In the meantime, the mortality rate of this flu, while initially high in the Mexico City area, has fallen overall to around 2% or less, in line with annual deaths during flu season. Those who contract the virus are still those generally considered to be in the healthiest range of the population. On the vaccine development front there have been several developments since the 2009 Swine Flu epidemic began:

On April 29 vaccine researchers at St. Louis University announced that they’d accomplished the first step in developing a universal vaccine against pandemic influenza. To accomplish this the researchers used proteins (engineered a ‘bug’ that produced said proteins from genetic sequences coding for them) from both A and B influenza strains. The vaccine introduces those proteins so the body can engineer antibodies specific to them. More testing is needed, they say, before the vaccine is ready for prime time.

On May 1 Juergen A. Richt, a pathobiologist at Kansas State University’s college of veterinary medicine released findings that the current lineage of H1N1 Swine Flu is a descendant of the 1918 strain that killed more than 20 million people worldwide. For the study Richt and colleagues from Canada, USDA and Mount Sinai engineered their ‘bug’ in a biosafety-level-4 lab (like the one at UT-Austin) at the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease in Canada using elements from both the 1918 virus and a 1930 descendent of that virus.

On May 22 researchers at the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Vaccine Research announced that they’d evoked a robust immune response with a vaccine made of virus-like particles [VLPs], which are just the protein coats of actual viruses without any genes inside. This approach, which like other approaches involves genetic manipulation to produce the “hollow” virus shells, may work better than attenuated virus vaccines. The new vaccine for Human Papilloma Virus is a VLP.

And finally, on June 4 Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News reported that scientists around the world are accelerating efforts to develop an effective vaccine against the current Chimera strain. This is ‘news’ in the GE/biotech community because genetic manipulation is standard operating procedure in the development of influenza vaccines, of any type – live, attenuated, killed and dissociated or VLP. Step #1 is to engineer your Chimera.

No matter how the Chimera came to be, Bellerophon is engineered very much on purpose. I personally like the idea of the VLP vaccine, as it ONLY has coat proteins and it excites a more robust immune response to those than to dissociated coat proteins. The robust response is to the form of the viral shell. Even better, if these beasties get out in an ‘oops’ it won’t kill anybody – it’ll just immunize ‘em. Let’s all hope one of these is available come September.

Well, I’ve got to admit this much-touted development in the world of medical research took me somewhat by surprise. Mostly because it caused me to stop eating my grilled cheese sandwich mid-bite to wonder “Huh? Why in the world would they do that?”

Seems this week’s Nature is reporting that researchers in Japan have managed to genetically engineer the green fluorescent protein gene into primates – specifically marmosets. Yes, these endearingly cute little monkeys have been engineered to express the gene in their hair roots, skin and blood, all of which glow green under UV light sources.

Now, I can understand why tropical fish aficionados might want several tetras of each color (they’ve got several now) in their aquarium to impress friends, neighbors and potential mates, but glowing green marmosets? You’ve got to have a primate license to own any kind of monkey or ape! The researchers responsible for this development say that this feat of genetic engineering could lead to monkeys being bred with genetic changes that would make them good animal models of human diseases.

Researchers have been breeding genetically engineered mice for decades to exhibit specific genetically influenced disease conditions so they can work on treatments and cures, but rodents aren’t close enough to humans on the evolutionary tree to be all that useful for the purpose. Primates would, they contend, be much better models because they actually are close to humans genomically speaking. If a team believes it has discovered a particular gene that causes something like Parkinson’s Disease or Alzheimers or ALS or such, they could engineer a line of monkeys that carry the defect – thus suffer the disease – so researchers can play with various methods of treatment that might someday be effective for people who suffer the disease.

Transgenic primates have been created before, but have never managed to pass the engineering on to their offspring. This means “lines” of, say, Parkinson’s monkeys haven’t proved out.

The development is causing some concern among animal rights activists and anti-vivisectionists who object to creating populations of genetically diseased primates exclusively so they can serve as the subjects for painful (and often fatal) experiments. The new development will open the ethical debates that must accompany animal-based research, so perhaps will be a good thing.

