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

Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd founder and Professor of Microbiology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons published an article on PLOS Pathogens entitled “Social Media and Microbiology.”

Vincent, a virologist by training, has spent the past 30 years at Columbia where he has been recognized for numerous achievements including identification and characterization of the human polio virus receptor, the creation of transgenic mice to study the neural tropism of the polio virus and the identification of viral virulence factors that contribute to the pathogenesis of a variety of viral infections. His contributions to the field of virology have resulted in a number of honors including the Eli Lilly Award, a Harvey Lectureship, a 10 year Merit Award from NIH and editor of the Journal of Virology and other peer reviewed microbiology journals.

While not conducting laboratory research and teaching virology to undergraduates and graduate students, Vincent spends a considerable amount of time writing for his blog the Virology Blog and creating podcasts for his award winning show entitled TWIV (This Week in Virology). He is a committed educator and firmly believes that his role as a scientist is to improve the public understanding of infectious diseases and science in general. 

The introduction to his article aptly describes his philosophy about social media and science education.

“Social media consists of Internet technologies that allow users to create and share content, and to foster dialogues among other users. Examples include software applications for communication (blogging, social networking, discussion forums), collaboration (wikis, social bookmarking), and multimedia (sharing photographs, video, and livecasting). In the world of science, social media is becoming an increasingly integral component of both research and education. My experience with two types of social media, blogging and podcasting, has convinced me that scientists must embrace these applications to enhance research, and to better communicate their work to the public.”

If you want to learn more about Vincent or chat with him, he can frequently be found at BioCrowd interacting with undergraduates, graduate students, postdocs and even colleagues from time to time.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

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

I previously blogged about honey bee colony collapse disorder (CCD) a disease that is destroying honey bee hives all over the world. While the incidence of the disease has been subsiding over the last year or so, it is still ravaging many hives. 

In the Wednesday edition of the online research journal PLOS a group of researchers from the University of Montana and the Army’s Edgewood Chemical Biological Center at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland suggested that CCD may be caused by two infectious agents; a virus and a fungus. 

Previously, many entomologists and apiary experts believed that CCD was possibly caused by multiple RNA viruses or the effect of certain pesticides. However, samples collected hives affected by CCD contained both a virus and a fungus whereas both agents were absent in unaffected hives. 

The new study said the suspect virus is insect iridescent virus (IIV) (Iridoviridae), which is similar to a virus first reported in India 20 years ago, as well as a virus found in moths. The virus infects the insect digestive system and the abdomen of infected insects takes on a bluish-green or purplish hue. The fungus, Nosema ceranae, can infect insects following ingested of its spores. Laboratory cage trials with a strain of IIV type 6 and Nosema ceranae confirmed that co-infection with these two pathogens was more lethal to bees than either pathogen alone.

Authors of the study speculate that initial infection of bee with one of the two agents makes infected bees more susceptible to infection by the second agent. In other words, primary infection by one agent followed by secondary infection may be responsible for the devastating effects of CCD. Further research will be necessary to confirm that both agents are responsible for CCD.

Until next time.....

Good Luck and Do Good Science!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has advised GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to suspend sale of Rotarix, its rotavirus vaccine, because it may contain porcine circovirus type 1 (PCV-1) DNA sequences. The FDA and the company both found traces of PCV-1 DNA in the vaccine. It is not clear whether whole virus is in the vaccine or just pieces of its DNA. Luckily, PCV-1 isn’t known to cause disease in humans and infants vaccinated with the vaccine are not likely to experience any health or medical issues..

The agency insists that this is a temporary and cautionary suspension of Rotarix sales. FDA officials are advising physicians to use Merck’s RotaTeq rotavirus vaccine instead, which is made using a different method and which shows no evidence of PCV-1 contamination. Merck and GSK have been vigorously competing for market share in the US vaccine marketplace.

Unfortunately, things haven’t been going well for the highly regarded GSK vaccines division in the past few years. First, the company had trouble getting its anti-cervical cancer vaccine, Cervarix approved in the US. And the company just recently announced that it may not seek regulatory approval for Synflorix, a new pneumococcal disease vaccine that was suppose to compete with Pfizer’s  (formerly Wyeth’s) second generation 13-valent pneumococcal vaccine called Prevnar.

This isn’t the first time that animal DNA sequences have been found in human biotechnology products. Last June, Genzyme was forced to shut down one of its biomanufacturing facilities to clean up viral contamination that had been slowing down production of two of its main products, Cerezyme and Fabrazyme. The virus, Vesivirus 2117, is known to interfere with the growth of Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells and is believed to have been introduced through a cell culture nutrient. The virus doesn’t infect humans, but the shutdown cost the company millions in revenue and caused shortages of Cerezyme and Fabrazyme.

Because many vaccine and biotechnology products are manufactured in mammalian tissue culture cell lines, detection of non-human viruses these products are neither uncommon nor unprecedented. However, the recent spate of high profile, virally-contaminated vaccines and biologics suggests that biomanufacturers must be more vigilant when it comes to virus removal and microbiological testing from these products.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

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

Flu season is upon us and, not surprisingly, there is no dearth of information available to the public about the seasonal and H1N1 flu vaccines. Mostly there are stories about the lack of availability of the vaccines, underreporting of deaths associated from H1N1 infections and perhaps, most importantly concerns about flu vaccine safety. Despite attempts by the CDC and a few dedicated virologists like BioCrowd co-founder Vincent Racaniello, flu vaccine manufacturing is an enigma to the lay public.

While I am a card-carrying microbiologist, my knowledge of the manufacturing of flu vaccine is admittedly lacking. With this in mind, I came across an outstanding tutorial about flu vaccine manufacturing published by the College of Agriculture at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (my alma mater). The UW tutorial is easy to understand and will shed light on and help to demystify flu vaccine production for lay people (and a few scientists like me).

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

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

The media frenzy surrounding the impending H1N1 swine flu pandemic has spawned a recent spate of articles and television news segments on “germs.” In the last 48 hours, articles on germs have appeared in the New York Times, my local paper (The Trenton Times via the Chicago Tribune), on news channels and most recently this morning on the Today Show on MSNBC. Most of these have focused on where “germs” are found, how they are spread and ways to minimize or prevent their transmission. For those of you who may be interested, the word germ was first coined in 1664 and is defined as a “small mass of living substance capable of developing into an organism or one of its parts” or more conventionally, as a “microorganism that causes disease.” While these media pieces are intended to inform the public about infectious agents and their transmission, most people who read or see these reports don’t understand that the word germ can encompass viruses, bacteria and fungi. And, to make matters worse, most Americans don’t know that viruses, bacteria and fungi are different microorganisms.

Unfortunately, after reading newspaper articles and seeing reports on television about so-called germs, many consumers rush out to their local groceries and purchase a variety of antibacterial soaps and detergents—erroneously believing that these products will protect their families from infection by the dreaded H1N1 virus and other pathogens. Although frequent hand washing and the appropriate use of viricidal disinfectants can help to reduce transmission of H1N1 and other viruses, antibacterial products are generally less effective (or ineffective) against viruses and overuse can result in emergence of multi-drug resistant bacteria.

To that end, I think it is high time that the news media eschew the use of the anachronistic term germ in favor of bacteria, virus or fungi when referring to causative agents of infectious diseases. Promulgating the use of the word germ will continue to keep the lay public in the dark about infectious agents and the diseases they cause and hinder people from making informed decisions about treatment and preventing their transmission.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

On several occasions while driving in upstate New York, I noticed an exit sign on the NY State Thruway for Coxsackie, NY. And, not surprisingly, I began to wonder whether or not the Coxsackie virus was named after this obscure upstate NY town.

I first learned about coxsackie viruses as a graduate student while taking a medical virology course at the University of Wisconsin taught by the late noble laureate Howard Temin. However, despite a thirty year friendship with Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd co-founder and virologist extraordinaire, I never asked him about the origin of the coxsackie virus name. Much to my surprise, he had recently taken a trip to upstate NY and noticed the Coxsackie NY exit sign while driving on the thruway. This prompted him to blog about the coxsackie virus isolation, its pathogenic properties and of course, the origin of its name!

Coxsackie NY and the virus named after it 

by Vincent Racaniello,PhD

Recently while driving north on the New York State Thruway I passed the exit for the town of Coxsackie, NY (population 8,884). I grabbed my camera and photographed the exit sign, and reminded myself to write about the virus named after this small town.

