Login

Join for Free!
118911 members


vaccination

About microscopic forms of life, including Bacteria, Archea, protozoans, algae and fungi. Topics relating to viruses, viroids and prions also belong here.

Moderator: BioTeam

vaccination

Postby ashee805 » Sun Nov 21, 2004 7:49 pm

the world health organization has announced the complete eradication of smallpox and is now working toward the eradication of measles and polio. why would vaccination be more likely to eradicaiton a viral disease than a bacterial disease?
ashee805
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 7:46 pm

Postby biostudent84 » Mon Nov 22, 2004 5:14 pm

Vaccination is the imjection of a weaker form or a disabled form of a pathogen. Take a look at the difference between a bacteria and virus. A bacteria is a living organism that can adapt to many enviornments. It would be very difficult to make a vaccination for a bacteria (difficult, but not impossible).

A virus, on the other hand is not an organism (some argue that a virus is a living organism...I can argue that elsewhere if anyone wants). It is simply a piece of RNA surrounded by a protein coat. It is very simple to alter a virus just a little bit so that you have a primary immune response to it without getting sick. If you have a primary immune response to something, in the future, if you are exposed to the EXACT same pathogen, the secondary immune response destroys the pathogen before it makes you sick.
User avatar
biostudent84
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:00 am
Location: Farmville, VA

HELP

Postby 2810712 » Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:09 am

. A bacteria is a living organism that can adapt to many enviornments. It would be very difficult to make a vaccination for a bacteria (difficult, but not impossible).
Why difficult? The until the genes of a specefic surface Ag remain intact in the genome
our vaccine wud work, and the chance of change in the genes is directly proportional to how many times the bacteria hve reproduced .
Same is the case is with viruses , i.e. the chances of change in surface Ags is directly proportional to how many times viruses hve reproduced . As per I know the viruses reproduces much faster than bacteria , so, why would vaccination be more likely to eradicaiton a viral disease than a bacterial disease? How can we say that it is difficult to produce a vaccine for bacteria than viruses? help...........

hrushikesh
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm


Re: vaccination

Postby thank.darwin » Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:40 pm

ashee805 wrote:the world health organization has announced the complete eradication of smallpox and is now working toward the eradication of measles and polio. why would vaccination be more likely to eradicaiton a viral disease than a bacterial disease?


Smallpox was eradicted a while ago and the last time it was brought back was around 9/11 - I don't know if it has been experimented with sence then. So for right now it is just sleeping in a freezer down in the CDC's headquarters- it is "the demon in the freezer" if you will, and it was eradicated through ring vaccination.
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
-Albert Einstein
User avatar
thank.darwin
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:39 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby canalon » Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:52 pm

Hi,

Another reason for the possibility of eradication of smallpox, polio and measles is the host specificity of the virus. Since human beings are the only reservoir, the vaccination of humans is sufficient to oeradicate the virus.
But for most of the diseases, human is just an opportunistic host for the virus, and siince it is impossible to vaccinate the normal host, eradication is impossible.

But, as HIV, a human specific virus, demonstrate, the viral capacity for adaptation is also critical to build a good vaccine. High muttaion rates of the viral target make the design of a vaccine highly difficult.

Hope this helps
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby thank.darwin » Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:48 pm

Canalon wrote:But, as HIV, a human specific virus


Correct me if I'm wrong but HIV isn't just a human specific virus - It originated in other animals before it crossed over to humans.
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
-Albert Einstein
User avatar
thank.darwin
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:39 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby canalon » Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:07 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong but HIV isn't just a human specific virus - It originated in other animals before it crossed over to humans.


Hmmm... It has certainly evolved from a non human specific virus, but it seems that in its form, contamination occur only between human beings. Making the human beings the only significant reservoir of the infection.
Not like the flu viruses that exist in animals, and regularly contaminate humans from those, hence making the vaccination (and effective vaccines exist...) useless to eradicate flu pandemics each year. The animal reservoir allowing recombinations between strains, hence the new pandemic each year, and the need of a new vaccine.
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby thank.darwin » Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:48 pm

Thank you for clearing that up for me.
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
-Albert Einstein
User avatar
thank.darwin
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:39 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby Dr.Doom » Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:41 am

the rate of mutation is not directly proportional to the number of replication because mutation is a totally random event. It may seem that way but its not; so there is no direct proportion (you cannot calculate the amount of mutation directly given the rounds of replication); and HIV, i think, came from monkey like animals.
User avatar
Dr.Doom
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:35 am

Postby canalon » Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:37 pm

Dr.Doom wrote:the rate of mutation is not directly proportional to the number of replication because mutation is a totally random event. It may seem that way but its not; so there is no direct proportion (you cannot calculate the amount of mutation directly given the rounds of replication); .


Yes? what's your point here? :?

and HIV, i think, came from monkey like animals


Isn't it what I said? HIV probably comes from animal, and yes monkeys are the most probbale candidate, even if as far as I know, we still don't know where HIV originated.
But know the main strains of HIV have no significant animal reservoir. It is probably safe to assume that a virus crossed the species barrier and contaminated some humans and evolved in the virus we now know inside humans. If we could get rid of HIV through vaccination in humans, there would probably be no reservoir for the virus to hide and to develop to overcome the vaccination.
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada


Return to Microbiology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests