This is so amazingly cool!!

[dreamshark]

Hadn't heard of this until I saw it in the Science section of the Sunday paper, and it is kind of breathtaking. There doesn't even seem to be a shorthand term for what this is. It's a completely different route to inoculation that is not a method of stimulating antibody production and is not even a synthetic antibody. For now they are just calling it "machine-made molecules" or "mini-binders."  They're gonna have to come up with a better term for it. It's sort of a vaccine, but sort of not. We may have to rethink exactly what the definition of "vaccine" is to even discuss it. But it is way cool. And it seems to work on hamsters.

If I understand this correctly, it's a decoy molecule that lures in marauding coronavirus with a very specific molecular bait, then grabs onto it and renders it harmless. If it works out, this substance could be cheaply manufactured, easily stored, and possibly self-administered as a nasal spray. Better yet, if the concept works on this virus, it would probably work on others. Maybe we are finally on the track of a cure to the common cold! 

Hmm. "ACE-2 decoy" is kind of a snappy name. I vote for that. Mini-binders sounds like an office supply product, and machine-made molecules just sounds scary. Branding is important, y'all.

Comments

[pameladean]

Oh, that's brilliant! I hope it works as well as it sounds like it might.
P.

[quadong]

Wouldn't you call this an antiviral? It doesn't sound like it has the effect of a vaccine at all. (I haven't read the article.)

[quadong]

Oh, it's a really short article. Now I've read it. Why do you say that they are not synthetic antibodies? It sounds like that's exactly what they are.

[dreamshark]

No, the article specifically says that they are NOT antibodies. Antibodies actually attack and kill viruses. These are decoys that fool the viruses into thinking they are ACE-2 cells so that the viruses latch onto them instead of attacking actual body cells. This doesn't kill the virus, just keeps it occupied so it doesn't go after its actual intended targets. The article uses the term "attack and sequester."

It sounds like one of those ideas that if this were a movie somebody would say, "That's crazy! So crazy that it just might work!"

[quadong]

Quite possibly I don't understand what anti-bodies do. I thought that they worked by latching onto the virus and thereby disabling it, much as you describe. Maybe that's what some book I read when I was 8 said and I need to go find out what they really do.

[dreamshark]

Well, that might be the most generic description of what an antibody does, but this article is clearly drawing a distinction between "antibodies" and this "manufactured molecule" with statements like this:

"Because of its engineering, the mini-binder can also withstand wide variations in temperature, making it extremely convenient, unlike antibodies that must be kept cold to preserve longevity."

So maybe we need to rethink the definition of "antibody" as well as "vaccine." In both cases, you could define the word by its effect, by its mechanism, or by its structure. It sounds like these molecules are simpler and sturdier than actual antibodies so the structure is clearly different. Both of them bind to the antigen. What happens after they do that may be different?

[dreamshark]

If a vaccine is something that keeps healthy people from getting sick when they are exposed to a virus or bacteria, then it would qualify.

"Eventually, healthy people might be able to self-administer the mini-binders as a nasal spray, and potentially keep any inbound coronavirus particles at bay."

But it sounds like something that you would have to repeat any time you think you might have been exposed to the virus, not something that you take once and after that your body either has antibodies or knows how to make them.