News: Unexpected Weakness in H1N1's Method for Evading Detection by the Immune System.
Ye Old One
Immune System
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210111201.htm
ScienceDaily (Dec. 11, 2009) � The H1N1 influenza virus has been
keeping a secret that may be the key to defeating it and other flu
viruses as well.
Researchers at Rice University and Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)
have found what they believe is a weakness in H1N1's method for
evading detection by the immune system.
Comparing its genetic sequences going all the way back to the virus's
first known appearance in the deadly "Spanish flu" outbreak of 1918,
they discovered a previously unrealized role of receptor-binding
residues in host evasion, which effectively becomes a bottleneck that
keeps the virus in check.
Rice's Jianpeng Ma and graduate student Jun Shen and BCM's Qinghua
Wang compared the sequences of more than 300 strains of H1N1 to track
its evolution; they reported their results in a recent online edition
of the scientific journal PLoS ONE.
The researchers were looking in particular at hemagglutinin (HA), the
protein "hook" that allows the virus to attach itself to and infect
host cells. It's long been known that five regions of H1N1's HA serve
as antigenic sites, the protein fragments that trigger the body's
immune system. These antigenic sites, first mapped in 1981, shuffle
their amino-acid sequences in the endless cat-and-mouse game that
viruses play to survive.
The researchers discovered several key residues involved in both
antigenic sites and the receptor-binding site, the part of the protein
that attaches to a cell and allows the virus to invade.
The common belief has been that the receptor binding could not change.
"The site is known, but no one thought it was involved in the immune
system. In order to recognize the receptor, that particular region has
to be robust," Ma said. "But it turns out this region is not only
variable, but also interacts with the immune system."
For a virus to evade antibodies, all five antigenic sites would have
to disguise themselves by mutating. The new finding led the
researchers to believe the receptor-binding residues would also have
to mutate, but not so much that the binding no longer works. "If the
binding is abolished, the virus dies," said Ma, a Rice professor in
bioengineering with a joint appointment at BCM.
Such dual-function residues are a likely bottleneck for the virus, he
said, because they're under the tightest restrictions. Thus, they
could be easier to track over time and may chart a path to predict
future mutations that will aid in vaccine design.
"It becomes a weak link and provides us with a window into the virus
that we can monitor," Ma said. "The virus's bottleneck is our
opportunity."
Wang, an assistant professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at
BCM who has long studied the structure and function of HA, has been
involved in the project since it began and is now working to verify
the results in vitro. She hopes confirming the computations will lead
to more efficiency in creating vaccines not only for H1N1 but also for
other strains of the flu.
"An underlying implication is that this may not be restricted to
H1N1," Wang said. "It may apply to other influenza viruses as well. If
studying viral evolution can help predict what will cause a severe
problem in humans, you can actually pre-stock vaccines, which will
save time."
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health,
National Science Foundation, Welch Foundation, the Welch Chemistry and
Biology Collaborative Grant from the John S. Dunn Gulf Coast
Consortium for Chemical Genomics and the Rice Faculty Initiatives
Fund.
--
Bob.
Desertphile
wrote:
> Unexpected Weakness in H1N1's Method for Evading Detection by the
> Immune System
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210111201.htm
CUTS
> Rice's Jianpeng Ma and graduate student Jun Shen and BCM's Qinghua
> Wang compared the sequences of more than 300 strains of H1N1 to track
> its evolution; they reported their results in a recent online edition
> of the scientific journal PLoS ONE.
Using evolutionary theory to save lives?! Preposterous! Naffoff
says that's impossible, and he's a "massage 'therapist'" so he
damn well knows better than all these atheist scientists!
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
r norman
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:18:24 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Unexpected Weakness in H1N1's Method for Evading Detection by the
>> Immune System
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210111201.htm
>
>CUTS
>
>> Rice's Jianpeng Ma and graduate student Jun Shen and BCM's Qinghua
>> Wang compared the sequences of more than 300 strains of H1N1 to track
>> its evolution; they reported their results in a recent online edition
>> of the scientific journal PLoS ONE.
>
>Using evolutionary theory to save lives?! Preposterous! Naffoff
>says that's impossible, and he's a "massage 'therapist'" so he
>damn well knows better than all these atheist scientists!
Please explain just how evolutionary theory applies to this study. It
is true that they looked at genome sequences but specially created
viruses would also have gene sequences that can be sequenced and
analyzed to determine function. Just because DNA is involved does not
make it evolutionary.
Jim
As I understand this excerpt, they traced the evolution of host
binding sites in the virus and discovered a bottleneck that allows the
immune system time to respond before the virus mutates away from the
particular sequence the immune system is keyed to. That is, they
discovered a possible weakness in the virus' main defense (rapid
mutation to avoid triggering the immune system). Of course, I'm not a
biologist, nor do I play one on the radio, so I could be woefully
mistaken.
r norman
wrote:
It is my impression that many creationists, at least those with any
knowledge of biology, readily accept variation "within kinds". It is
transmutation between kinds that causes the problem. All the
specially created species show variation in phenotype and genotype. So
if viruses are specially created to show variation in recognition
sites as a means of avoiding host rejection, then that is all fine and
dandy. That biologists call it "evolution" when a light grey moth
becomes a little darker grey or a small billed bird develops a
slightly larger bill is silliness in their minds. Intraspecific
variability doesn't count. So exactly what in this study can be used
to argue against special creation?
Stephen
This looks like the paper the article refers to --
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y9x92fe
<quote>
Evolutionary Trends of A(H1N1) Influenza Virus Hemagglutinin Since 1918
Jun Shen1, Jianpeng Ma1,2*, Qinghua Wang2*
1 Department of Bioengineering, Rice University, Houston, Texas, United
States of America, 2 Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America
Abstract
The Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 is spreading to numerous countries and causing
many human deaths. Although the symptoms in humans are mild at present,
fears are that further mutations in the virus could lead to a
potentially more dangerous outbreak in subsequent months. As the
primary immunity-eliciting antigen, hemagglutinin (HA) is the major
agent for host-driven antigenic drift in A(H3N2) virus. However,
whether and how the evolution of HA is influenced by existing immunity
is poorly understood for A(H1N1). Here, by analyzing hundreds of
A(H1N1) HA sequences since 1918, we show the first evidence that host
selections are indeed present in A(H1N1) HAs. Among a subgroup of human
A(H1N1) HAs between 1918~2008, we found strong diversifying (positive)
selection at HA1 156 and 190. We also analyzed the evolutionary trends
at HA1 190 and 225 that are critical determinants for receptor-binding
specificity of A(H1N1) HA. Different A(H1N1) viruses appeared to favor
one of these two sites in host-driven antigenic drift: epidemic A(H1N1)
HAs favor HA1 190 while the 1918 pandemic and swine HAs favor HA1 225.
Thus, our results highlight the urgency to understand the interplay
between antigenic drift and receptor binding in HA evolution, and
provide molecular signatures for monitoring future antigenically
drifted 2009 pandemic and seasonal A(H1N1) influenza viruses.
</quote>
--
*Hemidactylus*
Hmmm...I just got a squirt of this H1N1 crap up my nose today (beats
getting jabbed). If this bastard starts drifting (or shifting)
drastically, will my little protective nose squirt be worthwhile? Or
would I get less sick than those not previously exposed? Could someone
who had H1N1 already catch it on the rebound if it changes significantly
and spreads back through their population?
And reading the info sheet, some of the possible side effects sound
like...the flu. Tomorrow I'm going to get my teeth pulled to prevent
tooth loss.
--
~it ends here~ *Hemidactylus*
All-seeing-I
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:25:13 -0800 (PST), Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 14, 11:09锟絧m, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:51:22 -0700, Desertphile
>
> >> <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:18:24 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >> Unexpected Weakness in H1N1's Method for Evading Detection by the
> >> >> Immune System
>
> >> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210111201.htm
>
> >> >CUTS
>
> >> >> Rice's Jianpeng Ma and graduate student Jun Shen and BCM's Qinghua
> >> >> Wang compared the sequences of more than 300 strains of H1N1 to track
> >> >> its evolution; they reported their results in a recent online edition
> >> >> of the scientific journal PLoS ONE.
>
> >> >Using evolutionary theory to save lives?! Preposterous! Naffoff
> >> >says that's impossible, and he's a "massage 'therapist'" so he
> >> >damn well knows better than all these atheist scientists!
>
> >> is true that they looked at genome sequences but specially created
> >> viruses would also have gene sequences that can be sequenced and
> >> make it evolutionary.
>
> >As I understand this excerpt, they traced the evolution of host
> >binding sites in the virus and discovered a bottleneck that allows the
> >immune system time to respond before the virus mutates away from the
> >discovered a possible weakness in the virus' main defense (rapid
> >biologist, nor do I play one on the radio, so I could be woefully
> >mistaken.
>
> It is my impression that many creationists, at least those with any
> transmutation between kinds that causes the problem. 锟紸ll the
> specially created species show variation in phenotype and genotype. So
> if viruses are specially created to show variation in recognition
> sites as a means of avoiding host rejection, then that is all fine and
> becomes a little darker grey or a small billed bird develops a
> variability doesn't count. 锟絊o exactly what in this study can be used
> to argue against special creation?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nothing IMO. This study further shows the organism and the virus will
variate for a purpose but it will not diverge even to save it's
existance.
Also, The virus was not part of the original creation. It is a piece
of corruption. This is evident by the destruction that it does, The
bible says this kind of corruption is due to the earth now being under
a curse, and, life dies and get's sick now because of this corruption.
In the beginning there was no death; there was no illness.
Now. If the virus should mutate to the point that it can no longer be
clearly identified as a virus i bet many people would stop singing
"praise the lord" and would begin singing "praise evolution" instead.
Nonetheless, I do applaud the scientists and their hard work for
finding an Achilles heel for this virus. Mainly because it
discriminates against the younger of the population.(unless it has
changed it's behavior)
It sounds as though they have discovered something that will go a long
way in combating future flu virus' as well.
A job well done for science, for sure.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Also, The virus was not part of the original creation. It is a piece
>of corruption. This is evident by the destruction that it does, The
>bible says this kind of corruption is due to the earth now being under
>a curse, and, life dies and get's sick now because of this corruption.
>In the beginning there was no death; there was no illness.
this is the kind of extraneous claptrap that creationists try to
portray as science...when it's meaningless
what is 'corruption'? where's the evidence? what's a 'curse'?
we can see viruses. we can measure their mutation rates.
the creationist adds nothing.
>
>Now. If the virus should mutate to the point that it can no longer be
>clearly identified as a virus i bet many people would stop singing
>"praise the lord" and would begin singing "praise evolution" instead.
fine. you go find me a 'corruption' meter that allows me to measure
corruption and you'll have a scientific argument
Ron O
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:25:13 -0800 (PST), Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 14, 11:09锟絧m, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:51:22 -0700, Desertphile
>
> >> <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:18:24 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >> Unexpected Weakness in H1N1's Method for Evading Detection by the
> >> >> Immune System
>
> >> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210111201.htm
>
> >> >CUTS
>
> >> >> Rice's Jianpeng Ma and graduate student Jun Shen and BCM's Qinghua
> >> >> Wang compared the sequences of more than 300 strains of H1N1 to track
> >> >> its evolution; they reported their results in a recent online edition
> >> >> of the scientific journal PLoS ONE.
>
> >> >Using evolutionary theory to save lives?! Preposterous! Naffoff
> >> >says that's impossible, and he's a "massage 'therapist'" so he
> >> >damn well knows better than all these atheist scientists!
>
> >> is true that they looked at genome sequences but specially created
> >> viruses would also have gene sequences that can be sequenced and
> >> make it evolutionary.
>
> >As I understand this excerpt, they traced the evolution of host
> >binding sites in the virus and discovered a bottleneck that allows the
> >immune system time to respond before the virus mutates away from the
> >discovered a possible weakness in the virus' main defense (rapid
> >biologist, nor do I play one on the radio, so I could be woefully
> >mistaken.
>
> It is my impression that many creationists, at least those with any
> transmutation between kinds that causes the problem. 锟紸ll the
> specially created species show variation in phenotype and genotype. So
> if viruses are specially created to show variation in recognition
> sites as a means of avoiding host rejection, then that is all fine and
> becomes a little darker grey or a small billed bird develops a
> to argue against special creation?-
I recall Pitman claiming that things like receptor binding interaction
sites could not evolve on their own. I have no experience with
influenza, but the ALV virus (avian leukosis) has evolved the ability
to use multiple host receptors to gain entry into the host cell. Some
of the different antigenic strains use different host receptors. They
have the same basic interacting protein, but the sequence has changed
to bind to different host receptors. I would expect influenza to be
the same. There are probably multiple host cell surface proteins that
various strains can use to gain entry into the cell. It is probably
one of the ways that avian influenzas like H5N1 infect through the
gut, but human infective strains of avian influenzas infect through
the eyes, nose and lungs. According to Pitman all such different
strains of the virus would have to be specially created because
evolving affinity to a new receptor would be too improbable and
impossible to specify by random mutations.
