To eradicate polio once and for all, we need a new vaccine – that's what we're working on
Aside from recent outbreaks of polio in war-torn regions of the world, the deadly virus is close to being eradicated, thanks to vaccines.
All vaccines work by training our immune systems to recognise a harmless piece of a virus or bacteria so that when the real thing is encountered later, the immune system is prepared to defeat it.
There are two types of polio vaccine in use. One is the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), and the other the live-attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).
The IPV is made by 'killing' large quantities of poliovirus with a chemical called formalin, making it unable to replicate. The immune system is then 'trained' to recognise the poliovirus – which is thankfully rendered safe by formalin.
Get your news from actual experts, direct to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Join The Conversation for free today.
The OPV vaccine contains a weakened (or 'attenuated') version of the virus. These changes in the virus's genetic code stop it from causing disease. However, as the OPV vaccine is still capable of replicating, it can revert to a form that can cause disease, with the potential to cause paralysis in unvaccinated people.
Because of these risks, scientists are now looking for safer ways to create vaccines – methods that don't require growing large amounts of the live virus in high-security labs, as is done for IPV.
Our research team has taken an important step towards producing a safer and more affordable polio vaccine. This new vaccine candidate uses virus-like particles (VLPs). These particles mimic the outer protein shell of poliovirus, but are empty inside. This means there is no risk of infection, but the VLP is still recognised by the immune system, which then protects against the disease.
This vaccine candidate uses technology that's already being used in hepatitis B and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. Thanks to VLPs, since 2008, there have been no cervical cancer cases in women in Scotland who were fully vaccinated against HPV. Over the past ten years, our research group has worked to apply this successful technology in the fight to eradicate polio.
Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, polio was a major global childhood health concern. However, the development of IPV (licensed in 1955) and of OPV (licensed in 1963), almost eliminated polio-derived paralysis. Due to the success of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, introduced in 1988, most cases of paralytic polio are now caused by the vaccine.
Despite the success of these vaccines, they both have safety concerns that could threaten to compromise eradication of the disease.
IPV, for instance, is expensive to make because it needs stringent safety measures to prevent the accidental release of live poliovirus and so is mostly used in wealthy countries. OPV is five times cheaper than IPV, and due to its lower cost and ease of use, it is used almost exclusively in developing countries.
OPV has been instrumental in the near eradication of 'wild polioviruses' (the naturally occurring form) around the world. But in areas where vaccination rates are low and enough people are susceptible to infection, the weakened virus (OPV) can replicate.
Unfortunately, each round of replication increases the potential for the virus to revert to a form of polio that causes illness and paralysis. This is already evident in new vaccine-derived outbreaks across several countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, which now accounts for most paralytic polio cases worldwide. So, once all remaining strains of wild poliovirus have been successfully eradicated, OPV use will have to stop.
The next generation of polio vaccinations is likely to be produced in yeast or insect cells. Our research shows that VLPs produced in both yeast and insect cells can perform equally or better than the current IPV.
These non-infectious VLPs are also easier to produce than IPVs. They would not need to be handled under such stringent laboratory conditions as IPVs, and they are more temperature stable, thanks to genetic alteration of the outer shell. The new vaccines, then, will be less expensive to produce than IPVs, helping to improve fair and equal access to vaccination – ensuring that once polio is eradicated, it will stay eradicated.
