OSU researchers create nasal spray that could stop the flu; blocks infection in mice
An antibody that could revolutionize the prevention of influenza, other viruses and even non-viral diseases like cancer was recently engineered by Ohio State scientists.
In a study published April 29, this new molecule was successful in protecting a majority of the tested mice from lethal flu doses, even preventing some from experiencing any symptoms at all, according to a May 8 Ohio State News article.
Head researcher and the study's co-lead author Dr. Kai Xu said the engineered molecule — transmitted via nasal spray — works by triggering 'mucosal immunity,' meaning it coats the tissue that lines the body's organs and tracts before a virus can enter.
By contrast, current flu vaccines rely on 'systemic immunity,' which fights the virus after infection. Xu said combining both immune responses into one engineered antibody could 'enhance the protection' of conventional, injection-based vaccines.
'Our creation can complement the conventional vaccine in terms of targeting to prevent the seasonal flu infection,' Xu, also an Ohio State assistant professor of veterinary biosciences, said. 'It can be a replacement, but we believe that these two can synergize with each other.'
Researchers created the new antibody by combining two existing ones: immunoglobulin G, which makes up most antibodies in the human body and has two 'arms' to target specific viruses, and immunoglobulin M, the immune system's first line of defense with 10 'arms' to attack infection.
Traditionally, flu prevention has focused on IgG. The problem, Xu said, is that the flu virus can mutate, making it harder for IgG to identify and fight it. IgM, however, can still latch onto the virus even if a part of it changes, thanks to its many arms.
By combining IgM's 'stickiness' with IgG's precision, Xu said his lab engineered an antibody that could neutralize the flu more effectively than either antibody alone.
When tested on mice using a nasal spray, Xu said the antibody successfully stuck to their mucosal surfaces for a week, protecting most from lethal doses of common flu strains. Xu said this finding suggests the antibody could work similarly in humans.
If used to complement existing flu vaccines, the engineered antibody would be especially beneficial not only in years when medical professionals inaccurately predict the specific strain that spreads during flu season, but also for individuals who don't have a strong immune response to vaccines, Xu said.
Since this study was published, Xu said his team has continued its analysis to work toward a large-animal experiment — which is necessary before a clinical trial can take place — and optimizing the molecule's production so large amounts can be obtained quickly for further testing.
Xu said his team is also working on expanding the scope of this study to other kinds of illness beyond influenza — from bird flu to cancer to coronavirus. By working with other research programs at Ohio State and pharmaceutical company IGM Biosciences, Xu said he hopes his team's research can one day become a therapeutic drug.
'This research really benefits from multidisciplinary collaboration,' Xu said. 'I think that by enhancing the collaboration within OSU and even with the industry partner in the future, we will certainly enhance our research for a national medicine.'
Reporter Emma Wozniak can be reached at ewozniak@dispatch.com, or @emma_wozniak_ on X, formerly known as Twitter.
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: OSU study finds new antibody to prevent the flu through nasal spray
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
NIH scientists have been angry for months. Now some are rebelling.
