User login
Scientists create ‘vagina on a chip’: What to know
For years, women’s health advocates have argued that far more research is needed on women’s bodies and health. The world’s first-ever “vagina on a chip,” recently developed at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering in Boston, could go a long way to making that happen.
“Women’s health has not received the attention it deserves,” says Don Ingber, MD, PhD, who led the team that created the vagina chip. The advance quickly drew media attention after it was reported in the journal Microbiome. But researchers hope for more than headlines. They see the chip as a way to facilitate vaginal health research and open the door to vital new treatments.
By now, you may have heard of “organs on chips”: tiny devices about the size of a flash drive that are designed to mimic the biological activity of human organs. These glass chips contain living human cells within grooves that allow the passage of fluid, to either maintain or disrupt the cells’ function. So far, Dr. Ingber and his team at the Wyss Institute have developed more than 15 organ chip models, including chips that mimic the lung, intestine, kidney, and bone marrow.
The idea to develop a vagina chip grew out of research, funded by the Gates Foundation, on a childhood disease called environmental enteric dysfunction, an intestinal disease most commonly found in low-resource nations that is the second leading cause of death in children under 5. That’s when Dr. Ingber discovered just how much the child’s microbiome influences this disease.
Stemming from that work, the Gates Foundation turned its attention to newborn health – in particular, the impact of bacterial vaginosis, an imbalance in the vagina’s bacterial makeup. Bacterial vaginosis occurs in one out of four women worldwide and has been linked to premature birth as well as HIV, HPV persistence, and cervical cancer.
The goal was to test “live biotherapeutic products,” or living microbes like probiotics, that might restore the vagina’s microbiome to health.
No other preclinical model exists to perform tests like that, says Dr. Ingber.
“The vagina chip is a way to help make some advances,” he says.
The Gates Foundation recognized that women’s reproductive health is a major issue, not only in low-income nations, but everywhere around the world. As the project evolved, Dr. Ingber began to hear from female colleagues about how neglected women’s reproductive health is in medical science.
“It is something I became sensitive to and realized this is just the starting point,” Dr. Ingber says.
Take bacterial vaginosis, for example. Since 1982, treatment has revolved around the same two antibiotics. That’s partly because there is no animal model to study. No other species has the same vaginal bacterial community as humans do.
That makes developing any new therapy “incredibly challenging,” explains Caroline Mitchell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a member of the consortium.
It turns out, replicating the vagina in a lab dish is, to use the technical term, very hard.
“That’s where a vagina chip offers an opportunity,” Dr. Mitchell says. “It’s not super-high throughput, but it’s way more high throughput than a [human] clinical trial.”
As such, the vagina chip could help scientists find new treatments much faster.
Like Dr. Ingber, Dr. Mitchell also sees the chip as a way to bring more attention to the largely unmet needs in female reproductive medicine.
“Women’s reproductive health has been under-resourced, under-prioritized, and largely disregarded for decades,” she says. And the time may be ripe for change: Dr. Mitchell says she was encouraged by the National Institutes of Health’s Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference, held in 2021 in response to a congressional request to address women’s health research efforts.
Beyond bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Mitchell imagines the chip could help scientists find new treatments for vaginal yeast infection (candidiasis), chlamydia, and endometriosis. As with bacterial vaginosis, medicines for vaginal yeast infections have not advanced in decades, Dr. Mitchell says. Efforts to develop a vaccine for chlamydia – which can cause permanent damage to a woman’s reproductive system – have dragged on for many years. And endometriosis, an often painful condition in which the tissue that makes up the uterine lining grows outside the uterus, remains under-researched despite affecting 10% of childbearing-age women.
While some mouse models are used in chlamydia research, it’s hard to say if they’ll translate to humans, given the vaginal and cervical bacterial differences.
“Our understanding of the basic physiology of the environment of the vagina and cervix is another area where we’re woefully ignorant,” Dr. Mitchell says.
