Prions removed from animal blood

news@nature.com ^ | 22 December 2006 | Michael Hopkin

[neverdem]

Close window

Published online: 22 December 2006; | doi:10.1038/news061218-13

Prions removed from animal blood

Filtration technique could make transfusions safer, its inventors say.

Michael Hopkin

A US-led research team has developed a technique to filter potentially deadly prion proteins from blood. They suggest that the method should be used routinely in attempts to remove prions, which can cause variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), from blood products used for transfusions.

The method could offer better protection than the current practice of removing white blood cells from donated blood, say the researchers, led by Robert Rohwer of the University of Maryland, Baltimore. Previous studies have shown that around a half of the abnormal, infective prion proteins are in white blood cells, so removing these can help reduce the risk of infection. But infective prions are also found in the blood plasma.

Of the 200 vCJD cases recorded worldwide, only a few have involved contaminated blood transfusions, but health officials are still worried about this possible transmission route. Several countries have banned blood donations from people who have lived in Britain, where many people have potentially eaten meat containing infective prions.

Despite the relatively few cases of this devastating, untreatable disease, researchers worry that many other people might be carriers. According to a survey of samples from tonsil and appendix removals, as many as 4,000 British people may be harbouring the disease, which can remain dormant for decades, without showing symptoms. There is currently no test to detect abnormal prions in humans, meaning that it is impossible to identify these people.

In a bind

Routine filtering of blood to remove any prions would sidestep the danger, Rohwer argues.

He and his colleagues searched databases of millions of molecules to find ones that bind to the prion protein. They eventually identified a resin, called L13, that binds to both the normal and disease-causing forms.

They tested the resin using hamster blood spiked with the prions that cause scrapie, a disease related to vCJD. They then used this blood to transfuse hamsters. Around half of the animals injected with untreated blood developed disease, but the nearly 200 hamsters injected with blood filtered with L13 remained disease-free. The researchers report their findings in The Lancet¹, and are commercialising the technology.

The problem is that effectiveness of the filtration will be very difficult to verify in people, because although there is a test for infective prions in hamster blood, no such test yet exists for humans. The only people known to contain infective prions are those suffering from the disease, and they have always been too unwell to have large volumes of blood removed for research.

"It's going to be very difficult to check that the new method works for human blood," says Marc Turner, an expert on prion disease at the Edinburgh Blood Transfusion Centre, UK. He says that his group will carry out an independent evaluation of the filtration method to see whether it is worth using routinely in blood banks. But without a human test, it is difficult to prove that the filter is effective.

Through the net

And a small fraction of the prions may slip through the net. Rohwer's team previously tested the compounds' abilities to mop up prions from a sample of infected hamster brain tissue. "One part in 10,000 simply wasn't adsorbed," he says. "It seems to be in a form that would just keep going through the resins." Without a blood test it is impossible to tell whether this would also occur in blood.

Rohwer points out, however, that even blood from heavily infected people contains only 5,000 infective doses' worth of prions, so filtering of donated blood should bring the amount well below the amount required to cause disease.

Health officials may nevertheless question the economic wisdom of adopting the new method without being able to find out exactly how many people are symptomless carriers. Even in Britain, it is not known whether the 4,000 people inferred from the tonsil survey are capable of spreading the disease, and whether a second wave of clinical cases will materialize.

Rohwer, a co-founder of the company that developed the technology, says that the method should be no more costly than removing white blood cells, and that it is better to be safe than sorry. "Retrospectively, some people might say it was a waste [if the epidemic does not materialize]," he says. "But what if the cases did turn up?"

Visit our newsblog to read and post comments about this story.

	Top

References

1. Gregori L., et al. Lancet, 368. 2226 - 2230 (2006).

	Top

Story from news@nature.com:
http://news.nature.com//news/2006/061218/061218-13.html

		© 2006 Nature Publishing Group | Privacy policy

[neverdem]

Reduction in infectivity of endogenous transmissible spongiform encephalopathies present in blood by adsorption to selective affinity resins

Lancet's abstract needs registration, not subscription.

[neverdem]

spongiform encephalopathy ping

[martin_fierro]

Because-When-I-Think-Prions-I-Think-SunkenCiv PING

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Martin. All this time I thought prions were extra junk that managed to pry itself into atomic nuclei. Silly me. ;')

Coleus, possibly of interest.

Have a very Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and fun and productive 2007!

http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/graphics/1920/silverbells1920.jpg

http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/graphics/1920/bluexmas2k21920.jpg

[Coleus]

Thank you, a Blessed Christmas to you all..

Hopefully, they will be able to do this on a grand scale and allow people who have been to Europe to donate blood.

[neverdem]

ping

[Quix]

Very important, imho.

[neverdem]

Our humble opinions have been relegated to chat. Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

[Quix]

Why on earth?

Very curious.

Prions are a very real, super redundantly verified hazard loose in the biosphere. The wasting brain disease is no laughing matter.

Why relegate it to chat??? I don't understand.

Thanks.

[neverdem]

Why on earth?

Ask the admin mods. I posted to News/Activism. If I knew it was going to be downgraded to chat, I probably wouldn't have bothered to post it or getting a link to the abstract.

[Quix]

Your FREEPMAIL includes or should--a copy of mine to the ADMIN MOD. Thx.

[neverdem]

I figured it must have been a courtesy copy.

[Quix]

Sure.

You are worth plenty courtesy, aren't you!

I think so.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the compliment. So are you worth plenty of courtesy. Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

[Quix]

Thanks for your kind words and for your frequent service to FREEPERS hereon.

[Lurker]

Very interesting.

If I read the article correctly, there's still no way to test for these critters in the blood. Do I have that right?

And do they really know what the level of prions in the bloodstream are required to produce illness or are they just guessing?

It's great they've found a way to filter them out, well most of them anyway.

Thanks for the info and Merry Christmas to the both of you.

Regards,

L

[Quix]

I don't know much beyond the article in terms of testing and blood.

I just know that any amount seems to be hazardous and no amount of cooking, baking, microwaving etc. destroys them.

As far as I know, there's no way of destroying the buggers in meat or anything else.

And, they are in rat urine left on leaves, twigs, rocks, ?water?, in the forest etc.

[Lurker]

Rohwer points out, however, that even blood from heavily infected people contains only 5,000 infective doses' worth of prions, so filtering of donated blood should bring the amount well below the amount required to cause disease.

The above is the part that raised questions in my mind. I didn't know they'd established a 'safe limit' for these things.

And, they are in rat urine left on leaves, twigs, rocks, ?water?, in the forest etc.

One more reason to hate rats...

L

[Quix]

I'm very skeptical that they know with any serious reliability about the amount needed to cause an infection.

1. The incubation period seems to be quite long in many if not most or all cases.

2. I don't think their research--at least the known research into them is that sophisticated, extensive, trustworthy.

3. Frankly, I don't trust the globalist government folks in charge of such things on this score 0.000000000000000000001%.