Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Influenza viruses resistant to oseltamivir, news and updates

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    More or less correct

    Study uncovers cause of flu epidemics.
    Mar 4, 2008


    The exchange of genetic material between two closely related strains of the influenza A virus may have caused the 1947 and 1951 human flu epidemics, according to biologists. The findings could help explain why some strains cause major pandemics and others lead to seasonal epidemics. Until now, it was believed that while reassortment ? when human influenza viruses swap genes with influenza viruses that infect birds ? causes severe pandemics, such as the ?Spanish? flu of 1918, the ?Asian? flu of 1957, and the ?Hong Kong? flu of 1968, while viral mutation leads to regular influenza epidemics. But it has been a mystery why there are sometimes very severe epidemics ? like the ones in 1947 and 1951 ? that look and act like pandemics, even though no human-bird viral reassortment event occurred.

    ?There was a total vaccine failure in 1947. Researchers initially thought there was a problem in manufacturing the vaccine, but they later realized that the virus had undergone a tremendous evolutionary change,? said Martha Nelson, lead author and a graduate student in Penn State?s Department of Biology. ?We now think that the 1947 virus did not just mutate a lot, but that this unusual virus was made through a reassortment event involving two human viruses.

    ?So we have found that the bipolar way of looking at influenza evolution is incorrect, and that reassortment can be an important driver of epidemic influenza as well as pandemic influenza,? said Nelson, whose team?s findings appear in the current issue of PLoS Pathogens. ?We have discovered that you can also have reassortment between viruses that are much more similar, that human viruses can reassort with each other and not just with bird viruses. ?

    Nelson and her colleagues analyzed the evolutionary patterns in the H1N1 strain of the influenza A viruses by looking at 71 whole-genome sequences sampled between 1918 and 2006 and representing 17 different countries on five continents.

    Using the genome data, the researchers constructed phylogenetic trees representing evolutionary relationships across all eight genome segments of the virus.

    Big differences in the shapes of these eight trees signified that reassortment events had occurred.

    The swapping of genes between two closely related strains of the influenza A virus through reassortment may also have caused the 1951 epidemic, which looked and acted in many ways like a pandemic as well. Deaths in the United Kingdom and Canada from this epidemic exceeded those from the 1957 and 1968 pandemics.

    Currently, there are many types of influenza virus that circulate only in birds, which are natural viral reservoirs. Though the viruses do not seem to cause severe disease symptoms in birds, so far three of these viral types have infected humans ? H1N1, H2N2, and H3N2.

    Understanding how each strain evolves over time is crucial. H3N2 is the dominant strain and evolves much more rapidly than H1N1. So the H1N1 component of each year?s flu vaccine has to be updated less often. In comparison, the H3N2 component of the vaccine has been changed four times over the past seven years.

    ?Last year the infections were dominated by H1N1 but we had no way of predicting it,? said Nelson. ?This year the vaccine failure is due to the H3N2 mismatch because researchers picked the wrong strain.?

    The H1N1 virus is particularly unusual because it disappeared completely in 1957, only to mysteriously re-emerge in humans in 1977 in exactly the same form in which it had left. It is still not certain what happened to the virus during its disappearance. But since it did not evolve at all over these twenty years, ?the only plausible explanation is that it was some kind of a lab escape,? says Nelson, who is also affiliated with Penn State?s Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics (CIDD).

    In recent decades, flu infections in the United States have been dominated by yet another reassorted viral strain known as H3N2. This strain caused the Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968, which killed nearly a million people.

    The Penn State researcher says the study shows that the evolution of a virus is not limited to the mutation of single lineage, and that there are multiple strains co-circulating and exchanging genetic material. The H1N1 and H3N2 strains, for instance, are occasionally generating hybrid H1N2 viruses.

    ?If we really want effective vaccines each year, our surveillance has to be much broader than simply looking at one lineage and its evolution, and trying to figure out how it is going to evolve by mutation,? said Nelson. ?You have to look at a much bigger picture.?

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: _|ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE BAFFLES SCIENTISTS|_

      The PLOS paper is nonsense. The 1918 pandemic did NOT involve reassortment.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: _|ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE BAFFLES SCIENTISTS|_

        The H1N1 virus is particularly unusual because it disappeared completely in 1957, only to mysteriously re-emerge in humans in 1977 in exactly the same form in which it had left. It is still not certain what happened to the virus during its disappearance. But since it did not evolve at all over these twenty years, “the only plausible explanation is that it was some kind of a lab escape....
        It was circulating in swine, poultry, & wild birds. See http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/sho...4&postcount=11
        (from this thread: http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/sho...1N1+1957+swine )

        It may have not evolved because it wasn't working to evade a human immune system.

        .
        Last edited by AlaskaDenise; July 15, 2008, 02:13 AM. Reason: added link
        "The next major advancement in the health of American people will be determined by what the individual is willing to do for himself"-- John Knowles, Former President of the Rockefeller Foundation

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: _|ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE BAFFLES SCIENTISTS|_

          By plain words: "we" did it (by vaccination).
          Err. human est.

          "The choice of Solomon Island for the last season was a likely factor in the emergence of Brisbane in the past season, leading to an explosion of H274Y."

          Now, our actual "the best" antiviral bullet oselt. shield policy was crippled by ourself.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: _|ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE BAFFLES SCIENTISTS|_

            niman, the 2002/3 H3-vaccine in USA was an almost perfect match for the circulating strains.
            The "Fujian flu" in USA 2003/4 is due to a surprising reassortment with a rare
            HA which first showed in A/Wellington/3/19-05-2003.
            So in 2002 or even in spring 2003 (when next season's vax is selected), they couldn't
            foresee that the Fujian strain would dominate in the 2003/4 season.
            With nowadays cell-based technology they might have succeeded to produce a
            matching vaccine timely for Northern Hemisphere winter

            (you posted nonsense:
            > In 2002 it was clead that the Fujian strain should replace Panama.
            > However, there were technical issues for getting Fujian to grow in eggs. It would grow
            > after one passage in a mammalian cell, but grow in a mammalian cell was in the protocal
            > and the FDA objected, so Panama was used again and many children needlessly died.
            )

            AD, that was a different virus (comon origin before 1920), not related to the 1977 human H1N1.

            tropical, that is highly hypothetical. Most people are not vaccinated and even vaccinated
            people often get it, even when the vaccine is a good match.
            New strains evolve also without "vaccine support". Early Brisbane/59 strains had no H274Y.

            Hmm, if vaccine created Brisbane/59, then shouldn't it be able to wipe it out too ?
            Maybe they should regularly and timely test whether resistence mutations are viable
            in new strains ?!
            I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
            my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: _|ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE BAFFLES SCIENTISTS|_

              gsgs:
              "that is highly hypothetical"
              From the Dr. Niman text supposition, it seems not.
              That supposition have some similarities with illnessed poultry flocks (Egipt, ...) supposedly (FT thread texts) resulted from mismatched or faulted previously injected vaccines.

              "Maybe they should regularly and timely test whether resistence mutations are viable in new strains ?!
              They should, but with their technic of 6-9 months procedure duration of seasonal vaccine production, the achieving result would be practicaly the same actual, probably.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: _|ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE BAFFLES SCIENTISTS|_

                it could become faster with cell-based vaccines.
                But there is also the problem of exclusive publication
                of results, which somehow(I don't really understand this)
                often leads to a delay of years.

                That the selection of Solomon as H1N1 vaccine did
                significantly contribute to the dominance of Brisbane/59
                -
                is it reported/mentioned elsewhere ?
                I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
                my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: _|ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE BAFFLES SCIENTISTS|_

                  Originally posted by gsgs View Post
                  it could become faster with cell-based vaccines.
                  But there is also the problem of exclusive publication
                  of results, which somehow(I don't really understand this)
                  often leads to a delay of years.

                  That the selection of Solomon as H1N1 vaccine did
                  significantly contribute to the dominance of Brisbane/59
                  -
                  is it reported/mentioned elsewhere ?
                  Maybe the "baffled" issue now becames more knowed.

                  Such research report does not be necessarily published yet.
                  If the above Dr. N. supposition is right, the collected lab material analised trails until now would pointed in that direction.

                  The problem of exclusive publication of results was seen at the time in the begining of AIDS spreading also.
                  The US researcher/founder versus French researcher/founder controversy, which leads to an important (1 year?) delay of a joint statement (naming of the virus/strain ...) and anti-viral countermeasure aknowledgements (if I well remember).

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: _|ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE BAFFLES SCIENTISTS|_

                    Originally posted by tropical View Post
                    By plain words: "we" did it (by vaccination).
                    Err. human est.