More than 90 staffers at the National Institutes of Health signed their names to a letter of dissent to Director Jay Bhattacharya in a rare sign of open resistance by career government employees. The letter warns that Trump administration policies such as terminating peer-reviewed grants, interrupting global collaborations and firing essential staff are wasting public resources, undermining the NIH's mission and harming the health of people in the United States and beyond. 'The life-and-death nature of our work demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted. We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the letter says. 'Many of us have raised these concerns to NIH leadership, yet they remain unaddressed, and we are pressured to implement harmful measures.' Officials who administer grant portfolios, early-career scientists and longtime staffers are among those who signed, calling the document the 'Bethesda declaration' for the city in Maryland where the NIH is headquartered. The letter is modeled after the Great Barrington declaration, Bhattacharya's dissent to the government's covid policies in 2020, which was written in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, and helped catapult him to prominence. 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration,' Bhattacharya said in a statement. 'Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' The Trump administration has described its actions as eliminating red tape, increasing accountability of science and removing ideological influence. It has said that a new policy for grants that include subawards to researchers in foreign countries increases accountability. Another target has been funding that includes diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives aimed at broadening participation in science. Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science Technology and Policy, said in a speech in May that 'political biases are displacing the vital search for truth,' adding that efforts to make science more inclusive 'degrade our scientific enterprise. DEI represents an existential threat to the real diversity of thought that forms the foundation of the scientific community.' Some NIH employees — a number of whom have participated in protests and walked out of a town hall featuring Bhattacharya — say the Trump administration's action's have raised existential questions about the state of science in America. Since the inauguration, dozens of employees who work at the National Institutes of Health have spoken with The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. They described a climate of fear and anxiety and an inability to perform routine tasks due to the administration's disruptions. The letter represents a new level of concern from people within the agency, with some now willing to be identified: It was signed by 92 people by name and 250 additional people anonymously. Jenna Norton, an NIH program director who said she was speaking as a private citizen, said the fear of being punished for signing the letter was outweighed by the fear of not saying anything. 'We wanted a way to speak up together, to make it clear to ourselves and our colleagues that this isn't who NIH is,' said Norton, who oversees grants, with a focus on research to address health disparities in kidney and urological diseases. 'We aren't here to harm people. We're here to help people — and we aren't being heard when we raise concerns in more traditional ways.' Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral researcher focused on combating antimicrobial resistance who also said he is speaking as a private citizen, has been at the NIH off and on for nearly 15 years, starting with a summer internship. Morgan said he sees the document as a letter of hope that the course can be corrected. 'I feel like if I put my head down and I didn't say anything, my research would be somewhat unobjectionable to the current administration and I could get by — but where would that leave the world around me,' Morgan said. The letter argues that the administration has politicized research by canceling $9.5 billion of peer-reviewed grants and $2.6 billion in contracts. It says the administration is abandoning the process that ensures the most meritorious science is funded, citing the decision to fund an 'unvetted' flu vaccine project led by two of the institute's leaders. It opposes administration policies such as capping the funding that supports the administrative and facilities costs of doing science, and the firing of essential staff. 'What I would like the public to know is that these were carefully vetted projects. Just because they have some buzzwords in them, please look a little bit deeper. These went through peer review, panels of experts who read every word carefully,' said Benjamin Feldman, an NIH scientist who uses CRISPR gene-editing technology in zebra fish. The letter also details a widespread fear that the massive slowdown in NIH spending over the past five months could mean the agency will not be able to use all its funding this year — which could be used to justify the budget cuts proposed by the Trump administration. A group of biomedical advocacy organizations met with Bhattacharya in late May to express concern that the NIH's current budget might not be spent. Bhattacharya said he would spend all the money allocated to the NIH, according to a letter those agencies sent to him last week. 'We are deeply grateful to you and your staff for taking the time to meet with us on Thursday, May 29. Most importantly, we appreciate your commitment that NIH will fully obligate all FY25 funds by the end of the fiscal year,' the advocacy groups wrote to Bhattacharya. An accompanying letter signed by prominent scientists, including multiple Nobel laureates, argues that the Make America Healthy Again initiative refers to an 'undefined time in the past.' The letter cites massive gains against heart disease, childhood leukemia and measles since 1960. 'Certainly, much work remains to better treat disease and improve the health of Americans, such as addressing increased rates of obesity, diabetes, and opioid dependency. But, glamorizing a mythical past, while ignoring important progress made through biomedical research, does not enhance the health of American people,' the outside scientists wrote.
CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
The Ultimate Visual Guide to Protein: Here's How Much You Should Eat A Day
You aren't the only one scratching your head, wondering whether you're getting enough protein in your daily meals. Countless Reddit threads are filled with people asking the same thing: Does it matter how much protein I eat if I'm not trying to bulk up? The answer is yes. Protein is not only necessary for gym buffs and bodybuilders -- it's essential for everyone. In addition to building muscle, protein helps with weight loss, energy levels, balancing hormones and much more. Your protein needs will vary based on factors like body weight and activity level. A general guideline from the recommended dietary allowance for protein is 0.36 grams per pound of body weight per day. You can use the US Department of Agriculture's calculator for a more tailored estimate. If you have fitness goals and need help visualizing how much protein you need, this guide is your blueprint for 100 grams of protein across different diets. The protein amounts below are estimates based on specific products and their nutrition labels, so your figures may vary depending on the brand or preparation method. Each picture contains 100 grams of protein combined, not 100 grams per item. If you want to get better at hitting your daily protein goals, this visual guide can help. What 100 grams of protein looks like for omnivores Amanda Capritto/CNET Eating 100 grams of protein per day should be pretty easy if you don't have any dietary restrictions. Here's what that would look like: Two eggs (12 grams) Snack cheese (5 grams) Greek yogurt (15 grams) Beef sausage (14 grams) One can of tuna (27 grams) ½ cup of rolled oats (5 grams) 2 ounces of deli ham (10 grams) 1 ounce of mixed nuts (5 grams) Two slices of rye bread (10 grams) Everything pictured above comes to 103 grams, which puts you slightly over your daily target. What 100 grams of animal protein looks like for carnivores Amanda Capritto/CNET As you can see, getting 100 grams of protein from animal products doesn't take much: Four eggs (24 grams) One can of tuna (27 grams) Three beef meatballs (15 grams) 2 ounces of turkey bacon (10 grams) 3 ounces of turkey breast (24 grams) This amounts to a perfect 100 grams of protein. If you ate all of this in a day, plus bread and other nonanimal products, you would surpass 100 grams of protein in a day. What 100 grams of protein looks like for vegetarians Amanda Capritto/CNET For vegetarians, 100 grams of protein might look like this: Four eggs (24 grams) ½ cup of rolled oats (5 grams) Two snack cheeses (10 grams) ¼ cup of protein granola (10 grams) A single-serve Greek yogurt (15 grams) One tablespoon of hemp seeds (4 grams) Two tablespoons of peanut butter (7 grams) One scoop of plant-based protein powder (20 grams) This comes out to 99 grams of protein, which is pretty close. What 100 grams of protein looks like for vegans Amanda Capritto/CNET What you see isn't totally what you get with the amount of protein here: 1 ounce of nuts (5 grams) ½ cup of rolled oats (5 grams) A protein granola bar (8 grams) Two slices of rye bread (10 grams) ¼ cup of protein granola (10 grams) One tablespoon of hemp seeds (4 grams) Two tablespoons of chia seeds (10 grams) Two tablespoons of peanut butter (7 grams) One scoop of plant-based protein powder (20 grams) This amounts to 79 grams of protein. If we double up on the mixed nuts, chia seeds and hemp seeds, this brings us to 93 grams of protein. You could add an extra tablespoon of peanut butter or eat a full cup of oats, instead of half a cup, to come closer to 100 grams. This plate also excludes high-protein vegan meat substitutes, such as tofu, tempeh or plant-based meats like the Impossible Burger. Those food sources can make it easier to get 100 grams of protein for someone who eats a vegan diet.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Managing Weight in Older Adults Isn't About Weight at All
While weight loss is often the goal of weight management, weight management in older adults should go beyond weight loss to focus on functional health outcomes, comorbidity improvements, and harm reduction. Beverly Tchang, MD Weight management in older adults requires greater mindfulness and clinical nuance than in younger populations, owing to the increased risk of potential harm. Aging is commonly accompanied by a rise in medical complexity — older adults are more likely to live with multiple chronic conditions and to take several medications, which adds important layers of consideration when pursuing weight loss interventions. Over 50% of older adults have three or more chronic diseases. These overlapping conditions demand coordinated, multidisciplinary care. Within this context, clinicians must consider how meaningful weight loss might improve obesity-related complications, while also weighing the potential for unintended consequences that can arise from rapid or unmonitored changes in health status. Polypharmacy is a common concern in geriatric care and adds to the complexity of weight