MIT: new drug may be to virusses what antibiotics are for bacteria

[Sasha]

New Drug Can Treat Almost Any Viral Infection By Killing the Body's Infected Cells (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-08/new-drug-can-treat-almost-any-viral-infection-cold-flu-killing-infected-cells)

By Rebecca Boyle (http://www.popsci.com/category/popsci-authors/rebecca-boyle) Posted 08.10.2011 at 12:06 pm 9 Comments (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-08/new-drug-can-treat-almost-any-viral-infection-cold-flu-killing-infected-cells?page=#comments)

http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/Picture%201_63.png Virus Therapy In the left set, rhinovirus (the common cold virus) kills untreated human cells (lower left), whereas DRACO has no toxicity in uninfected cells (upper right) and cures an infected cell population (lower right). Similarly, in the right set, dengue hemorrhagic fever virus kills untreated monkey cells (lower left), whereas DRACO has no toxicity in uninfected cells (upper right) and cures an infected cell population (lower right). MIT

A new broad-spectrum treatment for viruses (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html) could be as effective as antibiotics fighting bacteria, MIT researchers report. The method uses cells’ own defense systems to induce invaded cells to commit suicide, preventing the spread of the virus. In lab tests, the new drug completely cured mice that had been infected with influenza.
Viruses work by inserting themselves into a cell and hijacking its machinery for its own use. The invaded cell then creates more copies of the virus, which involves creating long strings of double-stranded RNA — which contains the virus’ genetic material, like DNA contains ours.

(http://www.popsci.com/category/tags/viruses)
When the virus is done copying itself, its hostage cell usually dies, from the virus bursting through its walls (lysis), changes to the cell’s outer membrane, and from apoptosis, or programmed cell death. Human cells have plenty of defenses against viral invasion, including proteins that attach to the double-stranded RNA, preventing the virus from replicating itself after successful invasion.
This new drug therapy combines those dsRNA proteins with a protein that induces apoptosis. It’s called a DRACO, Double-stranded RNA Activated Caspase Oligomerizer.
When one end of the DRACO binds to dsRNA, it signals the other end of the DRACO to induce cell suicide, an MIT News article (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html) explains. In this way, the cell is killed before the virus can take over and eventually kill it anyway. If there is no dsRNA, the healthy cells are left alone.
“In theory, it should work against all viruses,” said Todd Rider, a senior staff scientist at MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory who invented the new technology.
A handful of drugs can target specific viruses by interfering with their replication process, through addition of modified DNA building blocks or the blocking of enzymes the viruses need to stimulate the replication process. But viruses are wily bugs, and they can evolve to resist these treatments.
The DRACO therapy could be effective because it targets the host cell, not just the virus.
Rider and colleagues are testing DRACO against more viruses in mice, according to MIT. Rider hopes to license the technology for trials in larger animals and for eventual human clinical trials, too.
[MIT News (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html)]





that would be a huge step if this works....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This could be a potential game-changer, although I suspect that that early interventions would be most effective.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

I feel as if it might back fore and have most cells commit suicide, killing you, I wonder if it will work though

[Sasha]

No, it only kills already infected cells, killing the virus and simultaniously preventing the further spread of the virus.

[#FF0000]

i love living in the future goddamn

[RadioRaheem84]

The future is here but capitalism keeps it from being spread to everyone, leaving some in the past.

[gendoikari]

The future is here but capitalism keeps it from being spread to everyone, leaving some in the past.

Bull fucking shit, it doesn't JUST keep it from spreading it holds back the future, capitalism only works for binging the future of consumer items, if america was a PURE capitalist society we would NEVER have been to the moon or know half as much about the universe as we do.

[RadioRaheem84]

Bull fucking shit, it doesn't JUST keep it from spreading it holds back the future, capitalism only works for binging the future of consumer items, if america was a PURE capitalist society we would NEVER have been to the moon or know half as much about the universe as we do.

