TWiV 168: Super CalTech prophylaxis and ferret runny noses

adeno-associated virusHosts: Vincent Racaniello, Dickson DespommierRich ConditAlan Dove, and Welkin Johnson

Welkin joins the TWiV team for a discussion of HIV prophlaxis using vectored antibodies, and the influenza H5N1 virus studies in ferrets that were not redacted.

[powerpress url=”″]

Click the arrow above to play, or right-click to download TWiV 168 (59 MB .mp3, 98 minutes).

Subscribe to TWiV (free) in iTunes , at the Zune Marketplace, by the RSS feed, by email, or listen on your mobile device with the Microbeworld app.

Links for this episode:

Weekly Science Picks

Welkin – Virtual PI (Nature)
DicksonDrain the Ocean
RichNova: To the Moon
Alan – Robert Falcon Scott on Twitter and the Terra Nova expedition
VincentHello, Mr. Chips (I, Cringely)

Listener Pick of the Week

CharlotteAnd the Band Played On

Send your virology questions and comments (email or mp3 file) to, or call them in to 908-312-0760. You can also post articles that you would like us to discuss at and tag them with twiv.

7 thoughts on “TWiV 168: Super CalTech prophylaxis and ferret runny noses”

  1. Can someone explain to me why the H5N1 in vitro evolution paper was not blocked by the NSABB but the Fouchier and Kawaoka papers were?  They evolved a virus that can spread by direct contact and is better than the initial H5N1 at spreading between ferrets by aerosol.  I wonder if the mutations they find here are the same ones that Fouchier finds.  Too bad we won’t know since the mutations in Fouchier’s paper will be “redacted” from the published paper.  I guess if you publish in “Virology” instead of Nature or Science you can get your work published.  Or if you don’t hype your work and have a PR department pimping out your press releases you are safe from redaction.  

    Since this was done at a CDC lab, I wonder what the CDC’s IBC and IACUC have to say about the approval of Fouchier’s and Kawaoka’s experiments?  I think this paper should be getting more play as a direct comparison to the redacted ones.  Thanks for covering it.  I love the in vitro evolution angle.  Totally cool tech.

  2. The only reason we could think of for NSABB not redacting this paper is that the virus was not virulent in ferrets, and it didn’t transmit that well. But not having seen the Fouchier paper, it’s hard to compare.

  3. I guess with only 2 ferrets and 1 becoming positive, we dont know if the positive one was the anomaly or the negative one was.  I do like Welkin’s comments on this weeks TWIV though, that for someone who doesn’t know Flu at all, he could figure out how to do the passage experiments, so anyone else that was paying attention could to!  I guess the NSABB was trying to make a point and draw a line in the sand.  

  4. Am I right in thinking that the anti-HIV antibody gene transfer paper did not present any virological measurement of infection in the humanized mice after HIV challenge? Data showed that CD4+ T-cell counts remain stable, but I didn’t see any measurement of HIV viremia or seroconversion in challenged mice. If this is the case, how can we say that infection (rather than pathology) was really prevented?

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top