Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
11 August 2021 | Story André Damons | Photo Anja Aucamp
Prof Felicity Burt from the University of the Free State (UFS) and the National Health Laboratory Services (NHLS) holds an NRF-DST South African Research Chair in Vector-borne and Zoonotic Pathogens Research. She is also an expert on arbovirology in the UFS Division of Virology.

New variants of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have the potential to influence the size and duration of waves of infection and may prolong the duration of COVID-19’s stay with us. Despite the development of vaccines and the technology available to adapt vaccines in the future to address the emergence of new variants, it is extremely unlikely that COVID-19 will ever be eradicated.

The emergence of new variants has illustrated the importance of continually monitoring circulating variants for changes in viral proteins associated with cell binding (in other words, influencing entry of the virus into a cell) and immune responses (which would influence vaccine efficacy and reinfections). 

Prof Felicity Burt from the University of the Free State (UFS) and the National Health Laboratory Services (NHLS), who holds an NRF-DST South African Research Chair in Vector-borne and Zoonotic Pathogens Research, says the current vaccines are effective against severe disease, but do not prevent transmission. Hence, complete eradication of the virus is unlikely, as the virus will continue to circulate at low levels in the population even if high levels of vaccine coverage are achieved.  Prof Burt is also an expert on arbovirology in the UFS Division of Virology

“To date, the only pathogen that has been eradicated globally is the smallpox virus. This was achievable because of a highly efficacious vaccine and because smallpox caused a disease that was readily recognisable, enabling rapid isolation of afflicted patients. In contrast, a virus such as SARS-CoV-2 that can cause asymptomatic infections in which the person is unknowingly infected and able to shed and transmit the virus, is probably impossible to eradicate,” explains Prof Burt.  

Development of affordable treatment options remains important 

The current vaccines are, however, able to reduce the severity of the disease until a vaccine is available that prevents complete transmission of SARS-CoV-2; therefore, the development of affordable treatment options remains important. Novel therapeutics, such as an antiviral drug that interrupts replication of the virus, or monoclonal antibodies that neutralise the virus, would go a long way to contribute to the treatment of infections.  

“Currently, monoclonal antibody therapy is available in higher-income countries. Monoclonal antibodies mimic our natural antibody response, targeting specific regions of the virus, neutralising the virus, and stopping it from entering cells. Monoclonal antibodies have been used to treat other viral infections such as Ebola; however, they have significant limitations due to cost, availability, and high specificity, meaning that mutations in emerging variants could influence their efficacy. They are unlikely to be an affordable option in lower-income countries.”

Mutations become problematic

According to Prof Burt, viruses have a propensity to acquire mutations, or changes, in their genetic make-up during replication, and as expected, this virus has changed during the pandemic and will inevitably continue to mutate.

“These mutations become problematic if they influence the way the virus is transmitted between people, or if the disease profile changes and the virus causes a more severe disease, or if the changes result in a virus that is not recognised by the body's immune response.  In other words, the virus is capable of hiding from, or can escape, the immune response that a person has developed as a result of a previous natural infection or from vaccination. 

“If the virus has changed such that an existing immune response does not recognise it, then a person can become reinfected. Hence, changes in the ability to escape immunity are considered to confer an advantage to the virus. Although there are changes in all regions of the viral genes, we are concerned with changes that occur in the gene that codes for the spike protein. This protein is responsible for binding and entry of the virus into cells, hence changes in the spike protein that allow the virus to more readily enter cells are considered to be an advantage to the virus.” 

Variants of interest vs variants of concern

Prof Burt says there is now some evidence suggesting that antibodies produced in response to the Beta variant – the dominant variant during the second wave in South Africa – are less efficient at neutralising the Delta variant of the virus. In addition, there is evidence suggesting that the Delta virus can replicate to higher levels in the body, resulting in a higher viral load. Although the kinetics of each variant are still not completely understood, the combinations of higher viral load, and the potential for reinfections to occur will likely contribute towards a larger wave of infection.

“The World Health Organisation (WHO) and international partners characterise emerging variants as variants of concern (VOC) or variants of interest (VOI). Although there are multiple new variants globally, only a small proportion of these meet the definition. The Lambda variant, initially recognised in South America, is deemed a VOI. This is a level below VOC, indicating that it has mutations that are known or have the potential to affect the characteristics of the virus and that the prevalence is increasing in multiple countries over time. Currently, Lambda is not a concern in SA. In contrast, a VOC has the same characteristics as a VOI, but in addition, has one or more of the following: increased transmissibility or is associated with change in disease severity or clinical presentation, or the public health and social measures are less effective against the variant,” says Prof Burt.  

Vaccines will likely need to be adapted to accommodate future variants 

It is impossible to predict which variants may emerge next, explains Prof Burt. “Fortunately, although the current vaccines may not prevent mild disease, they have all been shown to reduce the incidence of severe disease and fatalities. The technology for adapting vaccines is available – but of course – if a vaccine has to be adapted, it will take some time for that to be available. As this virus is now well established globally and will continue to evolve over the years, it is likely that, in the future, vaccines will be required to be adapted to accommodate circulating variants.”

“Although there is some reduction in vaccine efficacy against the currently circulating variants, there are fortunately high levels of protection against severe disease and hospitalisation in people who have received the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine or both doses of the Pfizer vaccine. In other words, they are fully vaccinated,” says Prof Burt. 

Despite reduced effectiveness and potential for vaccine breakthrough, it is still important for people to be vaccinated, as it reduces viral load and duration of virus shedding. Less viral replication means that the virus has less chance to mutate, with less chance of new variants emerging.   

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept