical development elicit either broad, cross-reactive cellular immune responses or broad, cross-neutralizing antibody responses but combining both is likely to result in at least a partially effective vaccine against this highly heterogeneous virus that is estimated to infect many hundreds of thousands each year around the globe.

Which indicated the need to combine the immune and antibody responses to get at least a partially effective vaccine, which sounds like what the use of the same mechanism for the t-cell and the antibody aspects would do. The previous paper used the same approach as the Oxford study, which would give the t-cell response. This may be the other portion of the program since it has been in the works for quite some time and probably involved more than two researchers in that time, especially since it started at Novartis and is not ending there.



Quote:
Please do link the studies #-o


I have linked the studies which were linked. You now expanding to more people and general symposium presentations.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 3:51 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
#-o


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group