3 ms·
If I understand correctly, the hard part safetywise is not making the vaccine, handling it and giving it to the monkeys. It's the fact that you then have to giv
by semi-extrinsic 12y ago
If I understand correctly, the hard part safetywise is not making the vaccine, handling it and giving it to the monkeys. It's the fact that you then have to give the monkeys real Ebola to see if the vaccine worked. So the hard part is handling real Ebola and monkeys infected with it.
What these guys have done is broken that real Ebola into two pieces, where one piece is only in the monkeys. So even in the worst case scenario that a monkey infects a human with "real" Ebola when they are testing the vaccine efficiency, the "real" Ebola is now unable to replicate itself in the human body. It's very clever.
Edit: so I think the answer by k_sze is wrong, but I'm not sure. Is there an immunologist in the room?
- maxerickson 12y agoThe abstract makes it clear that the vaccine is the thing missing the protein: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/03/25/science.aaa4919.full http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/03/25/science.a... Previously, we showed that a whole EBOV vaccine based on a replication-defective EBOV (EBOVΔVP30) protects immunized mice and guinea pigs against lethal challenge with rodent-adapted EBOV. edit: to be clear, k_sze is not wrong, they tested the vaccine against active virus.
- semi-extrinsic 12y agoOk, good that you clarified. I was wrong.