Llama antibodies show 'significant potential' as COVID-19 treatment

• Although vaccines are highly effective in preventing COVID-19, scientists still need to identify better treatments for the disease.
• Some scientists are investigating whether llama-derived antibodies might be a useful treatment approach.
• A recent study has shown that so-called nanobodies that scientists harvested from a llama reduced SARS-CoV-2 viral load in Syrian hamsters.

In the race to discover effective treatments for COVID-19, some scientists have turned to using antibodies from people who have recovered from COVID-19.

Although this approach has seen some success, these treatments tend to be difficult to manufacture and expensiveTrusted Source.

A recent study, which appears in the journal Nature CommunicationsTrusted Source, investigates a type of antibody derived from a llama. The authors hope that this approach will be simpler and more cost effective.

Stay informed with live updates on the current COVID-19 outbreak and visit our coronavirus hub for more advice on prevention and treatment.

Targeted nanobodies

Members of the camelid family, which includes camels, llamas, and alpacas, produce unique antibodies called nanobodies. Nanobodies are extremely small, robust, and stable molecules that bind to specific targets.

This targeted attachment makes nanobodies ideally suited to many forms of research, especially those involving the detection and neutralization of viruses.

The authors of the recent study investigated the nanobodies of a llama named Fifi.

The scientists injected Fifi with a purified bioprotein that did not cause illness but prompted her immune system to produce nanobodies. They then extracted these molecules from a small sample of Fifi’s blood.

The team isolated four different nanobodies and designated them as C5, F2, H3, and C1. Laboratory tests showed that each of these nanobodies bonds to distinct locations on the spike protein.

When the C5 nanobodies were configured in trimers — consisting of three C5’s in a row — the researchers observed a complete inhibition of viral infection.

They then tested the C5 trimer in 12 Syrian golden hamsters that had the SARS-CoV-2 infection. After 1 day, they treated six with an injection of the C5 trimer nanobody, while the remaining six — the controls — received no treatment.

All of the animals lost weight during the study. However, by day 7, the six hamsters in the nanobody-treated group had lost significantly less weight. Indeed, as the authors explain, those that received the single dose of C5 nanobodies showed “minimal weight loss and very limited pulmonary infection.”

Further testing using the COVID-19 hamster model indicated that the nasal administration of nanobody treatment promoted a faster recovery from infection than administration by injection. The authors believe that this might be because it was easier for the nanobodies to reach the site of infection — the lungs. 

Study summary and future steps

Prof. James Naismith is the director of the Rosalind Franklin Institute, the United Kingdom’s national health research institute and one of the organizations that supported this study.

Prof. Naismith summarizes some of the potential benefits of the nanobody approach:

• These nanobodies appear to be potent against key strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
• Due to their tiny size, the trimers are easy to administer because it is possible to inhale them.
• Scientists can make the trimer cheaply in simple systems, such as yeast and Escherichia coli.

Speaking with Medical News Today, Elitza Theel, Ph.D., director of the Infectious Diseases Serology Laboratory at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, said:

“It would be worthwhile to see the therapeutic effect of these nanoantibodies in nonhuman primates. [This study’s] findings on the use of intranasal administration of anti-RBD nanoantibodies are quite intriguing, as they show significant protection against disease similar to intraperitoneal injection in their Syrian [hamster] model.”

At a recent press conference, in response to a question about the next steps required to move these findings to human trials, Prof. Raymond Owens, Protein Production U.K. principal scientist at the Nuffield Department of Medicine, responded:

“We are working with manufacturing organizations who can take our lab-scale process and scale it up so that we can produce sufficient quantities and quality of material. And then we need to understand a little bit more about the behavior of the molecule in animal models.”

For live updates on the latest developments regarding the novel coronavirus and COVID-19, click here.

Fonte: MNT

As informações e sugestões contidas neste blog são meramente informativas e não devem substituir consultas com médicos especialistas.

É muito importante (sempre) procurar mais informações sobre os assuntos

How to Sift Through Cancer and Nutrition Misinformation on Social Media

By Mya Nelson

One in three of the most popular cancer treatment articles on social media contain misinformation, with the vast majority of these containing information that has the potential to cause harm, according to a recent study. The study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, also found that articles containing misinformation get more clicks and engagement than articles with evidence-based information.

The paper highlights the importance of social media users recognizing science-based information about cancer prevention and survival. Much of this information relates to diet and nutrition, AICR’s area of expertise.