And what of these glow in the dark marmosets? Well, humans that glow in the dark generally don’t get that trait from jellyfish genes, so these little monkeys aren’t actually useful for medical research beyond ‘the usual’ medical research performed on little monkeys. I figure they’ll start showing up at high end pet shops along with those multi-colored glow in the dark fish, a curiosity for the rich and bored. Those clever Japanese!

Links:

Glowing green monkeys set ‘dangerous precedent’
‘Glowing’ Transgenic Monkeys Carry Green Fluorescent Protein Gene

The 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to the discoverers of the ‘green fluorescent protein’, known as GFP.

This remarkable protein was first observed in a species of jellyfish in 1962, and in the years since has become one of the most important biochemical tools. by attaching GFP to other proteins of interest, such as nerve cells and cancer cells, those proteins can be followed in their actions allowing scientists to map the activities of biological functions. And while that type of research may be fairly obscure for regular people to understand and follow, the GFP protein and some engineered brother proteins have been put to a commercial use most of us can relate to…

If you have an aquarium and pay attention to the very latest in cool tropical fish, you’ve no doubt heard about GloFish. These originally engineered zebrafish (that now pass their glow onto their offspring naturally) come in the standard ‘electric green’, but also in ‘starfire red’ and ‘sunburst orange’! Yes, they do faintly glow in the dark, but are best shown off under a fluorescent black light.

You could see these in your dentist or doctor’s office waiting room if you don’t have any already, so impress your care-giver by talking about the GFP protein and how the discoverers finally got their Nobel Prize! It probably won’t get you a discount on that filling or check-up, but it’ll give you something besides your sore knee or the increase in your insurance premium this year to talk about.

Links:
Green Fluorescent Protein Pioneers Share 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry
GloFish: Experience the Glo!

When I started college in the late 1960s in Oklahoma, I could buy gas for my Volkswagon Bug for 19.9¢ a gallon. That’s 5 gallons for a dollar, enough to drive home to visit the folks, drive around town to see friends, and get back to college without having to stop at a gas station. This past weekend I drove our little pickup to Gatlinburg, Tennessee to see an old Navy buddy, a round trip equivalent to that past Oklahoma weekend trek. Gas for the journey cost us right around $50. A dollar’s worth won’t get me to the grocery store and back any more, and it doesn’t look like the price is ever going to come down.

The going price per barrel of petroleum is pushing $150 hard and will probably go over $200 before the end of the year. Diesel fuel is a dollar more expensive than gasoline, and the price of everything grown on a farm and transported by ship, train or truck must go up accordingly.

The good news – or, at least the hopeful news is that progress is being made in deciding what replacement fuels we should be developing. Most people are skeptical of corn-based ethanol and the diversion of food crops as well as crop land to biofuels. And while new techniques can make biofuels from native vegetation like switchgrass or even algae, the fact is that plants aren’t very efficient at converting solar energy into the biomass required.

Biotech researchers are now turning to engineered microorganisms as both helpers in turning biomass into fuels and as fuel themselves – photosynthetic bacteria that can capture sunlight energy 100 times more efficiently than plants – that can be grown in massive amounts without competing for cropland.

It does appear that the time has finally come when human civilization must change its ways, the only questions being how much it’s going to hurt regular people and which nations and/or multinational corporations will corner the markets. Perhaps biotechnology can be put to good use creating new fuel sources instead of turning staple foods into pesticides. That would be a positive change of focus, help get the tarnish of public resistance off the biotech bus, and maybe even save the planet.

But you and I will probably be paying at least $5 a gallon to fill our tanks, no matter what kind of fuels are developed. Just something we’ll have to get used to.

Links:

New Source for Biofuels Discovered
Harnessing Microbes to Meet Future Energy Needs
Are microbes the answer to the energy crisis?

In its mad bid to privatize and control the world’s agriculture and food supply with its patented biotech seeds and cushy revolving door within governmental regulatory agencies, Monsanto cannot be very happy with a recent Soil Association report that shows GM crops decrease yields, whether it’s cotton or soybeans or corn.