To that end, Dr. Ingber’s team is developing more complex chips mimicking the vagina and the cervix. One of his team members wants to use the chips to study infertility. The researchers have already used the chips to see how bacterial vaginosis and mucous changes impact the way sperm migrates up the reproductive tract.
The lab is now linking vagina and cervix chips together to study viral infections of the cervix, like HPV, and all types of bacterial diseases of the vaginal tract. By applying cervical mucus to the vagina chip, they hope to learn more about how female reproductive tissues respond to infection and inflammation.
“I always say that organ chips are like synthetic biology at the cell tissue and organ level,” says Dr. Ingber. “You start simple and see if you [can] mimic a clinical situation.”
As they make the chips more complex – perhaps by adding blood vessel cells and female hormones – Dr. Ingber foresees being able to study the response to hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle.
“We can begin to explore the effects of cycling over time as well as other types of hormonal effects,” he says.
Dr. Ingber also envisions linking the vagina chip to other organ chips – he’s already succeeded in linking eight different organ types together. But for now, the team hopes the vagina chip will enhance our understanding of basic female reproductive biology and speed up the process of developing new treatments for women’s health.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
For years, women’s health advocates have argued that far more research is needed on women’s bodies and health. The world’s first-ever “vagina on a chip,” recently developed at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering in Boston, could go a long way to making that happen.
“Women’s health has not received the attention it deserves,” says Don Ingber, MD, PhD, who led the team that created the vagina chip. The advance quickly drew media attention after it was reported in the journal Microbiome. But researchers hope for more than headlines. They see the chip as a way to facilitate vaginal health research and open the door to vital new treatments.
By now, you may have heard of “organs on chips”: tiny devices about the size of a flash drive that are designed to mimic the biological activity of human organs. These glass chips contain living human cells within grooves that allow the passage of fluid, to either maintain or disrupt the cells’ function. So far, Dr. Ingber and his team at the Wyss Institute have developed more than 15 organ chip models, including chips that mimic the lung, intestine, kidney, and bone marrow.
The idea to develop a vagina chip grew out of research, funded by the Gates Foundation, on a childhood disease called environmental enteric dysfunction, an intestinal disease most commonly found in low-resource nations that is the second leading cause of death in children under 5. That’s when Dr. Ingber discovered just how much the child’s microbiome influences this disease.
Stemming from that work, the Gates Foundation turned its attention to newborn health – in particular, the impact of bacterial vaginosis, an imbalance in the vagina’s bacterial makeup. Bacterial vaginosis occurs in one out of four women worldwide and has been linked to premature birth as well as HIV, HPV persistence, and cervical cancer.
The goal was to test “live biotherapeutic products,” or living microbes like probiotics, that might restore the vagina’s microbiome to health.
No other preclinical model exists to perform tests like that, says Dr. Ingber.
“The vagina chip is a way to help make some advances,” he says.
The Gates Foundation recognized that women’s reproductive health is a major issue, not only in low-income nations, but everywhere around the world. As the project evolved, Dr. Ingber began to hear from female colleagues about how neglected women’s reproductive health is in medical science.
“It is something I became sensitive to and realized this is just the starting point,” Dr. Ingber says.
Take bacterial vaginosis, for example. Since 1982, treatment has revolved around the same two antibiotics. That’s partly because there is no animal model to study. No other species has the same vaginal bacterial community as humans do.
That makes developing any new therapy “incredibly challenging,” explains Caroline Mitchell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a member of the consortium.
It turns out, replicating the vagina in a lab dish is, to use the technical term, very hard.
“That’s where a vagina chip offers an opportunity,” Dr. Mitchell says. “It’s not super-high throughput, but it’s way more high throughput than a [human] clinical trial.”
As such, the vagina chip could help scientists find new treatments much faster.
Like Dr. Ingber, Dr. Mitchell also sees the chip as a way to bring more attention to the largely unmet needs in female reproductive medicine.