management. Among adults aged 65 and older with Medicare insurance, the median number of prescription medications was four. Older patients may be prescribed medications associated with potential weight gain, such as first-generation antihistamines or beta-blockers. Polypharmacy not only increases the risk of adverse drug-drug interactions but also necessitates vigilant monitoring during weight loss, particularly when medications are weight-dependent. A case report on thyrotoxicosis in the setting of 30% weight loss with tirzepatide highlighted the importance of adjusting weight-based medications like levothyroxine. Because obesity is the root cause or contributor to several other cardiometabolic diseases, obesity treatment has been demonstrated to improve several weight-related consequences. The Look AHEAD trial of adults with type 2 diabetes reported an average 8.6% weight loss and associated improvements in blood pressure, lipid profiles, and glycemic status. Obesity pharmacotherapy advances, which now grants access to 15%-20% weight loss thresholds, have been associated with de-escalation of antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapies. In a secondary analysis of trials for semaglutide 2.4 mg, 34% vs 15% of participants experienced a discontinuation or dose reduction in their anti-hypertensive medication, while maintaining normal blood pressures. While such observational data is insufficient to establish recommendations, they implore attention: As weight loss is achieved, medication regimens should be regularly reviewed for potential deprescribing to reduce the risk of overtreatment, adverse effects, and polypharmacy-related complications. Beyond cardiometabolic disease, sarcopenia— the age-related decline in muscle mass and function — is another critical consideration. Clinicians should focus on evidence-based nutrition and physical activity recommendations demonstrated to preserve lean mass and function. Higher protein intake has been consistently demonstrated to preserve lean mass or improve body composition in the setting of weight loss. High protein diets (ie, greater than 0.8 g/kg/d) are commonly recommended alongside a progressive strength training program. In a weight loss study of adults with obesity, participants were randomized to a high protein supplement vs an isocaloric supplement and participated in a resistance exercise program 3 times/week for 13 weeks. While weight loss and fat mass loss between groups did not differ, those on the higher protein supplement (1.1 g/kg/d of protein) gained 0.4 kg +/- 1.2 kg of appendicular muscle mass while those on the isocaloric supplement (0.85 g/kg/d of protein) lost 0.5 +/- 2.1 kg ( P =.03). Similar studies focusing on resistance training have replicated these benefits across studies. A systematic review and meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials that enrolled older adults with obesity compared weight loss via caloric restriction alone vs weight loss via caloric restriction plus resistance training; resistance training reduced 93.5% of the lean body mass loss associated with calorie restriction. Additionally, the strength-to-lean body mass ratio improved when resistance training accompanied calorie restriction compared to calorie restriction alone (20.9% vs -7.5%). However, muscle preservation is only half the story. Bone health is an equally important concern during weight loss in older adults. Rapid or sustained weight reduction can have unintended effects on bone density, which in turn can increase the risk of fractures. Few studies have examined the incidence of fracture rate after long-term and sustained weight loss. In the aforementioned Look AHEAD study of adults with type 2 diabetes, no significant difference in incident fracture rate was observed over a median of 9.6 years (373 participants randomized to intensive lifestyle intervention vs 358 randomized to standard diabetes education), but a composite of the first occurrence of a hip, upper arm, or shoulder fracture was found to be 39% higher in the intervention group. Long-term outcome studies examining risk of fractures with medical weight management have not been conducted, but the increased risk of fractures observed among individuals who have undergone bariatric surgery informed guidelines to recommend earlier, repeated osteoporosis screening and higher vitamin D supplementation to optimize bone health. Overall, obesity management in older adults requires a careful and tailored approach that is attentive to comorbidity management and that prioritizes risk mitigation. Increasingly, the effects of obesity on all aspects of a person's quality of life is being recognized, and patients should be informed on how weight loss may interact with coexisting medical conditions, medication regimens, and musculoskeletal health. Clinicians who treat obesity in older adults should be prepared to manage patients across these intersections, or coordinate care with registered dietitian-nutritionists, exercise physiologists, endocrinologists, and primary care professionals.