As reported in The Washington Post, the biotech industry immediately released yet another bought-and-paid-for report claiming totally opposite conclusions (some things don’t change just because the science is against you). The Soil Association report took a serious look at reality, something quite refreshing in this field. The material included among other citations:

• a 2007 study from Kansas State University that showed Roundup Ready soy has suffered “yield drag” since it was introduced, producing an average of 9-25% less per acre than conventional soy.

• a rigorous independent US study under controlled conditions demonstrating that Bt corn yields up to 12% less than conventional corn.

• an article in Nature Biotechnology reporting that Bt cotton doesn’t even express the engineered pesticide in 25% of some varieties sold under exclusive license.

The crop failures and their tragic effects on farmers in poorer nations may be a product of the technology itself according to some analysts.

US scientists have finally called for more access to biotech crop data so they can perform studies to assess environmental impacts of the technology as well. Indications are that herbicide resistance has increased herbicide usage (polluting land and water), led to pest immunity (with increased crop losses), creates “superweeds” from wild relatives that are hard to eradicate, and may even have something to do with massive die-offs of bees in recent years.

A quote from Michelle Marvier of Santa Clara University in the ag-dependent state of California pretty much sums up the situation -

“Since 1996 more than a billion acres have been planted with biotech crops in the U.S. We don’t really know what are the pros and cons of this important new agricultural technology.”

Huh. I thought these are just the sort of things USDA and the FDA were supposed to find out before the technology was deployed on such a massive scale. Who could have guessed that allowing corporate control of law, policy and regulatory oversight might lead to bad law, policy and regulatory oversight? Oops…

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is reporting this week that researchers from the US and Canada have successfully tested several vaccines for Ebola in primates, and are now seeking to modify them for human use.

This is a significant development not because Ebola in its natural habitat is such a grave danger to humanity, but because it’s got a 90% fatality rate and thus represents a threat to humanity as a bioweapon. While Ebola is not easily spread (direct contact with bodily fluids of an infected person or animal is required), officials have long been concerned that it could be “weaponized” – as has been done with anthrax, for instance – into a form that will be easily infective. There have been just over 1500 documented cases of Ebola in humans, and so far it does not seem to have been used as a bioweapon.

The Federation of American Scientists maintains an Ebola Fact Sheet indicating that the Soviet Union probably investigated weaponizing Ebola. There have been three reported incidents of researchers being infected after being stuck with contaminated syringes. Those in England and the U.S. recovered, one in Russia died. There is no effective treatment for the disease, and while the current research is hopeful, there is no vaccine to prevent it.

The biosafety threat level for Ebola is 4, a rating it shares with the 18 other hemorrhagic fevers it is akin to. Because the dead virus does not produce an effective immune response, researchers have been trying several different recombinant DNA techniques. The latest, most effective candidates are soon to be tested on humans. It is hoped that if the testing proves successful, the techniques will be as useful in developing vaccines for other hemorrhagic fever viruses, HIV and avian influenza.

Links:

Vaccine for Ebola Virus Successful in Primates
Ebola Fact Sheet

The Chicago Tribune reports this week that scientists at Loyola University have established that the pollen, leaves and other plant parts of corn engineered to kill the European corn borer with Bt toxins could endanger the American midwest’s aquatic ecosystems when washed into nearby streams.

When eaten by aquatic insects called caddisflies, the Bt toxin stunts growth and increases mortality. These insects are food for fish and amphibians in the ecosystem. The scientists reportedly ‘feel’ that such unanticipated effects of GE technology need to be investigated, but of course the EPA and USDA (and Monsanto) don’t feel that way at all.

It might be difficult to separate the effects of GE plant wastes from the general toxic overload caused by modern agribusiness mega-farming practices, which also cause death and deformity among aquatic life forms and amphibians in midwestern ecosystems. And while consumers at home and abroad have made it known that they do not wish to consume genetically engineered pesticides disguised as food, the new market for corn as ethanol fodder makes it unlikely that GM corn is going to be phased out any time soon.

Related Links:

Older farmers less likely to plant Bt corn

GM corn might affect ecosystems

Eat to Live: 1 million against GM food

Eat to Live: Agriculture inspectors chided