YOUR VIRAL INFECTION HISTORY IN A SINGLE DROP OF BLOOD


diabetes-777001_1280

New technology developed by Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) researchers makes it possible to test for current and past infections with any known human virus by analyzing a single drop of a person’s blood. The method, called VirScan, is an efficient alternative to existing diagnostics that test for specific viruses one at a time.

With VirScan, scientists can run a single test to determine which viruses have infected an individual, rather than limiting their analysis to particular viruses. That unbiased approach could uncover unexpected factors affecting individual patients’ health, and also expands opportunities to analyze and compare viral infections in large populations. The comprehensive analysis can be performed for about $25 per blood sample.

Stephen Elledge, an HHMI investigator at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, led the development of VirScan. “We’ve developed a screening methodology to basically look back in time in people’s [blood] sera and see what viruses they have experienced,” he says. “Instead of testing for one individual virus at a time, which is labor intensive, we can assay all of these at once. It’s one-stop shopping.”

Elledge and his colleagues have already used VirScan to screen the blood of 569 people in the United States, South Africa, Thailand, and Peru. The scientists described the new technology and reported their findings in the June 5, 2015, issue of the journal Science.

VirScan works by screening the blood for antibodies against any of the 206 species of viruses known to infect humans. The immune system ramps up production of pathogen-specific antibodies when it encounters a virus for the first time, and it can continue to produce those antibodies for years or decades after it clears an infection. That means VirScan not only identifies viral infections that the immune system is actively fighting, but also provides a history of an individual’s past infections.

To develop the new test, Elledge and his colleagues synthesized more than 93,000 short pieces of DNA encoding different segments of viral proteins. They introduced those pieces of DNA into bacteria-infecting viruses called bacteriophage. Each bacteriophage manufactured one of the protein segments — known as a peptide — and displayed the peptide on its surface. As a group, the bacteriophage displayed all of the protein sequences found in the more than 1,000 known strains of human viruses.

Antibodies in the blood find their viral targets by recognizing unique features known as epitopes that are embedded in proteins on the virus surface. To perform the VirScan analysis, all of the peptide-displaying bacteriophage are allowed to mingle with a blood sample. Antiviral antibodies in the blood find and bind to their target epitopes within the displayed peptides. The scientists then retrieve the antibodies and wash away everything except for the few bacteriophage that cling to them. By sequencing the DNA of those bacteriophage, they can identify which viral protein pieces were grabbed onto by antibodies in the blood sample. That tells the scientists which viruses a person’s immune system has previously encountered, either through infection or through vaccination. Elledge estimates it would take about 2-3 days to process 100 samples, assuming sequencing is working optimally. He is optimistic the speed of the assay will increase with further development.

To test the method, the team used it to analyze blood samples from patients known to be infected with particular viruses, including HIV and hepatitis C. “It turns out that it works really well,” Elledge says. “We were in the sensitivity range of 95 to 100 percent for those, and the specificity was good — we didn’t falsely identify people who were negative. That gave us confidence that we could detect other viruses, and when we did see them we would know they were real.”

Elledge and his colleagues used VirScan to analyze the antibodies in 569 people from four countries, examining about 100 million potential antibody/epitope interactions. They found that on average, each person had antibodies to ten different species of viruses. As expected, antibodies against certain viruses were common among adults but not in children, suggesting that children had not yet been exposed to those viruses. Individuals residing South Africa, Peru, and Thailand, tended to have antibodies against more viruses than people in the United States. The researchers also found that people infected with HIV had antibodies against many more viruses than did people without HIV.

Elledge says the team was surprised to find that antibody responses against specific viruses were surprisingly similar between individuals, with different people’s antibodies recognizing identical amino acids in the viral peptides. “In this paper alone we identified more antibody/peptide interactions to viral proteins than had been identified in the previous history of all viral exploration,” he says. The surprising reproducibility of those interactions allowed the team to refine their analysis and improve the sensitivity of VirScan, and Elledge says the method will continue to improve as his team analyzes more samples. Their findings on viral epitopes may also have important implications for vaccine design.

Elledge says the approach his team has developed is not limited to antiviral antibodies. His own lab is also using it to look for antibodies that attack a body’s own tissue in certain autoimmune diseases that are associated with cancer. A similar approach could also be used to screen for antibodies against other types of pathogens.

When Your Child Does Not Need Antibiotics


During childhood, most children get many colds, infections, and minor illnesses. Infections in childhood are typically caused by viruses or bacteria.

Image not available.

Viruses cause most colds, most sore throats, most cases of pneumonia, and most cases of diarrhea, and it is the most common cause of vomiting in children. Antibiotics do not help to kill viruses, but they can cause adverse effects if your child unnecessarily takes an antibiotic during a viral infection.