“Women’s reproductive health has been under-resourced, under-prioritized, and largely disregarded for decades,” she says. And the time may be ripe for change: Dr. Mitchell says she was encouraged by the National Institutes of Health’s Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference, held in 2021 in response to a congressional request to address women’s health research efforts.
Beyond bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Mitchell imagines the chip could help scientists find new treatments for vaginal yeast infection (candidiasis), chlamydia, and endometriosis. As with bacterial vaginosis, medicines for vaginal yeast infections have not advanced in decades, Dr. Mitchell says. Efforts to develop a vaccine for chlamydia – which can cause permanent damage to a woman’s reproductive system – have dragged on for many years. And endometriosis, an often painful condition in which the tissue that makes up the uterine lining grows outside the uterus, remains under-researched despite affecting 10% of childbearing-age women.
While some mouse models are used in chlamydia research, it’s hard to say if they’ll translate to humans, given the vaginal and cervical bacterial differences.
“Our understanding of the basic physiology of the environment of the vagina and cervix is another area where we’re woefully ignorant,” Dr. Mitchell says.
To that end, Dr. Ingber’s team is developing more complex chips mimicking the vagina and the cervix. One of his team members wants to use the chips to study infertility. The researchers have already used the chips to see how bacterial vaginosis and mucous changes impact the way sperm migrates up the reproductive tract.
The lab is now linking vagina and cervix chips together to study viral infections of the cervix, like HPV, and all types of bacterial diseases of the vaginal tract. By applying cervical mucus to the vagina chip, they hope to learn more about how female reproductive tissues respond to infection and inflammation.
“I always say that organ chips are like synthetic biology at the cell tissue and organ level,” says Dr. Ingber. “You start simple and see if you [can] mimic a clinical situation.”
As they make the chips more complex – perhaps by adding blood vessel cells and female hormones – Dr. Ingber foresees being able to study the response to hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle.
“We can begin to explore the effects of cycling over time as well as other types of hormonal effects,” he says.
Dr. Ingber also envisions linking the vagina chip to other organ chips – he’s already succeeded in linking eight different organ types together. But for now, the team hopes the vagina chip will enhance our understanding of basic female reproductive biology and speed up the process of developing new treatments for women’s health.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
For years, women’s health advocates have argued that far more research is needed on women’s bodies and health. The world’s first-ever “vagina on a chip,” recently developed at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering in Boston, could go a long way to making that happen.
“Women’s health has not received the attention it deserves,” says Don Ingber, MD, PhD, who led the team that created the vagina chip. The advance quickly drew media attention after it was reported in the journal Microbiome. But researchers hope for more than headlines. They see the chip as a way to facilitate vaginal health research and open the door to vital new treatments.
By now, you may have heard of “organs on chips”: tiny devices about the size of a flash drive that are designed to mimic the biological activity of human organs. These glass chips contain living human cells within grooves that allow the passage of fluid, to either maintain or disrupt the cells’ function. So far, Dr. Ingber and his team at the Wyss Institute have developed more than 15 organ chip models, including chips that mimic the lung, intestine, kidney, and bone marrow.
The idea to develop a vagina chip grew out of research, funded by the Gates Foundation, on a childhood disease called environmental enteric dysfunction, an intestinal disease most commonly found in low-resource nations that is the second leading cause of death in children under 5. That’s when Dr. Ingber discovered just how much the child’s microbiome influences this disease.
Stemming from that work, the Gates Foundation turned its attention to newborn health – in particular, the impact of bacterial vaginosis, an imbalance in the vagina’s bacterial makeup. Bacterial vaginosis occurs in one out of four women worldwide and has been linked to premature birth as well as HIV, HPV persistence, and cervical cancer.
The goal was to test “live biotherapeutic products,” or living microbes like probiotics, that might restore the vagina’s microbiome to health.
No other preclinical model exists to perform tests like that, says Dr. Ingber.
“The vagina chip is a way to help make some advances,” he says.
The Gates Foundation recognized that women’s reproductive health is a major issue, not only in low-income nations, but everywhere around the world. As the project evolved, Dr. Ingber began to hear from female colleagues about how neglected women’s reproductive health is in medical science.
“It is something I became sensitive to and realized this is just the starting point,” Dr. Ingber says.
Take bacterial vaginosis, for example. Since 1982, treatment has revolved around the same two antibiotics. That’s partly because there is no animal model to study. No other species has the same vaginal bacterial community as humans do.
That makes developing any new therapy “incredibly challenging,” explains Caroline Mitchell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a member of the consortium.
It turns out, replicating the vagina in a lab dish is, to use the technical term, very hard.
“That’s where a vagina chip offers an opportunity,” Dr. Mitchell says. “It’s not super-high throughput, but it’s way more high throughput than a [human] clinical trial.”
As such, the vagina chip could help scientists find new treatments much faster.
Like Dr. Ingber, Dr. Mitchell also sees the chip as a way to bring more attention to the largely unmet needs in female reproductive medicine.
“Women’s reproductive health has been under-resourced, under-prioritized, and largely disregarded for decades,” she says. And the time may be ripe for change: Dr. Mitchell says she was encouraged by the National Institutes of Health’s Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference, held in 2021 in response to a congressional request to address women’s health research efforts.
Beyond bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Mitchell imagines the chip could help scientists find new treatments for vaginal yeast infection (candidiasis), chlamydia, and endometriosis. As with bacterial vaginosis, medicines for vaginal yeast infections have not advanced in decades, Dr. Mitchell says. Efforts to develop a vaccine for chlamydia – which can cause permanent damage to a woman’s reproductive system – have dragged on for many years. And endometriosis, an often painful condition in which the tissue that makes up the uterine lining grows outside the uterus, remains under-researched despite affecting 10% of childbearing-age women.
While some mouse models are used in chlamydia research, it’s hard to say if they’ll translate to humans, given the vaginal and cervical bacterial differences.
“Our understanding of the basic physiology of the environment of the vagina and cervix is another area where we’re woefully ignorant,” Dr. Mitchell says.
To that end, Dr. Ingber’s team is developing more complex chips mimicking the vagina and the cervix. One of his team members wants to use the chips to study infertility. The researchers have already used the chips to see how bacterial vaginosis and mucous changes impact the way sperm migrates up the reproductive tract.
The lab is now linking vagina and cervix chips together to study viral infections of the cervix, like HPV, and all types of bacterial diseases of the vaginal tract. By applying cervical mucus to the vagina chip, they hope to learn more about how female reproductive tissues respond to infection and inflammation.
“I always say that organ chips are like synthetic biology at the cell tissue and organ level,” says Dr. Ingber. “You start simple and see if you [can] mimic a clinical situation.”
As they make the chips more complex – perhaps by adding blood vessel cells and female hormones – Dr. Ingber foresees being able to study the response to hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle.
“We can begin to explore the effects of cycling over time as well as other types of hormonal effects,” he says.
Dr. Ingber also envisions linking the vagina chip to other organ chips – he’s already succeeded in linking eight different organ types together. But for now, the team hopes the vagina chip will enhance our understanding of basic female reproductive biology and speed up the process of developing new treatments for women’s health.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM MICROBIOME
Now trending on social media: Bad birth control info
Add this to the list of social media’s potential health risks: unintended pregnancy.
That’s for women who take birth control advice from influencers, particularly on YouTube, where many talk about stopping hormonal contraception and may give incomplete or inaccurate sexual health information.
In an analysis of 50 YouTube videos, University of Delaware researchers found that nearly three-quarters of influencers talked about discontinuing birth control pills or other forms hormonal birth control. And 40% were using or had used a “natural family planning” method – when women track their cycle, sometimes using an app, to identify days they might get pregnant.
“We know from previous research that these nonhormonal options, such as fertility tracking apps, are not always as accurate as hormonal birth control,” said lead study author Emily Pfender, who reported the findings in Health Communication. “They rely on so many different factors, like body temperature and cervical fluid, that vary widely.”