As we move closer to wiping out polio worldwide, these next-generation vaccines could be the final tool we need – safe, affordable and accessible to all.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Lee Sherry worked as a post-doc on a WHO-funded research grant for the production of poliovirus virus-like particles
Nicola Stonehouse is a member of the WHO VLP vaccine Consortium and receives funding from The World Health Organisation - Generation of virus-free polio vaccine.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Ocean mud locks up much of the planet's carbon – we're digging deep to map these ancient stores
Mud is messy. For some, it's a plaything. To many, it can mean real hardship. Mud, though, is often overlooked, particularly when it lies out of sight. Deep down at the bottom of the sea, it is one of the most important natural archives of Earth's past – holding clues of shifting climates, coastlines, ocean conditions and carbon storage. Our research is the first to use computer models to trace how thick, carbon-rich mud patches on the seafloor have formed over thousands of years – helping to locate hidden carbon stores and understand the seafloor's long-term role in the climate system. This mud is a carbon time capsule. Vast amounts of organic carbon settle on the seafloor each year, coming from decaying marine life and from living (or once living) material washed in from land. When stored in the marine environment, this 'blue carbon' can stay locked away for centuries or millennia. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Marine sediments are the planet's largest long-term reservoir of organic carbon, particularly in huge underwater mud patches, making them a vital component of the global carbon cycle. Mud makes an excellent carbon store because organic matter sticks to the tiny silt and clay particles and gets deposited in dense sediment, protecting it from oxygen – attributes that larger particles such as sand don't have. But no two mud patches are the same. Each holds a unique story about when it formed, how it got there, and how much carbon it stores. Across the world's continental shelf seas, scientists still don't know where all these muddy deposits are or how extensive they might be. Our research shows that computer modelling past ocean conditions can help predict the location and age of carbon-rich mud – all without getting our toes wet. This is a new way to bring old mud into the blue carbon conversation. We examined three mud‐rich areas in the shallow north-west European shelf seas: the Fladen Ground, Celtic Deep and western Irish Sea mud belts. Using computer models of ocean tides over the past 21,000 years – back to the peak of the last ice age – we found that each of these mud patches formed at different times. In the Celtic Deep and western Irish Sea mud belts, mud has accumulated over the past several thousands of years and continues to do so today, especially in the latter. In the Fladen Ground, deposits are ancient relics, preserved by calm tidal conditions since the muds were laid down between 17,000 and 5,000 years ago. The beauty of this modelling approach is that it can be applied to other shelf seas too. While direct scientific data (as opposed to computer models) is best, sampling the seabed is costly and time-consuming, especially in remote places. That's why the seafloor remains one of the least explored parts of our planet. Our work shows that models of past ocean conditions can help identify carbon-rich areas and guide more efficient sample collection. Mapping the size of muddy deposits and understanding the history of how and when they got there helps scientists to better consider how the seabed can store carbon and act as a buffer against climate change. Until now, assessments of blue carbon in offshore sediments have focused only on the surface of the seabed (typically the top 10cm). But that's literally just scratching the surface. A 2024 report estimated that 244 million tonnes of organic carbon are stored long-term in the surface of the UK's seabed, with over 98% of it in that thin upper layer of sediment (the rest in saltmarshes and seagrass meadows). However, carbon buried below 10cm is 'largely unquantified and relatively old', the report noted. Ignoring that buried carbon risks underestimating the seafloor as a long-term carbon 'sink' – an area that stores more carbon than it releases. The seafloor is a key player in climate regulation, as the carbon locked away in seabed sediments would otherwise contribute to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Disturbing the stored carbon – through offshore trawling, dredging or construction – risks mobilising carbon that has been locked away for centuries or millennia. When seafloor mud is disturbed, the organic carbon it holds can be exposed to oxygen-rich seawater where microbes may break it down, converting it into carbon dioxide. Some of this carbon dioxide dissolved in the seawater may then find its way back into the atmosphere. Read more: That's why we are digging deeper in the Convex Seascape Survey, a five-year global research programme exploring blue carbon – asking questions like: where is it, how and when did it get there, and where did it come from? Alongside the computer modelling, we're studying the sediment record – using long tubes of mud extracted from the seafloor to measure how carbon storage has changed over time. With atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at a record high, it's vital to understand the risks of disturbing underwater carbon stores. Only then can we make smarter decisions about how to protect the ocean, and the carbon stored in its depths. We often think about protecting the ocean in terms of its marine life. But these muddy sediments, quietly building up on the seafloor, are vital in the fight against climate change. As David Attenborough says in his latest film, Ocean: 'The ocean is our planet's life-support system, and our greatest ally against climate catastrophe.' Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who've subscribed so far. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Sophie Ward receives funding from the Convex Seascape Survey. Zoe Roseby receives funding from the Convex Seascape Survey.