True. I do not deny that. But nationalized entities and public funding for research isn't exactly socialist. This is much more apparent when you see that the socialized risks come off as private gains for the owners of wealth. So even with subsidized technology we can still call the system capitalist. The nations with the least subsidized tech fields come out last and get stuck in the past, i.e. the more neo-liberal ones.

Again, the problem is still a lack of spread.

[piet11111]

I feel as if it might back fore and have most cells commit suicide, killing you, I wonder if it will work though

The infected cells would have been killed by the virus anyway as a virus invades a healthy cell reproduces inside until the cell explodes and spreads to the next healthy cell.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Bull fucking shit, it doesn't JUST keep it from spreading it holds back the future, capitalism only works for binging the future of consumer items, if america was a PURE capitalist society we would NEVER have been to the moon or know half as much about the universe as we do.

The US used to have a much more public-spirited attitude to science (even if was mostly done to show up the Soviets), that they no longer possess. The narcissistic greed of our rulers has now become too great even for such grand gestures.

It seems to be part of the on-going decay of the capitalist price system.

[Susurrus]

The guy who invented the polio vaccine did not try to profit off of it. When asked "Who owns this patent?", Salk replied, "No one. Could you patent the sun?" We need more scientists like him.

[The Vegan Marxist]

How would this affect endogenous retroviruses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus)?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

My cynical side thinks this will be patented and extremely expensive when (if) it comes out as approved for humans.

[The Vegan Marxist]

My cynical side thinks this will be patented and extremely expensive when (if) it comes out as approved for humans.

Of course it'll be quite expensive at first. But I seriously hope that this then doesn't lead you to the conclusion of not having it at all. I mean, if there's anything that we know of technology/medicine prices over time, it's this: as the technology or new medicines become more efficient, it's prices will then decrease at the same rate.

Meaning, while the newest technologies may be the most expensive, in comparison to what said technology will cost in the next couple years, said technology will also be a lot more efficient in the next couple years, in comparison to its earliest version.

So, we then can conclude:

1) early, inefficient technologies = most expensive version of said technology; and

2) later, more efficient technologies = least expensive version of said technology.

[Sasha]

and if this works this will be no matter what way cheaper than specialized designer drugs for very rare specific diseases.

something so effective on such a variety of diseases with an possibility to produced on such a large scale will make so much more money being cheap than if it was expensive and exclusive.

imagine being the guy who patents bread, what would make you more money, it being 1000 euro a loaf or it being 1.50?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

and if this works this will be no matter what way cheaper than specialized designer drugs for very rare specific diseases.

something so effective on such a variety of diseases with an possibility to produced on such a large scale will make so much more money being cheap than if it was expensive and exclusive.

imagine being the guy who patents bread, what would make you more money, it being 1000 euro a loaf or it being 1.50?
Makes sense to you and I, but tell that to the American pharmaceutical industry.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Makes sense to you and I, but tell that to the American pharmaceutical industry.

They'd tell you the same thing. Reason being by over-the-counter or doctor-prescribed drugs are a lot cheaper than, say, the operations done for specific, "rare" illnesses/diseases.

[Revy]

Does this work against HIV?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

They'd tell you the same thing. Reason being by over-the-counter or doctor-prescribed drugs are a lot cheaper than, say, the operations done for specific, "rare" illnesses/diseases.
Since when is $50-100 for a prescription still in-patent cheap?!

And if you don't have insurance, wow! Double it at the very least.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Since when is $50-100 for a prescription still in-patent cheap?!

If we could make this new drug $50-100, or hell, even $200-300, that would still be very cheap given as to what this drug promises: the elimination of relatively all body's viral infections.

While it may be seen as an expensive drug, if it works then people would be able to save thousands upon thousands of dollars over the years. So, in short-terms, maybe it is expensive, but in long-terms, it'll become a massive money saver.

[MarxSchmarx]

You all thought evolving bacterial resistance to antibiotics was bad, wait until something like this takes hold.

The authors are kidding themselves that viruses won't be able to get around this because it somehow affects the host cell. Bullshit. Trust me, viruses will find a way. It's just a matter of time, and it won't be long at that.