In fact, this “natural” approach only works when women meticulously follow guidelines like measuring basal body temperature and tracking cervical fluid daily. But many influencers left that part out. Using fertility-tracking methods without the right education and tools could raise the risk of unplanned pregnancy, as failure rates using these methods vary from 2% to 23%, according to the CDC.
Even more alarming: Of the influencers who stopped hormonal birth control, only one-third mentioned replacing it with something else, Ms. Pfender said.
“The message that some of these videos are sending is that discontinuing [hormonal birth control] is good for if you want to improve your mental health and be more natural, but it’s not important to start another form of birth control,” she said. “This places those women at an increased risk of unplanned pregnancy, and possibly sexually transmitted diseases.”
Rise of the health influencer
Taking health advice from influencers is nothing new and appears to be getting more popular.
“People have been sharing health information for decades, even before the internet, but now it is much more prevalent and easier,” said Erin Willis, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who studies digital media and health communication.
Peer-to-peer health information is very influential, Dr. Willis said. It makes people feel understood, especially if they have the same health condition or share similar experiences or emotions. “The social support is there,” she said. “It is almost like crowdsourcing.”
In her study, Ms. Pfender and another researcher watched 50 YouTube videos posted between December 2019 and December 2021 by influencers with between 20,000 and 2.2 million followers. The top reasons influencers gave for discontinuing birth control included the desire to be more natural and to improve mental health.
Although hormonal birth control, namely the pill, has been used for decades and is considered safe, it has been linked to side effects like depression. And people sharing their experiences with hormonal birth control online may create controversy over whether it’s safe to use.
But Ms. Pfender found that influencers didn’t always share accurate or complete information. For example, some of the influencers talked about using the cycle tracking app Daysy, touting it as highly accurate, but none mentioned that the study backing up how well it worked was retracted in 2019 due to flaws in its research methods.
Not all health influencers give bad information, Dr. Willis said. Many go through ethics and advocacy training and understand the sensitive position and influence they have. Still, people have different levels of “health literacy” – some may understand health information better than others. It’s crucial to analyze the info and sort the good from the bad.
Look for information that is not linked to a particular product, the National Institutes of Health recommends. And cross-check it against reliable websites, such as those ending in “.gov” or “.org.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Add this to the list of social media’s potential health risks: unintended pregnancy.
That’s for women who take birth control advice from influencers, particularly on YouTube, where many talk about stopping hormonal contraception and may give incomplete or inaccurate sexual health information.
In an analysis of 50 YouTube videos, University of Delaware researchers found that nearly three-quarters of influencers talked about discontinuing birth control pills or other forms hormonal birth control. And 40% were using or had used a “natural family planning” method – when women track their cycle, sometimes using an app, to identify days they might get pregnant.
“We know from previous research that these nonhormonal options, such as fertility tracking apps, are not always as accurate as hormonal birth control,” said lead study author Emily Pfender, who reported the findings in Health Communication. “They rely on so many different factors, like body temperature and cervical fluid, that vary widely.”
In fact, this “natural” approach only works when women meticulously follow guidelines like measuring basal body temperature and tracking cervical fluid daily. But many influencers left that part out. Using fertility-tracking methods without the right education and tools could raise the risk of unplanned pregnancy, as failure rates using these methods vary from 2% to 23%, according to the CDC.
Even more alarming: Of the influencers who stopped hormonal birth control, only one-third mentioned replacing it with something else, Ms. Pfender said.
“The message that some of these videos are sending is that discontinuing [hormonal birth control] is good for if you want to improve your mental health and be more natural, but it’s not important to start another form of birth control,” she said. “This places those women at an increased risk of unplanned pregnancy, and possibly sexually transmitted diseases.”
Rise of the health influencer
Taking health advice from influencers is nothing new and appears to be getting more popular.
“People have been sharing health information for decades, even before the internet, but now it is much more prevalent and easier,” said Erin Willis, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who studies digital media and health communication.