A green or yellow nasal discharge and green or yellow phlegm are symptoms that are sometimes mistaken for a bacterial infection. It is important for parents to know that green or yellow discharge is usually a normal part of recovery from a cold, rather than a clue to a sinus infection, and that green or yellow phlegm is a normal part of viral bronchitis. High fevers (even in patients with a temperature >40°C) can be caused either by a virus or by bacteria.

WHAT PARENTS CAN DO

  • Use antibiotics for diagnosed bacterial infections, when your child can benefit from them.

  • Do not pressure your child’s pediatrician for a prescription for an antibiotic.

  • Treat your child’s cold symptoms with traditional remedies, such as rest and fluids.

  • Remember that fever is a natural response by the body to illness and helps your child fight the virus.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

  • Children can become quite sick from viruses, with symptoms that include a high fever, listlessness, and a cough. The severity of illness does not mean that it is caused by bacteria. Parents can help their children get better by providing a quiet place to rest, and encouraging rest by reading books or listening to calm music. Parents can also help by making sure their child stays hydrated by offering liquids.

My child had a cold that my child’s pediatrician said was caused by a virus. My child seemed to get better, but then my child developed a new fever and says his ear hurts. Is this still the same virus?

  • This is a situation in which there may be a new bacterial infection after a virus. Sometimes a viral infection can lead to lots of nasal drainage and mucus. This can put a child at risk for what is called “a secondary infection,” meaning an infection that takes place after the first one is resolving. Signs of a secondary infection are developing a new fever that occurs when the viral infection is getting better or developing new symptoms (ear pain or cough) that get worse as the viral infection is getting better. The secondary infection may be caused by either a bacteria or a virus, and it is a good time to see your child’s pediatrician.

Newborns Born With Genetic Code Signaling Sepsis, Other Bacterial Infections; Scientists Able To Decode DNA In Search For Better Treatment.


Some newborns, after birth, can develop life-threatening infections such as sepsis due to their underdeveloped immune systems. But pioneering research published Thursday in Nature Communicationscan enable doctors to identify the presence of infection-causing bacteria in the bloodstream of newborns, and target them. And how can they identify the pathogens? By decoding a signal generated from the baby’s DNA.

The signal is like an SOS, sent by the messenger RNA of the baby’s genome. By analyzing this code, the doctors can understand if there is a sepsis present in the blood. The signal can be deciphered using just a single drop of blood. Scientists are now trying to develop tests based on this signal detection, so that fatality due to bacterial infections can be significantly reduced.

Bacterial infections in newborns are difficult to diagnose unless blood tests are performed, and this generally requires testing large amounts of blood. Babies can develop infections either during childbirth or a few days after being born. If the mother is suffering from an active infection, then pathogens can be inhaled by the newborn when passing through the birth canal. After birth, the child may catch contagious bugs on contact with someone who has cold or flu. Pathogens that cause sepsis include Group B Streptococci, E. coli, Listeria, and viruses.

Since the baby’s body cannot put up much of a fight, pathogens multiply fast and the newborn can get very sick very quickly. So it is prudent that the infection is discovered and treated soon. Also, typical symptoms like high fever may not occur, and even if they do, they are not indicative of an infection. If a blood culture is performed to identify the pathogens, it takes two to three days for the results to come. Since the infant is put on antibiotics before the results are in, even children without sepsis may end up getting antibiotics or they may be given antibiotics not suited for that particular infection. Unnecessary use of meds also increases the risk of antibiotic resistance.

Scientists from the University of Edinburgh spent years trying to find causes and methods of identification of blood infections in preterm and full-term babies. Using blood samples from newborn babies in Edinburgh, they investigated thousands of signals written in mRNAs. With meticulous code breaking, the scientists identified a signal consisting of 52 molecular characters specific to bacterial infection. This signal, with complete accuracy, can tell if the baby is suffering from sepsis.

Newborn

“Just as a Twitter user can send a 140 character message so a baby’s genome produces short messages or signals that produce code information to communicate with the infant’s immune and metabolic systems so that it can fight the infection,” said Dr. Peter Ghazal, professor of molecular genetics and biomedicine at the University of Edinburgh’s Division of Pathway Medicine, in a statement. “The 52-character ‘tweet’ or message that we have identified appears to be specific for bacterial but not viral infection.” Ghazal said researchers believe the detection method could also be used in children and adults. Essentially, researchers would use a single drop of blood to detect the vital distress signal in DNA. The findings create hope for also “tackling antibiotics resistance,” he added.

Stressing that infections lead to a number of deaths or disabilities in infants worldwide, Dr. Claire Smith states that there is a need to develop tests for quick and accurate identification of sepsis.

“This work is enabling us to move towards being able to distinguish between babies with true infection who need urgent treatment, and those who are not infected and therefore don’t require antibiotics. The potential benefits to babies and their families are important. We are grateful to the families who consented to take part in the study,” she said.