                    "The choice of Solomon Island for the last season was a likely factor in the emergence of Brisbane in the past season, leading to an explosion of H274Y."

                    Now, our actual "the best" antiviral bullet oselt. shield policy was crippled by ourself.
                    By plain words: "we" did it AGAIN (by vaccination).
                    In the 2002/2003 season, it was clear that the H3N2 Fujian strain (Fujian/411/02) was becoming dominant, but because of technical reasons, Panama/2007/99 was used again in the vaccine for 2003/2004 leading to many unnecessary deaths due to Fujian infections.
                    This past season, there is no public evidence for H1N1 Solomon Island in the US (MMWR/CDC mis-characterizations not withstanding). The choice of Solomon Island/3 instead of Brisbane/59 allowed H274Y to expand globally.
                    Last edited by sharon sanders; July 15, 2008, 12:19 PM. Reason: typo

                    Comment


                    • Re: _|ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE BAFFLES SCIENTISTS|_

                      Originally posted by gsgs View Post
                      niman, the 2002/3 H3-vaccine in USA was an almost perfect match for the circulating strains.
                      The "Fujian flu" in USA 2003/4 is due to a surprising reassortment with a rare
                      HA which first showed in A/Wellington/3/19-05-2003.
                      So in 2002 or even in spring 2003 (when next season's vax is selected), they couldn't
                      foresee that the Fujian strain would dominate in the 2003/4 season.
                      With nowadays cell-based technology they might have succeeded to produce a
                      matching vaccine timely for Northern Hemisphere winter

                      (you posted nonsense:
                      > In 2002 it was clead that the Fujian strain should replace Panama.
                      > However, there were technical issues for getting Fujian to grow in eggs. It would grow
                      > after one passage in a mammalian cell, but grow in a mammalian cell was in the protocal
                      > and the FDA objected, so Panama was used again and many children needlessly died.
                      )
                      The Fujian story is WELL known. Fujian/411/2002 emerged at the beginning of the 2002/2003 season. The meeting notes of the vaccine selection committee from early 2003 is public. Peter Palesse was pushing for a switch from Panama/2007/99 to Fujian/411/02, but the virus would not grow in chicken eggs unless it was first passaged in mammalian cells (like the VERO cells used by Baxter in their pandemic vaccine). However, the FDA representtaive at the meeting objected to the passage through a mammalian cell because that wasn't in the approved protocol. Palesse argued that one passage wouldn't matter because the passage virus would then be grown in eggs and killed, so risk from one cell passage would be minimal. Industry reps argued that a technical failure in the growth of Fujian could jeapordize the entire vaccine for 2003/2004 season for the northen hemisphere, so Panama was used for 2003/2004 and the number of children deaths were so high that monitoring such deaths was subsequently incorporated into the influenza analysis.

                      This story is VERY well known and is useful when estimating how easy it would be to roll out a pandemic vaccine against an emerging influenza strain.
                      Last edited by sharon sanders; July 15, 2008, 12:18 PM. Reason: typo

                      Comment


                      • Re: _|ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE BAFFLES SCIENTISTS|_

                        Originally posted by gsgs View Post
                        it could become faster with cell-based vaccines.
                        But there is also the problem of exclusive publication
                        of results, which somehow(I don't really understand this)
                        often leads to a delay of years.

                        That the selection of Solomon as H1N1 vaccine did
                        significantly contribute to the dominance of Brisbane/59
                        -
                        is it reported/mentioned elsewhere ?
                        NONE of the published sequences from the US from the 2007/2008 season were Solomon Island.

                        The MMWR/CDC influenza report for the past season was a smoke job.

                        Solomon Island is clade 2A, Brisbane is 2B, Hong Kong is clade 2C. Name the clade 2A isolates from the past season (2007/2008). There are now a number of phylogentic trees in addition to the US sequences and they are ALL missing Solomon Island (in ANY country) from the 2007/2008 season.
                        Last edited by sharon sanders; July 15, 2008, 12:18 PM. Reason: typo

                        Comment


                        • Re: _|ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE BAFFLES SCIENTISTS|_

                          Originally posted by gsgs View Post
                          niman, the 2002/3 H3-vaccine in USA was an almost perfect match for the circulating strains.


                          tropical, that is highly hypothetical. Most people are not vaccinated and even vaccinated
                          people often get it, even when the vaccine is a good match.
                          New strains evolve also without "vaccine support". Early Brisbane/59 strains had no H274Y.