Peer-to-peer health information is very influential, Dr. Willis said. It makes people feel understood, especially if they have the same health condition or share similar experiences or emotions. “The social support is there,” she said. “It is almost like crowdsourcing.”
In her study, Ms. Pfender and another researcher watched 50 YouTube videos posted between December 2019 and December 2021 by influencers with between 20,000 and 2.2 million followers. The top reasons influencers gave for discontinuing birth control included the desire to be more natural and to improve mental health.
Although hormonal birth control, namely the pill, has been used for decades and is considered safe, it has been linked to side effects like depression. And people sharing their experiences with hormonal birth control online may create controversy over whether it’s safe to use.
But Ms. Pfender found that influencers didn’t always share accurate or complete information. For example, some of the influencers talked about using the cycle tracking app Daysy, touting it as highly accurate, but none mentioned that the study backing up how well it worked was retracted in 2019 due to flaws in its research methods.
Not all health influencers give bad information, Dr. Willis said. Many go through ethics and advocacy training and understand the sensitive position and influence they have. Still, people have different levels of “health literacy” – some may understand health information better than others. It’s crucial to analyze the info and sort the good from the bad.
Look for information that is not linked to a particular product, the National Institutes of Health recommends. And cross-check it against reliable websites, such as those ending in “.gov” or “.org.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Add this to the list of social media’s potential health risks: unintended pregnancy.
That’s for women who take birth control advice from influencers, particularly on YouTube, where many talk about stopping hormonal contraception and may give incomplete or inaccurate sexual health information.
In an analysis of 50 YouTube videos, University of Delaware researchers found that nearly three-quarters of influencers talked about discontinuing birth control pills or other forms hormonal birth control. And 40% were using or had used a “natural family planning” method – when women track their cycle, sometimes using an app, to identify days they might get pregnant.
“We know from previous research that these nonhormonal options, such as fertility tracking apps, are not always as accurate as hormonal birth control,” said lead study author Emily Pfender, who reported the findings in Health Communication. “They rely on so many different factors, like body temperature and cervical fluid, that vary widely.”
In fact, this “natural” approach only works when women meticulously follow guidelines like measuring basal body temperature and tracking cervical fluid daily. But many influencers left that part out. Using fertility-tracking methods without the right education and tools could raise the risk of unplanned pregnancy, as failure rates using these methods vary from 2% to 23%, according to the CDC.
Even more alarming: Of the influencers who stopped hormonal birth control, only one-third mentioned replacing it with something else, Ms. Pfender said.
“The message that some of these videos are sending is that discontinuing [hormonal birth control] is good for if you want to improve your mental health and be more natural, but it’s not important to start another form of birth control,” she said. “This places those women at an increased risk of unplanned pregnancy, and possibly sexually transmitted diseases.”
Rise of the health influencer
Taking health advice from influencers is nothing new and appears to be getting more popular.
“People have been sharing health information for decades, even before the internet, but now it is much more prevalent and easier,” said Erin Willis, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who studies digital media and health communication.
Peer-to-peer health information is very influential, Dr. Willis said. It makes people feel understood, especially if they have the same health condition or share similar experiences or emotions. “The social support is there,” she said. “It is almost like crowdsourcing.”
In her study, Ms. Pfender and another researcher watched 50 YouTube videos posted between December 2019 and December 2021 by influencers with between 20,000 and 2.2 million followers. The top reasons influencers gave for discontinuing birth control included the desire to be more natural and to improve mental health.
Although hormonal birth control, namely the pill, has been used for decades and is considered safe, it has been linked to side effects like depression. And people sharing their experiences with hormonal birth control online may create controversy over whether it’s safe to use.
But Ms. Pfender found that influencers didn’t always share accurate or complete information. For example, some of the influencers talked about using the cycle tracking app Daysy, touting it as highly accurate, but none mentioned that the study backing up how well it worked was retracted in 2019 due to flaws in its research methods.