In the summer of 1947 there were several small outbreaks of poliomyelitis in upstate New York. Gilbert Dalldorf, the director of the Wadsworth Laboratory in Albany, NY, and his associate Grace M. Sickles investigated this outbreak. In particular they sought polioviruses that could replicate in mice. This search was motivated by the fact that research on poliovirus required the use of monkeys which were extremely expensive. Dalldorf had attended the Fourth International Congress for Microbiology in 1947 where he heard that very young mice – suckling mice – could readily be infected with Theiler’s virus.

Dalldorf and Sickles made fecal suspensions from two children suspected of having poliomyelitis, and inoculated these into adult and suckling mice. Only the suckling mice (1 – 7 days old) developed paralysis; animals more than one week old were resistant to infection. The damage responsible for limb paralysis was widespread lesions in skeletal muscles, not in the central nervous system as occurs with poliovirus. Further study revealed that the viruses could be distinguished serologically from poliovirus.

Not only had Dalldorf and Sickles identified the first members of a very large group of human viruses, but they also introduced and popularized a new and inexpensive animal into the virology laboratory – the suckling mouse. In 1949 Dalldorf suggested that the new viruses be called Coxsackie viruses, because the first recognized human cases were residents of that New York village. This unique name is of native North American origin.

Over ten years later the importance of this work was recognized by Dr. Max Finland of Boston City Hospital:

The isolation by Dalldorf and Sickles of viruses which produced paralysis with destructive lesions of muscle in sucking mice and hamsters, from the stools of two children with signs of paralytic poliomyelitis was an achievement that may rank in importance with Landsteiner and Popper’s production of human poliomyelitis in monkeys.

In subsequent years many different Coxsackie viruses were isolated that cause a variety of clinical syndromes. Today at least 30 serotypes of Coxsackie viruses are classified in the enterovirus genus of the Picornaviridae. The viruses are classified into groups A or B depending upon the pathological effect in suckling mice.

Not every locale is pleased to have a virus named after it. In May 1993, an outbreak of an unexplained pulmonary illness occurred in the southwestern United States, in an area shared by Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah called “The Four Corners.” Muerto Canyon was proposed as the name for the etiologic agent of the disease, because the virus was first isolated from a rodent near the canyon. However after residents objected, the name Sin nombre virus was given to the agent of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome.

Dalldorf G, & Sickles GM (1948). An Unidentified, Filtrable Agent Isolated From the Feces of Children With Paralysis. Science (New York, N.Y.), 108 (2794), 61-62 PMID: 17777513

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Colony Collapse Disorder (CDD) a mysterious syndrome that kills adult worker bees outside of the hive has been plaguing Europe and the US in recent years. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that American beekeepers have lost 37% of their hives to CCD in 2008 after losing 31% the year before. The government estimates that a third of the US food supply may be at risk--$15 billion annually in vegetables, nuts and fruits from plants that depend on bee pollination. The cause of CDD is still hotly debated but many scientists believe that it is caused by a virus

A start up company in Miami FL (my old stomping grounds) called Beeologics is developing a vaccine against all of the apiary viruses that could be responsible for CDD. The company was started by two Israelis, Eyal Ben-Chanoch at tech entrepreneur who helped design the first Intel Pentium chip and Ilan Sela a bee genomics expert. 

The vaccine is pending FDA approval and Beeologics expects it to hit the US market this summer and sell it for $2 per dose. A hive will need one dose per month and current estimates suggest that there are 2.5 million hives in the US. Not a bad revenue stream!

For those of you who may not know, bee keeping is big business and can be lucrative for beekeepers. I learned everything I know about bee keeping as an undergraduate at Cornell when I took Introduction to Beekeeping in my senior year. It was one of the best courses that I ever took at Cornell because it was taught by an entomologist who was also a commercial beekeeper!   Since then, I have always been extremely fond of honey bees—they are fascinating creatures.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

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

Novartis announced today that it will open a new research facility and hire an additional 150 people by the end of 2009 for a Research Center of Excellence in Virology in Cambridge, MA. That will increase the number of people employed by the company in Cambridge to more than 1,800 workers. Researchers at the new center will study vaccines for HIV/AIDS influenza, cytomegalovirus (CMV) and respiratory syncitial virus (RSV). 

The vaccine business once avoided like the plague by most pharma companies, has been growing by leaps and bound over the past five years and is sizzling hot these days. According to analysts, vaccines generated about $16 billion dollars last year. For example, Merck’s anti-human papilloma virus vaccine Gardasil generated $1.5 billion in sales in 2007.

Novartis clearly sees an upside in the vaccine business and is willing to make a wise investment for the future.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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