Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

There was an interesting article in the New York Times this past week entitled“Do Women Need Such Big Flu Shot.” The gist of the article was that we would have more doses of influenza 2009 H1N1 vaccine if we accounted for the biological differences between the immune responses in men and women follow influenza vaccination (the article cites a study that contends that less vaccine is need to elicit an protective response in women as compared with men.

I was going to write a post about the article but I got distracted and thought I would revisit it when I had more time. Much to my surprise, Vincent Racaniello, a Bio-Crowd founder, virologist extraordinaire and host of the popular TWiV podcast series, had already “scooped” me. Professor Racaniello graciously allowed me to crib his entire post and let BioJobBlog readers decide for themselves whether or not there are real differences in the male and female immune responses to influenza vaccines or the results obtained by the scientists who conducted the study may be explain by strain to strain variation among influenza A isolates? Read Professor Racaniello’s post below and let me know what YOU think!

Do women need the same amount of influenza vaccine as men?

by Vincent Racaniello

“Do Women Need Such Big Flu Shots?” suggests that we would have more doses of influenza 2009 H1N1 vaccine if we accounted for the biological differences between men and women. The idea is that women generate a stronger antibody response than men, and therefore require less vaccine. Does this idea have scientific support?

The opinion is based in part on a study carried out in 2004-05, in which adults were immunized with full (15 micrograms) or half-doses of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. This vaccine, made by Aventis Pasteur, contains influenza H3N2, H1N1, and B strains. Serum samples obtained before immunization and 21 days later were assayed for antibody response to each strain of influenza by hemagglutination-inhibtion. I’ve taken the data on geometric mean serum HI titers according to age, sex, and dose and plotted them on a graph:

Based on the results the authors conclude that “Significantly higher geometric mean titer responses in women were identified for all ages, regardless of dose or influenza strain. Half-dose vaccination may be an effective strategy for healthy adults younger than 50 years in the setting of an influenza vaccine shortage.” But are these immune responses protective?

HI titers of 1:40 or more (which would be reported as 40 or higher in the graph) are believed to indicate levels of antibody that would protect against infection with influenza virus. By this criteria, the full and half dose of vaccine would provide protection agains the influenza H3N2 and B viruses in both men and women. The results confirm that females respond more strongly to the same dose of vaccine than men. But look at the results with the H1N1 strain – in all subjects, no matter the dose of vaccine or gender, the antibody response would not be sufficient to protect against infection. Furthermore, the response is only slightly better than in women.

In interpret these observations to mean that the antibody response to inactivated influenza virus vaccine is not universally more robust in women compared with men – it appears to depend on the virus strain. Clearly clinical studies are required to address this question. Even after spending millions of dollars to decide whether to give women less influenza vaccine, a new strain of influenza virus might come along that induces no better antibody response in women than in men.

My conclusion is that it would not be possible to determine conclusively that women could receive half the amount of inactivated influenza virus vaccine as men. I would rather spend money on developing new ways to produce as much influenza vaccine as needed as quickly as possible – such as by making virus-like particles in plants.

Engler RJ, Nelson MR, Klote MM, VanRaden MJ, Huang CY, Cox NJ, Klimov A, Keitel WA, Nichol KL, Carr WW, Treanor JJ, & Walter Reed Health Care System Influenza Vaccine Consortium (2008). Half- vs full-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (2004-2005): age, dose, and sex effects on immune responses. Archives of internal medicine, 168 (22), 2405-14 PMID: 19064822

 Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Reading!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After hearing the story last night on my local late night news that scientists had discovered a “gene that causes men to cheat,” I felt compelled (as a red-blooded American male) to investigate the story in greater detail. After all, what man wouldn’t want to claim that his philandering behavior was caused by aberrant genes—“Honey, I really do love you but my genes made me do it!”

A quick perusal of several articles on the subject revealed that scientists at Sweden’s famed Karolinska Institute had previously identified a variant of a gene that may be responsible for the sexual infidelity in voles (mole-like mammals). The wild type gene is thought to encode a protein that regulates the activity of hormones involved in vole sexual fidelity.

In an attempt to extend their observations to humans, Karolinska scientists screened 1,000 couples and found that two of five (40%) males had the so-called “cheating allele (s).” Not surprisingly, the researchers didn’t disclose whether men with the variant allele(s) cheated (or were more likely to cheat) on their mates. The researches primarily focused on men because the gene is thought to play less of a role in females.

I think the results of the study are interesting—and may have some basis in fact— but I think the news media, as usual, has made a “mountain out of a mole hill (pardon the pun)!” Undoubtedly, the discovery may provide men caught cheating with an excuse albeit a feeble one. However, it is evident that the study will provide little solace for women who are caught cheating on their mates!!!!

After spending seven long years as a medical school professor listening to one immunology seminar after another, one thing is for certain--that discoveries in mice don’t always translate well in humans. That said, I think the jury may still be out on the “cheating gene.”

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Hunting (only jobs)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As you all know, the brackets for this year’s NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament were revealed Sunday evening. As I have done for the past 20 years, I waited until this morning to find a detailed, printed version of the brackets to use for my office pool. That said, I was pleasantly surprised this morning to see that the sports editor of the NY Times decided to arrange the teams that did (and didn’t) make the tournament in a “basketball version” of the periodic table of the elements!

I want it on record that I am not a big fan of inorganic chemistry. However, I must admit that the New York Times rendering of team participation in this year’s tournament was innovative, creative and refreshing. Why, I bet that even Mendeleev – the guy who is credited with creating the first periodic table in 1869– would have been very pleased and proud of the NY Times’ effort! Does anybody know whether basketball was invented by 1869?

I say BRAVO to the NY Times for divining a creative way to make a connection between sports and science. I think that similar efforts ought to be attempted to convince American children (and possibly “grown ups”) that science can be “cool” and as much fun as sports! American science literacy is trending to an all time low. This trend must be reversed so that America can regain a  global competitive edge in science and engineering.

Again, kudos to the NY Times!

Until next time…

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link