                          Hmm, if vaccine created Brisbane/59, then shouldn't it be able to wipe it out too ?
                          Maybe they should regularly and timely test whether resistence mutations are viable
                          in new strains ?!
                          Brisbane is now widespread, so eliminating it with a vaccine is much more difficult because it will easily evolve away from the vaccine (and take H274Y with it).
                          Last edited by sharon sanders; July 15, 2008, 12:18 PM. Reason: typo

                          Comment


                          • Re: _|ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE BAFFLES SCIENTISTS|_

                            yes, I found your Fujian story, just the year was wrong
                            and it was not that "clear" :
                            Infectious disease experts gather each February to try to predict the flu virus strains that will be most predominant and should be included in the next winter's vaccine. Usually, they guess correctly and this year was no exception -- except their choices

                            so I withdraw the "nonsense", sorry for that, and make it a small "timing inaccuracy".
                            They did know about the Fujian danger in spring 2003 from Korea,Japan outbreaks.
                            But votes were still 17:1 against Fujian, the difficulties to grow it may have contributed but how much ?
                            No genomes with the reassortment before May 2003 are public, only HA,
                            even after 5 years ! They must have some full genomes from the Japan,Korea outbreaks
                            in 2002, they must have known about the reassortment in spring 2003 (?)
                            I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
                            my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

                            Comment


                            • Re: _|ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE BAFFLES SCIENTISTS|_

                              Originally posted by niman View Post
                              The PLOS paper is nonsense. The 1918 pandemic did NOT involve reassortment.
                              Only point in that posting was the mention of inappropriate choice of vaccine strains driving evolutionary pressure that results in (perhaps) new-to-human strains, causing epidemics.

                              The literature isn't exactly chocablock in citations admitting this. Should have pointed this out.

                              Also agree with AlaskaDenise's observation that H1N1 didn't 'disappear' from the isolate record.

                              The thrust of this thread is this: we have plenty of evidence that inappropriate choice of vaccine strains and their widespread use for one or more seasons can potentially harm more than help.

                              Niman has made this point in his posts on suspicions of H5N1 vaccine evasion
                              in Egypt.

                              Where vaccination is vigorously employed to contain outbreaks, and the viral genome is plastically adept at immune evasion, the 'wrong' choice of vaccine strain to combat human and animal disease may carry heavy consequences in subsequent years.

                              At least one factor that accounts for this condition is the growth rate in egg culture. I am sure there are other factors that could be identified with a bit of effort.

                              I think you should hammer out a rapid communication on this subject, Niman.

                              Comment


                              • Re: _|ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE BAFFLES SCIENTISTS|_

                                Originally posted by gsgs View Post
                                yes, I found your Fujian story, just the year was wrong
                                and it was not that "clear" :
                                Infectious disease experts gather each February to try to predict the flu virus strains that will be most predominant and should be included in the next winter's vaccine. Usually, they guess correctly and this year was no exception -- except their choices

                                so I withdraw the "nonsense", sorry for that, and make it a small "timing inaccuracy".
                                They did know about the Fujian danger in spring 2003 from Korea,Japan outbreaks.
                                But votes were still 17:1 against Fujian, the difficulties to grow it may have contributed but how much ?
                                No genomes with the reassortment before May 2003 are public, only HA,
                                even after 5 years ! They must have some full genomes from the Japan,Korea outbreaks
                                in 2002, they must have known about the reassortment in spring 2003 (?)
                                The transcripts form the Feb and March meetings in 2003 used to be public, but so far I have only found a January transcript. By Feb/March, the data were in. Here is one description written in Dec 2003:

                                Federal officials were prevented from replacing the A/Panama strain with the Fujian strain emerging out of Asia and being detected in Europe and the U.S. last spring because scientists in labs around the world were unable to isolate and grow the virus in a way that would allow vaccine production. Transcripts from the February 20 and March 18, 2003 meetings of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) reveal that health officials around the world knew the genetically mutated Fujian strain was associated with significant morbidity and mortality and that last year's vaccine showed little protection against it.
                                Fisher, who was the consumer voting member of the FDA Advisory Committee, abstained from the strain selection vote on March 18, saying "I feel uncomfortable voting for inclusion of an A/Panama-like virus, when what may really be needed is an A/Fujian-like virus. So I am going to abstain and urge that the public be informed that next year's flu vaccine may not be protective against an emerging strain."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X