Not all health influencers give bad information, Dr. Willis said. Many go through ethics and advocacy training and understand the sensitive position and influence they have. Still, people have different levels of “health literacy” – some may understand health information better than others. It’s crucial to analyze the info and sort the good from the bad.
Look for information that is not linked to a particular product, the National Institutes of Health recommends. And cross-check it against reliable websites, such as those ending in “.gov” or “.org.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM HEALTH COMMUNICATION
Scientists use mRNA technology for universal flu vaccine
Two years ago, when the first COVID-19 vaccines were administered, marked a game-changing moment in the fight against the pandemic. But it also was a significant moment for messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, which up until then had shown promise but had never quite broken through.
It’s the latest advance in a new age of vaccinology, where vaccines are easier and faster to produce, as well as more flexible and customizable.
“It’s all about covering the different flavors of flu in a way the current vaccines cannot do,” says Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is not involved with the UPenn research. “The mRNA platform is attractive here given its scalability and modularity, where you can mix and match different mRNAs.”
A recent paper, published in Science, reports successful animal tests of the experimental vaccine, which, like the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines, relies on mRNA. But the idea is not to replace the annual flu shot. It’s to develop a primer that could be administered in childhood, readying the body’s B cells and T cells to react quickly if faced with a flu virus.
It’s all part of a National Institutes of Health–funded effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, with hopes of heading off future flu pandemics. Annual shots protect against flu subtypes known to spread in humans. But many subtypes circulate in animals, like birds and pigs, and occasionally jump to humans, causing pandemics.
“The current vaccines provide very little protection against these other subtypes,” says lead study author Scott Hensley, PhD, a professor of microbiology at UPenn. “We set out to make a vaccine that would provide some level of immunity against essentially every influenza subtype we know about.”
That’s 20 subtypes altogether. The unique properties of mRNA vaccines make immune responses against all those antigens possible, Dr. Hensley says.
Old-school vaccines introduce a weakened or dead bacteria or virus into the body, but mRNA vaccines use mRNA encoded with a protein from the virus. That’s the “spike” protein for COVID, and for the experimental vaccine, it’s hemagglutinin, the major protein found on the surface of all flu viruses.
Mice and ferrets that had never been exposed to the flu were given the vaccine and produced high levels of antibodies against all 20 flu subtypes. Vaccinated mice exposed to the exact strains in the vaccine stayed pretty healthy, while those exposed to strains not found in the vaccine got sick but recovered quickly and survived. Unvaccinated mice exposed to the flu strain died.
The vaccine seems to be able to “induce broad immunity against all the different influenza subtypes,” Dr. Hensley says, preventing severe illness if not infection overall.
Still, whether it could truly stave off a pandemic that hasn’t happened yet is hard to say, Dr. Levy cautions.
“We are going to need to better learn the molecular rules by which these vaccines protect,” he says.
But the UPenn team is forging ahead, with plans to test their vaccine in human adults in 2023 to determine safety, dosing, and antibody response.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Two years ago, when the first COVID-19 vaccines were administered, marked a game-changing moment in the fight against the pandemic. But it also was a significant moment for messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, which up until then had shown promise but had never quite broken through.
It’s the latest advance in a new age of vaccinology, where vaccines are easier and faster to produce, as well as more flexible and customizable.
“It’s all about covering the different flavors of flu in a way the current vaccines cannot do,” says Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is not involved with the UPenn research. “The mRNA platform is attractive here given its scalability and modularity, where you can mix and match different mRNAs.”
A recent paper, published in Science, reports successful animal tests of the experimental vaccine, which, like the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines, relies on mRNA. But the idea is not to replace the annual flu shot. It’s to develop a primer that could be administered in childhood, readying the body’s B cells and T cells to react quickly if faced with a flu virus.
It’s all part of a National Institutes of Health–funded effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, with hopes of heading off future flu pandemics. Annual shots protect against flu subtypes known to spread in humans. But many subtypes circulate in animals, like birds and pigs, and occasionally jump to humans, causing pandemics.