“We found misinformation is clearly prevalent in cancer articles on social media, and the vast majority of those pieces contain harmful information,” said Skyler Johnson, MD, Huntsman Cancer Institute (HCI) physician-scientist at the University of Utah and lead author of the study. “Many of the articles that we encountered suggested delaying cancer screening, diagnosis, or treatment, and did so in favor of techniques or treatments that lacked scientific support.”

The new study focused on cancer treatment overall and included well-shared stories about unproven diets and foods treating cancer. “These stories are ubiquitous on social media, and it’s understandable that people are searching or finding them in their feeds,” says Karen Collins, MS, RDN, AICR’s Nutrition Advisor. “Diet is something everyone can relate to and people looking to prevent or treat cancer want to have a sense that they can exert control by doing something,” says Collins.

“Because social media can feel so personal, we tend to trust the people or groups that we follow, and there’s a tendency to be less of a critical thinker about what you see,” said Collins. “As a health professional, I see this all the time. Because someone saw a click-bait headline on social media from a celebrity or someone they follow and trust, it sounds believable.”

This study shows how important it is to differentiate sources of trustworthy information that can affect your health from reading for entertainment, she said.

Baking soda and other bad cancer nutrition info on social media

For the study, Johnson and his colleagues used software that pulls online data to find the 200 most popular English-language articles on social media sites related to four common cancers: breast, prostate, colorectal and lung. The articles were posted on Facebook, Reddit, Twitter or Pinterest.

Two cancer experts for each site then reviewed the articles, assessing whether its information was accurate and/or had the potential to cause harm. Causing harm included whether claims in the article could lead to someone delaying their medical treatment, potential toxic effects and be costly. For example, an article promoting that someone refuse traditional cancer treatment in favor of baking soda was categorized as harmful. (There is currently no clear evidence that baking soda or an alkaline diet is an effective cancer treatment.)

After analysis, 33 percent of the articles were categorized as containing misinformation. Out of this group, 77 percent contained information that could negatively influence patient outcomes. The median number of engagements for articles with misinformation was higher than for pieces that were science-based.

Is that post backed by science? Clues you can use

This study adds to a budding area of research on understanding and addressing misinformation on social media. (In 2020, the National Cancer Institute made this area a research priority.) A previous study focusing on Pinterest found that about a quarter of the posts/pins studied made a claim about how to prevent or treat breast cancer—and more than half contained misinformation. Much of that misinformation related to turmeric, green tea, vitamin D and other foods and supplements.

There is also a desperate need to study cancer misinformation on non-text social media platforms, such as Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, write the authors of a paper in a special American Journal of Public Health issue dedicated to the topic.

“There is a tendency to think that if some [food or nutrient] is good, more is better,” says Collins. “This is in contrast to the evidence showing the power of simple small diet and lifestyle steps that add up to lower cancer risk.”

For social media users coming across posts about nutrition and cancer, Collins and other experts cite seven ways you can spot tweets, posts and pins that are most likely to contain misinformation.

 

1. Look at the source. Note if the article is written by or cites a trusted and science-based source—such as AICR or other respected health organizations, education institutions (.edu) or government sites (.gov). The .org url was originally intended for professional organizations, often non-profits, but anyone can register with this url, and their science accuracy may vary. Look for their “About Us” section to see where they get funding and what their health information is based upon. In general, if you do not recognize the source, find their website and read about how they came to the conclusions.
2. Go beyond the headline. Headlines are often the most hyped, the click-bait. Before you share or reach a conclusion, read the article critically. Look to see if that diet and cancer headline is referring to a single cell or animal study, which signifies early research. Note that the amount of a food or nutrient in a lab study may not be applicable for people.
3. Focus by using a folder. We usually consume social media by skimming, which can lead to missing misinformation clues. Place anything important enough to impact your health in a folder—paper or online—to read and consider when you have more time. This will also allow you to more readily compare it with similar information.
4. Spot the warning words. Watch our for terms such as “miracle” and “cure.” Articles containing misinformation may emphasize extreme measures. If the article is leading you to a product, such as a dietary supplement, that is another warning the article may contain misinformation.
5. Note the date. Sometimes old articles and images get repurposed or shared for years. Science evolves and that information could be inaccurate. AICR, for example, updated their Cancer Prevention Recommendations in 2018 after a massive review of the global evidence. If you see a relatively old article making statements about nutrition and cancer—or any health claims—visit AICR or another trusted source to verify the article’s content with current information.
6. Avoid the anecdotal. There is a good chance that anecdotal claims of miracle treatments that seem too good to be true are not true. For anecdotal stories in general, focus on the research behind the story.
7. Still have questions? Speak to your health practitioner. For cancer patients and survivors, it is especially important to speak to their health-care team about information from social media—or other sources—before consuming or doing something related to treatment, experts advise. Even if you receive the post from well-meaning family and friends, it may not be accurate or applicable to every individual.