This report indicates that there is selection pressure to change the
sequence of the binding site and this would likely be positive
selection for different host receptor interactions not just different
sequences that would bind the same receptor.
Ron Okimoto
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:81a733fc-f252-4ed2...@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 14, 11:33 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Also, The virus was not part of the original creation. It is a piece
> of corruption. This is evident by the destruction that it does, The
> bible says this kind of corruption is due to the earth now being under
> a curse, and, life dies and get's sick now because of this corruption.
> In the beginning there was no death; there was no illness.
Very imaginative.
.
Jim
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:25:13 -0800 (PST), Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com>
As you so cogently point out, special creation can explain anything
and everything with a simple wave of the hand. Nothing in this, or
any other study, can be used to rule out a sufficiently ad hoc special
creation argument. It is, however, a study that provides an example
of how an evolutionary paradigm helps to understand what aspects of
viral mutation can best be exploited in an effort to create vaccines
that will be effective. Indeed, the point of the study is not to
establish that viruses or anything else evolves (that has long been
established beyond doubt, at least for those in the reality-based
community), but rather to assess what (if any) point in the ongoing
evolution of the virus provides the most effective opportunity for
interdiction. Perhaps you could explain how assuming special
creation would lead to this same understanding of how to save lives?
Desertphile
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:51:22 -0700, Desertphile
> <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:18:24 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Unexpected Weakness in H1N1's Method for Evading Detection by the
> >> Immune System
> >>
> >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210111201.htm
> >
> >CUTS
> >
> >> Rice's Jianpeng Ma and graduate student Jun Shen and BCM's Qinghua
> >> Wang compared the sequences of more than 300 strains of H1N1 to track
> >> its evolution; they reported their results in a recent online edition
> >> of the scientific journal PLoS ONE.
> >
> >Using evolutionary theory to save lives?! Preposterous! Naffoff
> >says that's impossible, and he's a "massage 'therapist'" so he
> >damn well knows better than all these atheist scientists!
> Please explain just how evolutionary theory applies to this study.
Er, evolutionary theory explains how the more than 300 strains
evolved and continue to evolve, and the almost hopelessness in
producing an anti-viral innoculation against the entire family.
Without evolutionary theory, scientists would have to assume the
gods are trying very hard to kill us (and pigs, and at least one
cat).
> It
> is true that they looked at genome sequences but specially created
> viruses would also have gene sequences that can be sequenced and
> analyzed to determine function. Just because DNA is involved does not
> make it evolutionary.
The DNA mutating, and mutations being selected and culled within
humans and other animals, does make it evolutionary.
Desertphile
*NOTHING* can be used to "argue against special creation." That's
the beauty of magic.
Jim
<snip>
> Also, The virus was not part of the original creation. It is a piece
> of corruption. This is evident by the destruction that it does, The
> bible says this kind of corruption is due to the earth now being under
> a curse, and, life dies and get's sick now because of this corruption.
> In the beginning there was no death; there was no illness.
Hmm. In the beginning there was no death. Therefore, in the
beginning there was no birth either, lest population expansion cause
all sorts of Malthusian unpleasantness. Therefore, since sex is
entirely procreational, there was no sex. Therefore, since God
created them male and female, God must have foreseen the need for sex
and reproduction, which means God knew the earth was to be cursed.
Since God knew the curse was to come, and did nothing to prevent it,
we must infer that God wanted it to happen. Since God is good, God
cannot want bad things to happen. Therefore, death and illness are
not inherently bad things, albeit possibly unpleasant.
