
To develop a coronavirus vaccine, synthetic biologists try to outdo nature - sethbannon
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/09/coronavirus-scientists-play-legos-with-proteins-to-build-next-gen-vaccine/
======
econcon
The new trick is that they are able to discover the structure of molecule they
need through computer simulations modeling immune system/virus.

Basically it uses Recombinant DNA technology to mass produce this. It's
already being used to produce growth hormone of various kids for use in
humans, swines and bovines.

Difference here is that tho, in growth hormone we know the structure of
peptide already as it can be extracted from the pituitary of the cadaver

------
jaequery
What happens if the virus mutates during the development of the cure? Isn't
that the real nature of viruses and the reason why we can't really cure the
common cold/flu?

~~~
l33tman
Coronaviruses have historically been quite stable (not an expert on this but I
read this recently). More stable than the Influenza viruses at least. So we
can only hope..

------
ngneer
Coming at it from a different and lay angle, could a cure be devised that
would be even more contageous, spreading around fast and eliminating the
virus?

------
zzzeek
hi I'm an idiot who knows nothing. can someone please explain the disconnect
between this sentence:

> “It’s all of us against the bug,” said Neil King of the University of
> Washington, who has been part of the hunt for a coronavirus vaccine since
> 2017.

noting the "since 2017" part. and this:

> The World Health Organisation said this week it may be 18 months before a
> vaccine against the coronavirus is publicly available.
> [https://www.sciencealert.com/who-says-a-coronavirus-
> vaccine-...](https://www.sciencealert.com/who-says-a-coronavirus-vaccine-
> is-18-months-away)

The former sentence seems to suggest there is as yet no path towards a vaccine
for this particular virus in that researchers have been trying without success
for three years, or is this having to do with the distinction between an
immediate vaccine vs. one that is more generalized?

~~~
selectodude
It’s the latter.

The coronavirus is also responsible for SARS and MERS. They had good luck with
a vaccine for SARS but it wasn’t needed anymore so they stopped. MERS is
highly lethal and was something they wanted a vaccine for if it popped back
up. Ideally (this is where my knowledge stops) the vaccines they were working
on for other strains will be a good launching pad to make a vaccine for
COVID-19.

~~~
allovernow
AFAIK the closest they got to working vaccines for SARS and MERS cause lung
damage from autoimmune response in each tested animal model.

The issue with these viruses is that they have a property known as Antibody
Dependent Enhancement (ADE). Where normally neutralizing antibodies instead
facilitate entry into your cells.

~~~
selectodude
That was a big issue early on, but I think they were able to work past it
before funding and interest dried up.

~~~
vorticalbox
Didn't the SARS vaccine also cause the host to die when reinfected?

~~~
selectodude
Early versions were causing even more extreme cytokine storms than the SARS
virus did without the vaccine.

This shit is trial and error with some difficult to handle results when things
are still in development. Which is why the idea that we'll have a safe and
effective vaccine within the year is a complete pipe dream.

------
dsign
.. the photo in the article is worth a million dollars ...

~~~
bryanrasmussen
a reporter once asked me to write a bunch of programming buzzwords on a
whiteboard for part of a transmission, you sure this isn't the bioversion of
that?

~~~
wyldfire
There are two photos in the article.

`dsign` refers to the one with President Trump, not the laptop displaying the
protein.

Caption is "President Trump is shown a vaccine model during a tour of the
National Institutes of Health’s Vaccine Research Center in Bethesda, Md., on
March 3. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES"

~~~
bryanrasmussen
fair enough, but why would that be worth a million? Even using the phrase in a
jocular fashion - it's not that interesting of a photo.

Being pedantic if I look at his photos on Getty Images and choose something
about the same quality (I didn't find the exact image) and selecting for both
web and print newspaper editorial front page I'm thinking about $4000

Is it actually a million on Getty Images? Or is it worth a million as in the
common vernacular usage because it is amusing or has some worthwhile quality I
cannot discern?

~~~
wyldfire
> amusing or has some worthwhile quality I cannot discern

The President's concerned/confused/concentrating look is definitely amusing,
especially given his previous skepticism/criticism of vaccines.

But among the punchlines his presidency has given us, this photo is merely a
chortle.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
I feel the same, hence my confusion and deciding it can't be that photo that¨s
worth the money. must be the other one.

------
magwa101
Cold showers help the human body fight germs. Why not? There is zero downside.

------
magwa101
I'll change that: Cold showers prime and help the human immune system. There
is no downside to doing it.