“If what you eat is important enough to make a difference in your cancer risk—and that is what strong evidence shows—then it’s not something to take casually and accept from sources that aren’t providing a sound representation of good science,” adds Collins.

“Organizations like AICR are important for not only funding quality research, but also for synthesizing evidence into an unbiased broad picture the public and health professionals can trust. And when these trustworthy sources share insights on social media, it’s worth paying attention.” 

Fonte: AICR

As informações e sugestões contidas neste blog são meramente informativas e não devem substituir consultas com médicos especialistas.

É muito importante (sempre) procurar mais informações sobre os assuntos

Natural Compounds as Scaffolds for the Discovery of New Anti-Cancer Drugs: Focus on Terpenoids and Flavonoids

By Valeria P. Sulsen

Cancer is characterized by an abnormal proliferation of tumor cells in the body, resistance to cell death and other hallmarks that lead to the development of a tumor mass with potential to metastasize and spread to the body. It is the second cause of death worldwide and it is estimated that there were more than 9.9 million deaths in 2020 due to cancer. Many of the drugs that are currently used in therapeutics originate from natural compounds. More than 60% of the agents available to treat cancer are connected to natural sources. Examples include vincristine, vinblastine, podophyllotoxin, paclitaxel, among others.

Although chemotherapy is one of the best treatments for cancer, the drugs used have serious side effects and have shown increasing resistance. For this reason, it is necessary to look for new, more effective and selective drugs with fewer adverse effects. Natural products have played an important role in the discovery and development of new drugs. Despite advances and the development of synthetic pharmaceutical chemistry, drugs derived from natural sources continue to hold a prominent position. The great chemical diversity they present determines that there is a greater possibility of finding new molecules with unique structures and potential biological activities.

Natural compounds such as terpenoids and flavonoids have attracted the interest of many researchers. Sesquiterpene lactones and diterpenoids have shown to be a promising group of potential antitumor agents due to their preferential selectivity over certain tumors and cell lines additionally acting on specific signaling pathways. Flavonoids have demonstrated a preventive effect in the development and progress of cancer and metastasis. These compounds have also been shown to improve the effectiveness of current chemotherapies.

This Research Topic focuses on natural compounds as scaffolds for the discovery of new anti-cancer drugs. Terpenoids and flavonoids are the chemical groups of great interest, however, other types of compounds of natural origin could be considered for publication. The Research Topic will cover natural compounds as well as semisynthetic derivatives with activity on any type of cancer.

 We welcome submissions covering, but not limited to, the following sub-topics:

- Isolation and identification of bioactive compounds from natural sources
- Biological activity of known or previously isolated natural compounds
- In vitro and in vivo assays
- Mechanism of action of natural compounds
- Drug design and drug synthesis

Extracts and functional foods will be considered if at least one active compound has been detected and quantified. Anti-cancer modalities of natural products demonstrated using in-vivo models must be supported in at least two well-authenticated cancer cell lines (ideally originating from distinct organs/tissues).

Fonte: Frontier 

As informações e sugestões contidas neste blog são meramente informativas e não devem substituir consultas com médicos especialistas.

É muito importante (sempre) procurar mais informações sobre os assuntos

New Studies Find Evidence Of 'Superhuman' Immunity To COVID-19 In Some Individuals

Some scientists have called it "superhuman immunity" or "bulletproof." But immunologist Shane Crotty prefers "hybrid immunity."

"Overall, hybrid immunity to SARS-CoV-2 appears to be impressively potent," Crotty wrote in commentary in Science back in June.

No matter what you call it, this type of immunity offers much-needed good news in what seems like an endless array of bad news regarding COVID-19.

Over the past several months, a series of studies has found that some people mount an extraordinarily powerful immune response against SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19. Their bodies produce very high levels of antibodies, but they also make antibodies with great flexibility — likely capable of fighting off the coronavirus variants circulating in the world but also likely effective against variants that may emerge in the future.

"One could reasonably predict that these people will be quite well protected against most — and perhaps all of — the SARS-CoV-2 variants that we are likely to see in the foreseeable future," says Paul Bieniasz, a virologist at Rockefeller University who helped lead several of the studies.

In a study published online last month, Bieniasz and his colleagues found antibodies in these individuals that can strongly neutralize the six variants of concern tested, including delta and beta, as well as several other viruses related to SARS-CoV-2, including one in bats, two in pangolins and the one that caused the first coronavirus pandemic, SARS-CoV-1. 

"This is being a bit more speculative, but I would also suspect that they would have some degree of protection against the SARS-like viruses that have yet to infect humans," Bieniasz says.

So who is capable of mounting this "superhuman" or "hybrid" immune response?

People who have had a "hybrid" exposure to the virus. Specifically, they were infected with the coronavirus in 2020 and then immunized with mRNA vaccines this year. "Those people have amazing responses to the vaccine," says virologist Theodora Hatziioannou at Rockefeller University, who also helped lead several of the studies. "I think they are in the best position to fight the virus. The antibodies in these people's blood can even neutralize SARS-CoV-1, the first coronavirus, which emerged 20 years ago. That virus is very, very different from SARS-CoV-2."

In fact, these antibodies were even able to deactivate a virus engineered, on purpose, to be highly resistant to neutralization. This virus contained 20 mutations that are known to prevent SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from binding to it. Antibodies from people who were only vaccinated or who only had prior coronavirus infections were essentially useless against this mutant virus. But antibodies in people with the "hybrid immunity" could neutralize it.

These findings show how powerful the mRNA vaccines can be in people with prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2, she says. "There's a lot of research now focused on finding a pan-coronavirus vaccine that would protect against all future variants. Our findings tell you that we already have it.

"But there's a catch, right?" she adds: You first need to be sick with COVID-19. "After natural infections, the antibodies seem to evolve and become not only more potent but also broader. They become more resistant to mutations within the [virus]."

Hatziioannou and colleagues don't know if everyone who has had COVID-19 and then an mRNA vaccine will have such a remarkable immune response. "We've only studied the phenomena with a few patients because it's extremely laborious and difficult research to do," she says.

But she suspects it's quite common. "With every single one of the patients we studied, we saw the same thing." The study reports data on 14 patients.

Several other studies support her hypothesis — and buttress the idea that exposure to both a coronavirus and an mRNA vaccine triggers an exceptionally powerful immune response. In one study, published last month in The New England Journal of Medicine, scientists analyzed antibodies generated by people who had been infected with the original SARS virus — SARS-CoV-1 — back in 2002 or 2003 and who then received an mRNA vaccine this year.

Remarkably, these people also produced high levels of antibodies and — it's worth reiterating this point from a few paragraphs above — antibodies that could neutralize a whole range of variants and SARS-like viruses.

Now, of course, there are so many remaining questions. For example, what if you catch COVID-19 after you're vaccinated? Or can a person who hasn't been infected with the coronavirus mount a "superhuman" response if the person receives a third dose of a vaccine as a booster?

Hatziioannou says she can't answer either of those questions yet. "I'm pretty certain that a third shot will help a person's antibodies evolve even further, and perhaps they will acquire some breadth [or flexibility], but whether they will ever manage to get the breadth that you see following natural infection, that's unclear."

Immunologist John Wherry, at the University of Pennsylvania, is a bit more hopeful. "In our research, we already see some of this antibody evolution happening in people who are just vaccinated," he says, "although it probably happens faster in people who have been infected."

In a recent study, published online in late August, Wherry and his colleagues showed that, over time, people who have had only two doses of the vaccine (and no prior infection) start to make more flexible antibodies — antibodies that can better recognize many of the variants of concern.

So a third dose of the vaccine would presumably give those antibodies a boost and push the evolution of the antibodies further, Wherry says. So a person will be better equipped to fight off whatever variant the virus puts out there next.

"Based on all these findings, it looks like the immune system is eventually going to have the edge over this virus," says Bieniasz, of Rockefeller University. "And if we're lucky, SARS-CoV-2 will eventually fall into that category of viruses that gives us only a mild cold."

Fonte: NPR

As informações e sugestões contidas neste blog são meramente informativas e não devem substituir consultas com médicos especialistas.

É muito importante (sempre) procurar mais informações sobre os assuntos