“The current vaccines provide very little protection against these other subtypes,” says lead study author Scott Hensley, PhD, a professor of microbiology at UPenn. “We set out to make a vaccine that would provide some level of immunity against essentially every influenza subtype we know about.”
That’s 20 subtypes altogether. The unique properties of mRNA vaccines make immune responses against all those antigens possible, Dr. Hensley says.
Old-school vaccines introduce a weakened or dead bacteria or virus into the body, but mRNA vaccines use mRNA encoded with a protein from the virus. That’s the “spike” protein for COVID, and for the experimental vaccine, it’s hemagglutinin, the major protein found on the surface of all flu viruses.
Mice and ferrets that had never been exposed to the flu were given the vaccine and produced high levels of antibodies against all 20 flu subtypes. Vaccinated mice exposed to the exact strains in the vaccine stayed pretty healthy, while those exposed to strains not found in the vaccine got sick but recovered quickly and survived. Unvaccinated mice exposed to the flu strain died.
The vaccine seems to be able to “induce broad immunity against all the different influenza subtypes,” Dr. Hensley says, preventing severe illness if not infection overall.
Still, whether it could truly stave off a pandemic that hasn’t happened yet is hard to say, Dr. Levy cautions.
“We are going to need to better learn the molecular rules by which these vaccines protect,” he says.
But the UPenn team is forging ahead, with plans to test their vaccine in human adults in 2023 to determine safety, dosing, and antibody response.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Two years ago, when the first COVID-19 vaccines were administered, marked a game-changing moment in the fight against the pandemic. But it also was a significant moment for messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, which up until then had shown promise but had never quite broken through.
It’s the latest advance in a new age of vaccinology, where vaccines are easier and faster to produce, as well as more flexible and customizable.
“It’s all about covering the different flavors of flu in a way the current vaccines cannot do,” says Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is not involved with the UPenn research. “The mRNA platform is attractive here given its scalability and modularity, where you can mix and match different mRNAs.”
A recent paper, published in Science, reports successful animal tests of the experimental vaccine, which, like the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines, relies on mRNA. But the idea is not to replace the annual flu shot. It’s to develop a primer that could be administered in childhood, readying the body’s B cells and T cells to react quickly if faced with a flu virus.
It’s all part of a National Institutes of Health–funded effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, with hopes of heading off future flu pandemics. Annual shots protect against flu subtypes known to spread in humans. But many subtypes circulate in animals, like birds and pigs, and occasionally jump to humans, causing pandemics.
“The current vaccines provide very little protection against these other subtypes,” says lead study author Scott Hensley, PhD, a professor of microbiology at UPenn. “We set out to make a vaccine that would provide some level of immunity against essentially every influenza subtype we know about.”
That’s 20 subtypes altogether. The unique properties of mRNA vaccines make immune responses against all those antigens possible, Dr. Hensley says.
Old-school vaccines introduce a weakened or dead bacteria or virus into the body, but mRNA vaccines use mRNA encoded with a protein from the virus. That’s the “spike” protein for COVID, and for the experimental vaccine, it’s hemagglutinin, the major protein found on the surface of all flu viruses.
Mice and ferrets that had never been exposed to the flu were given the vaccine and produced high levels of antibodies against all 20 flu subtypes. Vaccinated mice exposed to the exact strains in the vaccine stayed pretty healthy, while those exposed to strains not found in the vaccine got sick but recovered quickly and survived. Unvaccinated mice exposed to the flu strain died.
The vaccine seems to be able to “induce broad immunity against all the different influenza subtypes,” Dr. Hensley says, preventing severe illness if not infection overall.
Still, whether it could truly stave off a pandemic that hasn’t happened yet is hard to say, Dr. Levy cautions.
“We are going to need to better learn the molecular rules by which these vaccines protect,” he says.
But the UPenn team is forging ahead, with plans to test their vaccine in human adults in 2023 to determine safety, dosing, and antibody response.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM SCIENCE