<snip>
r norman
wrote:
>On Dec 15, 12:33�am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
There are too many issues floating around here. My point was not
whether viruses truly evolve or whether evolutionary reasoning might
not be an aid to developing ideas in medicine. It is whether
evolutionary thinking is necessarily an integral part of medicine so
that you cannot be an effective medical practicioner or medical
researcher if you do not believe in evolution. I can imagine an
intelligent creationist participating easily in the research
described, just using slightly different words to describe what is
going on. In fact I have had intelligent creationist students excel
in my courses in physiology and neurobiology even though they were
taught with a very heavy dose of evolutionary explanation.
I might also add that no lives have been saved as a result of this
evolutionary explanation for the virus behavior. There is merely the
hope that this might be a useful lead. And a simple analysis of the
same data using different assumptions (non-evolutionary) would likely
also suggest the same direction of future research. People get ideas
for research from all sorts of areas -- dreaming of a snake eating its
tail (or monkeys lined up in a circle each holding its neighbor's
tail) for instance.
All-seeing-I
Where do you retards come from?
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:33:46 -0700, r norman
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:25:13 -0800 (PST), Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com>
Why would you want to
Dan Listermann
An insult.
.
Dan Listermann
religious.
.
Jim
When a man and a woman love each other very, very much....
I understand from your response that you cannot refute my argument -
hence, it stands. You lose.
Tim Norfolk
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:25:13 -0800 (PST), Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
How about the fact that this study means that Man can outthink God?
Tim Norfolk
> On Dec 14, 11:33�1�7pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:25:13 -0800 (PST), Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:51:22 -0700, Desertphile
>
> > >> <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> > >> >On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:18:24 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> > >> >wrote:
>
> > >> >> Unexpected Weakness in H1N1's Method for Evading Detection by the
> > >> >> Immune System
>
> > >> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210111201.htm
>
> > >> >CUTS
>
> > >> >> Rice's Jianpeng Ma and graduate student Jun Shen and BCM's Qinghua
> > >> >> Wang compared the sequences of more than 300 strains of H1N1 to track
> > >> >> its evolution; they reported their results in a recent online edition
> > >> >> of the scientific journal PLoS ONE.
>
> > >> >Using evolutionary theory to save lives?! Preposterous! Naffoff
> > >> >says that's impossible, and he's a "massage 'therapist'" so he
> > >> >damn well knows better than all these atheist scientists!
>
> > >> is true that they looked at genome sequences but specially created
> > >> viruses would also have gene sequences that can be sequenced and
> > >> make it evolutionary.
>
> > >As I understand this excerpt, they traced the evolution of host
> > >binding sites in the virus and discovered a bottleneck that allows the
> > >immune system time to respond before the virus mutates away from the
> > >discovered a possible weakness in the virus' main defense (rapid
> > >biologist, nor do I play one on the radio, so I could be woefully
> > >mistaken.
>
> > It is my impression that many creationists, at least those with any
> > transmutation between kinds that causes the problem. �1�7All the
> > specially created species show variation in phenotype and genotype. So
> > if viruses are specially created to show variation in recognition
> > sites as a means of avoiding host rejection, then that is all fine and
> > becomes a little darker grey or a small billed bird develops a
> > variability doesn't count. �1�7So exactly what in this study can be used
> > to argue against special creation?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Nothing IMO. This study further shows the organism and the virus will
> variate for a purpose but it will not diverge even to save it's
> existance.
>
> Also, The virus was not part of the original creation. It is a piece
> of corruption. This is evident by the destruction that it does, The
> bible says this kind of corruption is due to the earth now being under
> a curse, and, life dies and get's sick now because of this corruption.
> In the beginning there was no death; there was no illness.
>
> Now. If the virus should mutate to the point that it can no longer be
> clearly identified as a virus i bet many people would stop singing
> "praise the lord" and would begin singing "praise evolution" instead.
>
> Nonetheless, I do applaud the scientists and their hard work for
> finding an Achilles heel for this virus. Mainly because it
> discriminates against the younger of the population.(unless it has
> changed it's behavior)
>
> It sounds as though they have discovered something that will go a long
> way in combating future flu virus' as well.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
So there were no viruses in the Garden of Eden then? Where did they
come from?
Desertphile
For the same reason I want people to learn to read, to wash their
hands before eating, to use birth control, to engage in safer sex,
to learn how to avoid being defrauded, to get an education, etc.
Wombat
If I recall correctly, under a previous nym, the idiot ycelpt ASI
placed their creation just after Ye Floode, another idiocy he (or
they) refused to explain or give evidence for.
Wombat