The only viable long term solution to modern infectious viral diseases are social. When we reduce the environmental risks of disease transmission we will see effective control. It is no accident that AIDS is largely absent from Cuba but wreaking havoc on sub-Saharan Africa

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You all thought evolving bacterial resistance to antibiotics was bad, wait until something like this takes hold.

The authors are kidding themselves that viruses won't be able to get around this because it somehow affects the host cell. Bullshit. Trust me, viruses will find a way. It's just a matter of time, and it won't be long at that.

I wish I had your level of faith.


The only viable long term solution to modern infectious viral diseases are social. When we reduce the environmental risks of disease transmission we will see effective control. It is no accident that AIDS is largely absent from Cuba but wreaking havoc on sub-Saharan Africa

Cuba is a politically unified island, sub-Saharan Africa is a large part of a major continent divided among various different countries. I don't think your comparison is valid, and never mind the fact that all the social policies in the world, while they may help control the spread of the disease, do nothing to actually treat it.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Does this work against HIV?
?

[piet11111]

You all thought evolving bacterial resistance to antibiotics was bad, wait until something like this takes hold.

Then we are right back here because we do not have any really effective anti viral medicines only stuff like Tamiflu that is sometimes effective.

[MarxSchmarx]

You all thought evolving bacterial resistance to antibiotics was bad, wait until something like this takes hold. Then we are right back here because we do not have any really effective anti viral medicines only stuff like Tamiflu that is sometimes effective.

Yeah, I think the lessons from influenza are very stark. Vaccination strategies have had varying degrees of success but it comes down to this problem of the flu virus evolving the capacity to evade the vaccine and spread very quickly. Airborne influenza is particularly hard to control, but the principle is the same for many viral diseases. I think this strategy to treating viral infections will give us more time, but tamiflu is a good analogy.



I wish I had your level of faith


Faith in what? Viruses have been around and doing their thing very well for billions of years and have been a bane on us for tens of thousands of years. We humans think with that just because we have hydrogen bombs, three-colored toothpaste and iphones that we can beat them in a matter of a century and a half.




Cuba is a politically unified island, sub-Saharan Africa is a large part of a major continent divided among various different countries. I don't think your comparison is valid, and never mind the fact that all the social policies in the world, while they may help control the spread of the disease, do nothing to actually treat it.

The point is that infectious diseases have ceased to be the major cause of death in many societies not because we found some miracle cure, but because we have instituted changes that stop the spread of this disease. AIDS is just a vivid and famous example, the cuba/sub-saharan Africa was merely a particularly stark example of that.

Actually what convinced me of this was cholera. This used to be a serious problem in damp, warm places like southern Japan and the eastern United States. Now it is almost unheard of in those places thanks not to some miracle drug treatment but by modern sanitation, whereas it still has periodic outbreaks in places like Bangladesh where there is very limited state social policies to develop such a system.

I'm not advocating against treatment. It's just that the enormous amounts of resources spent to find a cure, and the widespread perception that we need a silver bullet for curing diseases after they arise, is misguided. While this attitude makes sense for some illnesses that are largely non-communicative like cancer, for infectious diseases intervening in the transmission process has proven far more effective as a public health strategy.

[LegendZ]

Any idea if this could work on HIV or AIDS? This could save a lot of lives if so. Especially if mass produced and sent to Africa.

[Sasha]

You all thought evolving bacterial resistance to antibiotics was bad, wait until something like this takes hold.

The authors are kidding themselves that viruses won't be able to get around this because it somehow affects the host cell. Bullshit. Trust me, viruses will find a way. It's just a matter of time, and it won't be long at that.

The only viable long term solution to modern infectious viral diseases are social. When we reduce the environmental risks of disease transmission we will see effective control. It is no accident that AIDS is largely absent from Cuba but wreaking havoc on sub-Saharan Africa

A. Would you say that we should never have developed anti-biotics?

B. Antibiotic resistant bacteria have far more to do with capitalist exploitation of antibiotics in the bioindustry and people not finishing their treatment thanks to poor medical care and knowledge than with the concept of antibiotics.