Tom's Guide
a day ago
- Tom's Guide
What is blue light and can it really ruin your sleep? We asked the experts
I'll be the first to admit, I spend more time than I'd like scrolling in the evening. I do my best to follow a relaxing screen-free nighttime routine, but some nights the screentime gets one over me. Luckily, I sleep on one of this year's top-rated mattresses and get plenty of fresh air and movement during the day, so this evening light exposure doesn't completely ruin my sleep. However, I'm curious about the impact blue light has on my overall sleep quality. Online advice around blue light is conflicting. Some sources say it's sure to ruin your sleep, while others say it's not so bad. So, I've dug into studies and reached out to Dr. Michael Gradisar, head of sleep science at Sleep Cycle, and insomnia and sleep therapist Dr. Anna Joyce to set the record straight. Here's what these two experts want you to know about blue light and sleep... Blue light is part of the visible light spectrum and accounts for about one-third of all light we see as humans. This type of light influences alertness, hormone production and sleep cycles. Blue light comes naturally from the sun, the biggest source of blue light we consume, but it can also come from artificial sources like smartphone screens, televisions and fluorescent and LED lights. Bright light, i.e blue light, interferes with the circadian rhythm by suppressing production of the sleep-inducing hormone melatonin. When the brain identifies light, it sends signals to the body telling it to be alert rather than sleepy. So, in theory, blue light exposure in the evening should delay sleep onset. On the flip side, it helps us feel alert come morning. Hence, exposing yourself to natural daylight first thing is a key tip for fighting morning grogginess and getting up and at 'em, which in turn helps us sleep better at night. The common assumption is blue light is bad news for sleep — and with right reason. A 2022 systematic review by Swiss researchers of studies investigating the influence of blue light exposure on sleep, performance and wellbeing concluded blue light could have negative effects such as a decrease in sleep quality and sleep duration. However, recent research by The Conversation suggests blue light isn't as bad for sleep as we've previously been led to believe. Sleep experts from Sweden, Australia and Israel found blue light exposure only delayed sleep by 2.7 minutes — hardly substantial. Experts, including Dr. Gradisar and Dr. Joyce, now agree that although light from screens does delay melatonin release, it only makes a minimal difference. Light from screens just isn't bright enough to significantly affect sleep patterns. "For blue light to meaningfully shift a person's sleep timing, the light source needs to be at least ten times brighter than what's emitted from phones, tablets, or other devices," says Dr. Gradisar. Rather, it is our cultural inability to shut down screens at bedtime, as we're sucked into unceasing social media feeds, that impacts our sleep, particularly how long we sleep for. Research from Dr. Gradisar shows the biggest sleep disrupter is delaying bedtime due to screen use rather than the light from the screens. "Don't fear using screens before bed — just time them wisely," he says. "While blue light from phones is often blamed, my research has shown that the biggest disrupter is actually delaying bedtime, not the light or the content from screens themselves." "Watching TV or listening to a podcast as a wind-down routine can be perfectly fine, especially if it helps reduce nighttime overthinking, as long as it doesn't cut into the number of hours of rest you get." Evening blue light is pretty much unavoidable in our modern world and, as tech gurus here at Tom's Guide, we're not ones to say get rid of your gadgets altogether. Instead follow these tips for sleeping well even after your screentime fix… When I do fall into the trap of being glued to my phone in the evening, it's certainly harder to switch off. Be it catching up with gossip in the group chat, online shopping or a doom scroll through Instagram reels, I rarely come away from my screen feeling sleepy. Instead I'm thinking about the breakup of a couple I've never met, contemplating whether I really need that new outfit or dreaming of that holiday destination that was made to look oh-so perfect in a 30 second video. "The problem is that we usually use screens for engaging and alerting activities, like work, reading the news, or scrolling social media; all things which stimulate us and affect our mood," explains Dr. Joyce. "The brain needs time to wind down in order to fall asleep so some transition time between screen use and bedtime is helpful." Similarly, Dr. Gradisar recommends podcasts or watching TV for your bedtime digital fix instead of scrolling. "TV is a passive device compared to phones. Many people fall asleep just fine after watching TV, with some drifting off while it's on," he says. There's no serious harm in using screens as part of a nighttime wind-down routine — television programmes or films are a mainstay in many people's evenings. But, as Dr. Gradisar's research shows, you