Using supercomputers to find vaccines against malaria, AIDS and TB

Flickr, ghinson

Scientists in Seattle hope to pioneer a more “rational” approach to vaccine development, exploiting powerful computers to better identify immune system targets and reduce the huge burden (and cost) of clinical testing.

“I intend to focus first on malaria vaccines,” said Alan Aderem, an internationally recognized immunologist who will soon be taking the helm of Seattle BioMed. Aderem co-authored a paper in this week’s edition of Nature in which he outlines a new strategy aimed at discovering vaccines against HIV, TB and malaria.

Arguably, the ways in which researchers test and develop vaccines against disease today haven’t changed that much since the 18-century British physician Edward Jenner injected a young man with cowpox to see if it would protect him from smallpox. It did and, so the story goes, vaccines and the science of immunology were born.

Scientists certainly have more sophisticated tools and methods today, but testing a vaccine is still often a “shot in the dark” because of our incomplete understanding of how the immune response works.

What Aderem, his team at Seattle BioMed and collaborators at the neighboring Institute for Systems Biology (which Aderem co-founded with Lee Hood) want to do is exploit the power of computers to more precisely monitor what happens in the immune system when a virus or vaccine gets introduced.

Alan Aderem
ISB

“What we are trying to do is identify the networks involved,’ said Aderem.

Rather than try to find some single cell or immune response to fashion a vaccine around, he said their goal is to recognize first that the immune response often involves many players. Using powerful computational analysis, he said their approach is to initially identify the complex pattern, or network, in the respones.

“Once you know this, you can go in with much smaller, more targeted trials and within a fairly short time period identify the agents of immunogenicity,” said Aderem.

Sounds good in theory, but then so did the idea of “nuclear energy that’s too cheap to meter” and the ongoing promise made by Hood and others that mapping the entire human genome will transform clinical medicine.

Lee Hood
ISB

Hood is perhaps one of the world’s leading advocates claiming these new high-tech tools will revolutionize medicine, these days dubbing it P4 medicine. But as the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute noted in another Nature paper recently, the clinical benefits are all still largely a promise.

The question is if systems biology will truly be able to help develop cheap, effective vaccines for use in poor countries. Or will it remain, like much of genomics and P4 medicine, an expensive high-tech promise that appears still a distant glimmering on the horizon?

Here’s a post I did a year ago, exploring this question in greater detail, when Aderem, Hood and others at ISB held a forum on the promise of systems biology for global health.

On the cost issue, Aderem said this high-tech approach to vaccine development is almost certain to cost less than today’s methods of developing vaccines.

“Vaccine trials today are impossibly expensive,” said Aderem.

This, he said, is because researchers are still basically just following Jenner’s approach — trying something without really knowing fully why it works. Such an approach requires a massive amount of volunteers because of the need to achieve statistical power (i.e., a clear, demonstrative difference between those who get the vaccine and those who didn’t).

Others criticize the systems biology approach for suffering from an inherent flaw – presuming that doing this massive data collection and manipulation will produce a “pattern” or network of signals that will lead to a vaccine target. Some say this is high-tech “magical thinking” that is no more rational than Jenner’s empirical approach.

Aderem said such criticism is unwarranted. They are not saying the computers are expected to come up with all the biological insights. Rather, he says, they are just more powerful tools to assist the researcher who begins with an insight or hypothesis.

Clearly, Aderem says, the current approach to vaccine development has run up against some serious obstacles when it comes to HIV, malaria and TB. Computers, systems biology and technology in general will never replace a scientist’s insight, he says, but it’s time to start using the tools of the 21st century to move vaccine development completely out of the 18th.

Share.

About Author

Editor Tom Paulson is founder and lead journalist at Humanosphere. Prior to operating this online news site, he reported on science,  medicine, health policy, aid and development for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Contact him at tom-at-humanosphere.org, follow him on Twitter @tompaulson and/or send a comment below.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dprandal Doreen Piazza Randal

    18-century British physician Edward Jenner injected a young man with cowpox to see if it would protect him from smallpox. IT DID NOT WORK! In fact Jenner’s son died from the injections which is why he abandoned the experiments!
    Proof that vaccines did not save us: See all Graphs
    http://genesgreenbook.com/content/proof-vaccines-didnt-save-us
     By genebean – Posted on 07 November 2009
    History shows us that vaccines did NOT eradicate the diseases that plagued humanity. That is a common misconception — in actual fact, it was better sanitation and hygiene in the cities that prevented the spread of diseases. These charts, from official sources, show us that vaccines (1) were not responsible, and are not necessary, for eliminating infectious diseases, (2) are not effective, and (3) are dangerous.

    • http://humanosphere.kplu.org Tom Paulson

      Sorry, but a bunch of charts from some guy named Gene Bean (seriously?) is hardly sufficient evidence to contradict the massive amount of scientific evidence that shows vaccines can and do significantly prevent infectious disease. (So far only smallpox has been eradicated, by the way). 

      Sanitation and hygiene made a huge difference, but so did the development of antibiotics, child labor laws and the 40-day work week. The fact that other public health and social interventions reduce disease doesn’t translate into evidence that vaccines don’t.

  • Anonymous

    AIDS is Acquired immune Deficiency Syndrome or Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. It is a disease of the human immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Genetic research indicates that HIV originated in west-central Africa during the late nineteenth or early twentieth century. AIDS was first recognized by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1981 and its cause, HIV, identified in the early 1980s. Although treatments for AIDS and HIV can slow the course of the disease, there is no known cure or vaccine. Antiretroviral treatment reduces both the mortality and the morbidity of HIV infection, but these drugs are expensive and routine access to antiretroviral medication is not available in all countries.

    I would like to suggest a documentary – “Living With AIDS” which explores the story of Young women coping with HIV in the city of Bangalore and how they try and resolve how to live and die in dignity with this Virus.

    To watch please visit – http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/460