4 ms·

There are two considerable points here: 1) this is a simple molecule, not an organism that can react to the threat. As you said, it would be interesting to be

by samus 3y ago

There are two considerable points here: 1) this is a simple molecule, not an organism that can react to the threat. As you said, it would be interesting to be evaluate whether the antibodies actually have an effect, but they probably have, else they likely wouldn't have been detected at all. 2) the blood samples were taken from patients. It would be interesting to evaluate blood samples from the population at large.

Aurornis 3y ago
> As you said, it would be interesting to be evaluate whether the antibodies actually have an effect, The article has a quote from the researchers about how the antibodies could remove a future PEG nanocarrier from the patients' system: > "The antibodies formed against PEG attach themselves to the coated nanocarriers, thus counteracting the effect that is actually desired: the nanocarrier becomes visible to the immune system and is removed before it can exert its effect," explains Katharina Landfester, director of the department. I don't know if there are other consequences outside of this. Having your body become good at removing a foreign substance doesn't sound like a bad thing, except in the case where you might want that foreign substance to help deliver a drug.
- epgui 3y ago
  PEG is used in so many biomedical applications, largely because of its favourable immunochemical properties-- that's precisely the concern.
  - darkclouds 3y ago
    [dead]
spondylosaurus 3y ago
To point (1), antibodies against non-alive substances are how you get things like allergies and autoimmune diseases. Your body goes "holy shit pollen!" and makes you break out in hives or "holy shit gluten!" and makes your guts inflamed. Not all the time, obviously, and it depends on the type of antibody.
- epgui 3y ago
  This comment is "not even wrong". I'm not sure how much more "alive" you expect something like pollen to be (or most allergens, which are usually proteins or protein fragments). Nobody is claiming that antibodies are binding to whole-cats or whole-dogs. They normally bind to protein, and sometimes to protein-coupled-with-small-molecules. It's fairly notable for there to be Abs against synthetic molecules, even if PEG is technically organic, and a relatively large molecule.
  - spondylosaurus 3y ago
    ? The person I was replying to mentioned "not an organism that can react to the threat," which I took to mean a bacterium or virus. The former of which is definitely alive, and the latter debatably so. What I was trying to convey is that your immune system regularly responds to things that are not active invading organisms. Peanut butter is organic, sure, but it's not a living creature that your body needs to shut down. Doesn't stop some people's immune systems from firing up regardless. Hence also: "it would be interesting to be evaluate whether the antibodies actually have an effect"—allergies are one way that antibodies can have an effect against an otherwise inert/harmless substance.
    - epgui 3y ago
      Antibodies do not target bacteria or viruses. They target protein that are present on bacteria or viruses. Protein are not alive, but they are a component of live organisms. Protein present in peanut butter come from the plant that produces peanuts, which is just as alive (if not more) than microorganisms. The only difference between the two are the time scales involved, and the natural selection forces in play... But that seems irrelevant here. Your immune system has no notion of whether an antigen is alive or not. One way or another, it makes no difference. For the allergy example, there is nothing special there either. Your body is reacting to the allergen (a protein) in essentially the same way it would react to a helminth (or rather, to helminth protein). It doesn't know the difference.
      - 3y ago
autoexec 3y ago
> it would be interesting to be evaluate whether the antibodies actually have an effect, but they probably have, else they likely wouldn't have been detected at all. You're right. The antibodies to PEG are detected after a very severe reaction or after testing following many bad reactions to seemingly unrelated substances so for some people it's having a very harmful effect. PEG can even cause anaphylaxis. Reactions can become increasingly severe with repeated exposure too, so someone mildly sensitive to PEG today could end up in the ER at some point in the future. Our bodies seem to see PEG as a hazard so I hope alternatives are found for it.

by samus 3y ago

Aurornis 3y ago

> As you said, it would be interesting to be evaluate whether the antibodies actually have an effect, The article has a quote from the researchers about how the antibodies could remove a future PEG nanocarrier from the patients' system: > "The antibodies formed against PEG attach themselves to the coated nanocarriers, thus counteracting the effect that is actually desired: the nanocarrier becomes visible to the immune system and is removed before it can exert its effect," explains Katharina Landfester, director of the department. I don't know if there are other consequences outside of this. Having your body become good at removing a foreign substance doesn't sound like a bad thing, except in the case where you might want that foreign substance to help deliver a drug.

epgui 3y ago
PEG is used in so many biomedical applications, largely because of its favourable immunochemical properties-- that's precisely the concern.
- darkclouds 3y ago
  [dead]

spondylosaurus 3y ago

To point (1), antibodies against non-alive substances are how you get things like allergies and autoimmune diseases. Your body goes "holy shit pollen!" and makes you break out in hives or "holy shit gluten!" and makes your guts inflamed. Not all the time, obviously, and it depends on the type of antibody.

epgui 3y ago
This comment is "not even wrong". I'm not sure how much more "alive" you expect something like pollen to be (or most allergens, which are usually proteins or protein fragments). Nobody is claiming that antibodies are binding to whole-cats or whole-dogs. They normally bind to protein, and sometimes to protein-coupled-with-small-molecules. It's fairly notable for there to be Abs against synthetic molecules, even if PEG is technically organic, and a relatively large molecule.
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  ? The person I was replying to mentioned "not an organism that can react to the threat," which I took to mean a bacterium or virus. The former of which is definitely alive, and the latter debatably so. What I was trying to convey is that your immune system regularly responds to things that are not active invading organisms. Peanut butter is organic, sure, but it's not a living creature that your body needs to shut down. Doesn't stop some people's immune systems from firing up regardless. Hence also: "it would be interesting to be evaluate whether the antibodies actually have an effect"—allergies are one way that antibodies can have an effect against an otherwise inert/harmless substance.
  - epgui 3y ago
    Antibodies do not target bacteria or viruses. They target protein that are present on bacteria or viruses. Protein are not alive, but they are a component of live organisms. Protein present in peanut butter come from the plant that produces peanuts, which is just as alive (if not more) than microorganisms. The only difference between the two are the time scales involved, and the natural selection forces in play... But that seems irrelevant here. Your immune system has no notion of whether an antigen is alive or not. One way or another, it makes no difference. For the allergy example, there is nothing special there either. Your body is reacting to the allergen (a protein) in essentially the same way it would react to a helminth (or rather, to helminth protein). It doesn't know the difference.
    - 3y ago

autoexec 3y ago

> it would be interesting to be evaluate whether the antibodies actually have an effect, but they probably have, else they likely wouldn't have been detected at all. You're right. The antibodies to PEG are detected after a very severe reaction or after testing following many bad reactions to seemingly unrelated substances so for some people it's having a very harmful effect. PEG can even cause anaphylaxis. Reactions can become increasingly severe with repeated exposure too, so someone mildly sensitive to PEG today could end up in the ER at some point in the future. Our bodies seem to see PEG as a hazard so I hope alternatives are found for it.