need to be disciplined over your screen shut off time before bed to ensure it doesn't eat into crucial sleep time. That means having the self-control to flick up the TikTok app or turn off Netflix rather than hit 'play next episode' when bedtime rolls around. A 2024 study by researchers at the University of Otago concludes we should keep screens out of bed for better sleep, rather than cutting them out in the evening completely. This enforces a cut off point for screens — i.e. use them on the sofa, but put them down once you get into bed. You can buy blue light blocking glasses and lamps that help minimize the glare of screens and prevent blue light from interfering with sleep. I've been using a blue light blocking clip light (on sale for $29.99/£19.99 $25.49/£16.99 at Bon Charge) to read before bed. I've found replacing my bright bedside lamp with this dim red light has been a game changer for helping me drift off immediately after closing my book. While the scientific studies around blue light blocking glasses are tenuous, our Tom's Guide team have tested the best blue light blocking glasses you can buy online right now. These glasses are designed to filter out wavelengths that disrupt our circadian rhythms. Be their effectiveness placebo or not, we think they're worth trying if you're concerned about how blue light is impacting your circadian cycle. Plus, they won't break the bank.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
US state passes law allowing experimental drugs to be prescribed – a model for the future?
The US state of Montana has become the first in the country to let patients try experimental drugs – even if they are not terminally ill. The new law allows doctors to refer patients to licensed 'experimental treatment centres', where they can access drugs that have only passed phase 1 clinical trials – the earliest stage of testing in humans. This goes far beyond existing federal law, which only allows terminally ill patients to access such drugs under the Right to Try Act, passed in 2017. Montana already had a fairly permissive right to try law, which was originally designed to let terminally ill patients access treatments that hadn't yet received full approval by the drug regulator. In 2023, that law was expanded to include patients with any medical condition. The latest law goes even further, creating a formal system for clinics to offer these experimental treatments. According to an article in MIT Technology Review, the new law was shaped and promoted by a group of longevity advocates – a mix of scientists and influencers who are focused on extending human life. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Before new medicines reach the market, they usually go through several stages of testing. A phase 1 trial is the first step in human studies and is designed to find a safe dose and spot early side-effects. It typically involves a small group – between 20 and 100 people – and does not prove the drug works. Only around 12% of drugs that enter phase 1 trials go on to gain full approval. Many fail due to safety issues or lack of effectiveness. Montana's new law allows access to these early-stage treatments with a doctor's recommendation – even for patients who are not terminally ill. Clinics must be licensed as experimental treatment centres, and 2% of their profits must be used to help low-income patients access these therapies. Supporters say it gives people more control over their own health and could help boost innovation in areas like cancer, neurodegenerative disease and age-related decline. There is also hope it could turn Montana into a destination for medical tourism, attracting biotech investment. But critics warn that the move could put vulnerable patients at risk. Drugs in phase 1 trials may be safe enough to test – but their long-term effects are still unknown, and they may not work. There are also concerns over whether insurers will cover complications, since the drugs are not approved. Legal protections for both patients and doctors remain unclear. Elsewhere in the world, access to experimental drugs is more tightly controlled. In the UK, experimental drugs are usually only available through formal clinical trials or special 'compassionate use' requests – all subject to strict oversight by regulators like the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Health Research Authority. The same applies across the EU, where compassionate use is typically limited to drugs in later stages of testing. Japan has a similar system, called 'expanded access clinical trials', which also limits use to drugs already in phase 2 or beyond. And in South America, some countries allow patients to keep receiving experimental drugs after trials end – but not to start them outside of a trial. Montana's decision marks a bold new approach in the continuing debate over patient rights. It raises big questions about safety, ethics, regulation and the role of government in balancing innovation with public health. It could end up being a model for other states – or a cautionary tale. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Dipa Kamdar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