[Fulanito de Tal]

I remember learning in biology class that viruses cannot be killed because they don't meet the criteria for living beings.

I found this on the "Life" page for wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Viruses


Viruses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus) are most often considered replicators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicator) rather than forms of life. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life,"[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#cite_note-22) since they possess genes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene), evolve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) by natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection),[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#cite_note-pmid17914905-23) and replicate by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. However, viruses do not metabolize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism) and require a host cell to make new products. Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life), as it may support the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#cite_note-pmid16984643-24)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#cite_note-25)
Preventing it from replicating seems to be the best approach we have come up with.

[MarxSchmarx]

A. Would you say that we should never have developed anti-biotics?

B. Antibiotic resistant bacteria have far more to do with capitalist exploitation of antibiotics in the bioindustry and people not finishing their treatment thanks to poor medical care and knowledge than with the concept of antibiotics.

A. Why would I?

B. What makes you think that this drug created in a capitalist society with people not finishing their treatment regimes is any less susceptible to the exact same problems?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

B. What makes you think that this drug created in a capitalist society with people not finishing their treatment regimes is any less susceptible to the exact same problems?

Nothing, but even so I strongly suspect that more people would have died if we didn't invent antibiotics.

[MarxSchmarx]

Nothing, but even so I strongly suspect that more people would have died if we didn't invent antibiotics.

This is a bit disengenous don't you think? I wasn't saying (or implying) that we shouldn't have invested in antibiotics at all, or that they shouldn't have been invented or used in the first place. The point was that they were not the panacea they were widely held to be, and in reading through that article history struck me as being about to repeat itself, if indeed this treatment modality has the benefits they claim it has.

Having said this, it's also worth point out that to equate the social infrastructure that surrounded the discovery of penicillin with the corporate and state machinery that supported this discovery about viruses is to ignore the social role that ideology plays in science.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is a bit disengenous don't you think? I wasn't saying (or implying) that we shouldn't have invested in antibiotics at all, or that they shouldn't have been invented or used in the first place. The point was that they were not the panacea they were widely held to be, and in reading through that article history struck me as being about to repeat itself, if indeed this treatment modality has the benefits they claim it has.

The issue as I see it is that viruses are not bacteria - they are much simpler replicators. This simplicity means the "phase space" of potential viruses is orders of magnitude smaller, giving viruses much less "wiggle room" when it comes to evolving responses to human treatments. Since viruses are not truly alive, they are dependant on host cells to replicate, and that right there is a shortcoming that human ingenuity can exploit. Even if viruses find/have a different method of hijacking the cell's processes to propagate itself, that this new method does not address, then our increasing knowledge of the cell increases the chance for another method to be found.


Having said this, it's also worth point out that to equate the social infrastructure that surrounded the discovery of penicillin with the corporate and state machinery that supported this discovery about viruses is to ignore the social role that ideology plays in science.

This kind of argument has always bothered me. History, by my judgment, makes it crystal clear when state and corporate interference hurts the scientific process - Lysenkoism, the patenting of the human genome and other natural commons, etc. But beyond that, I think vague statements regarding "the social role of ideology in science" constitute little more than an ideological affirmation, a mantra to be repeated by the faithful.

For example, the energy companies have a vested interest in maintaining consumption of fossil hydrocarbons, yet in spite of their billions of dollars in influence which they have gleefully employed, the majority opinion of climate scientists is that there is solid evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

Reality trumps ideology every time.

[MarxSchmarx]

The issue as I see it is that viruses are not bacteria - they are much simpler replicators. This simplicity means the "phase space" of potential viruses is orders of magnitude smaller, giving viruses much less "wiggle room" when it comes to evolving responses to human treatments. Since viruses are not truly alive, they are dependant on host cells to replicate, and that right there is a shortcoming that human ingenuity can exploit. Even if viruses find/have a different method of hijacking the cell's processes to propagate itself, that this new method does not address, then our increasing knowledge of the cell increases the chance for another method to be found.


Two things:

1. I don't think your dichotomy withstands closer scrutiny. True, viruses cannot replicate independent of their host cell while bacteria can. But it is also true that bacteria (at least the kind that trouble humans) cannot replicate outside of specific environmental conditions, and in many cases outside of the human body. Insofar as bacteria that cause the bulk of infectious diseases are concerned, they are just as much obligate parasites and only by growing them on artificial media like agar can we in any sense speak of them as capable of living outside of their host. The fact is, pathogenic bacteria are also dependent on their hosts, just in a different way that viruses are.

2. The contention that viruses are less adaptable, at least as it concerns RNA viruses (which are by and large the main trouble makers) is simply not true. Viruses have notoriously bad error-correction mechanisms during copying genetic information and are prone to mutation at rates orders of magnitudes higher than other life forms. They also have a much, much faster replication rate. The combination of very rapid generation times and considerable mutational errors make them among the most evolvable "organisms" around.

In short, whatever other advantages that this cure might have in terms of minimizing resistance evolution, the obligate nature of viral pathogenesis and the evolutionary stability of viruses cannot be counted as unique virtues of viruses and are arguably detrimental.




Having said this, it's also worth point out that to equate the social infrastructure that surrounded the discovery of penicillin with the corporate and state machinery that supported this discovery about viruses is to ignore the social role that ideology plays in science.

This kind of argument has always bothered me. History, by my judgment, makes it crystal clear when state and corporate interference hurts the scientific process - Lysenkoism, the patenting of the human genome and other natural commons, etc. But beyond that, I think vague statements regarding "the social role of ideology in science" constitute little more than an ideological affirmation, a mantra to be repeated by the faithful.

For example, the energy companies have a vested interest in maintaining consumption of fossil hydrocarbons, yet in spite of their billions of dollars in influence which they have gleefully employed, the majority opinion of climate scientists is that there is solid evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

Reality trumps ideology every time.

Although I think a survey of modern academic economics departments would contradict your claim that "reality trumps ideology every time", nevertheless you are in some sense correct - of course the speed of light will remain the same under communism or capitalism.

The question becomes not so much what answers are provided for a given question but how, and to some extent what, questions are asked in the first place. And if you look here, the evidence especially in medicine is overwhelming that social priorities dictate the overall direction of the research agenda (it is also why there are journals such as "neglected tropical diseases").

Not to get too OT, but climate change is hardly an exception to this rule. For one, atmospheric science was largely ignored by energy companies but as an offshoot of meteorologists and to some extent aeronautics provided the boost for its development as a modern science. As academic earth science became funded by the state as well, the challenge to energy companies developed largely because this branch of science matured while serving a very useful social role that was independent of any concerns about energy. Only when it got to the point where it's conclusions were challenging the interests of energy companies (a development, by the way, hardly unique to atmospheric sciences - another example would be statistic's challenge to tobacco companies) did it seem like there was a "social basis" for the science being conducted. But it's important to understand that things like the ozone hole weren't discovered by philistine monks contemplating abstract propositions, but by the likes of the British Antarctic Survey which had very real political and social mandates

[Lynx]

Modern transportation systems have helped bacteria and viruses mutate and spread in ways they previously could not. So have hospitals. There are pros and cons to each development, whether they be technological or social.
Recent example involving rodents: Supermouse (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0811/1224302232972.html)

[MarxSchmarx]

Modern transportation systems have helped bacteria and viruses mutate and spread in ways they previously could not. So have hospitals. There are pros and cons to each development, whether they be technological or social.
Recent example involving rodents: Supermouse (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0811/1224302232972.html)

That's an excellent point. But I think everyone here believes that these institutions like transport systems and hospitals are here to stay. So the question becomes, what sort of model of disease intervention do we adopt against the backdrop of a porous society?

[Tablo]

Well, I'm excited if this really is a virus "cure-all", but as MarxShmarx said, it could be less effective with excessive use. Also, as he said, there are many other things we should be focusing on as well in the fight against illness(sewage systems being a big one) It should be applied only in situations that make it a necessity, not for a case of the common cold we could easily get over.