[Jolly2 (OP)]

B cells

I am wondering if you extracted blood from a person then exposed that blood to a virus.

Then removed CD4 and B cells that reacted to the virus. And returned them to the person they were taken from....

Weather that would  cause the immune system to start to develop  a natural immune response without the actual virus being present in the body.


Could you actually produce a herd immunity without any one actually having a virus in their body.

It's a suggestion to do an education for the immune system..  it would have to be done on an individual level of course...


Alternatively would it be possible to culture B cells that react to the virus? Then simply share them to people seeking a form of immunity?

[Karen W.]

I see you got these posted..perhapsChris could give an opinion Jolly.

[evan_au]

There is an established procedure of taking immunoglobulins from one person (a plasma donation at the blood bank) and then injecting them into a patient to provide some immunity to conditions that the first person has recovered from.
- However, the immunoglobulins only last a few weeks in the body before they are flushed from the body, and a new dose is needed.
- With such a short protection, it won't achieve herd immunity
- But it could be useful for treating a limited number of patients with a severe condition, who just need some extra help until their own immune system can get going
- Assuming there is a large group of people who have already recovered from the virus (wait 3-4 weeks after symptoms disappear) and willing to go to the blood bank to do a plasma donation
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunoglobulin_therapy

Transferring live white blood cells into a sick patient is likely to create a war between the patient's immune system (fighting the "invading" cells), and the injected cells (fighting this "foreign" body they now find themselves inhabiting).
- This could divert the patient's immune system from fighting the real invader: the virus.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfusion-associated_graft-versus-host_disease

But maybe there are ways we could educate the patient's immune system about the virus
- We normally do this through a vaccine (if we have time to develop one...)

[chris]

Interesting question, but not do-able I'm afraid.

The way the immune system works is that specialised cells "present" components of viruses (or other infecting entities) to other cells in the immune system in the cellular equivalent of a shop window. Other passing immune cells (shoppers) browse and inspect what's on sale. Cells that happen to like (have an affinity for) what's in the window then get excited and a chemical (cytokine) "sales pitch" starts up between them and the cell displaying the thing they like.

Ultimately, this leads to the excited cells starting to clonally expand by cell division. This leads to the production of a big population of cells that can make antibodies (of different types) that recognise the invader. It also, via a similar mechanism, leads to the production of cells that can kill off cells displaying features of the invader.

When scientists want to make therapeutic antibodies, they need to rely on the above process to find "the" cell from among the billions in the body that makes the right antibody. That's why we still have to resort to injecting the thing into a rabbit to begin with. From that rabbit you home in on the cell you want, and from that cell you home in on the gene it's using to make the antibody you want. Then you're in business and can make huge amounts of the antibody in an artificial cell system.

But no one is kidding themselves that we could make enough therapeutic antibody to protect the population from coronavirus infection. These antibodies are hard to make in sufficient bulk, so it's just not practical.

[syhprum]

Could a VIP have a political prisoner who is well checked for viruses and of the correct blood group injected with COVID-19 and use his his blood plasma as treatment.
It would not normally get past ethics committees but they don't cut much ice when its a matter of "national importence" 

[Jolly2 (OP)]

There is an established procedure of taking immunoglobulins from one person (a plasma donation at the blood bank) and then injecting them into a patient to provide some immunity to conditions that the first person has recovered from.
- However, the immunoglobulins only last a few weeks in the body before they are flushed from the body, and a new dose is needed.
- With such a short protection, it won't achieve herd immunity
- But it could be useful for treating a limited number of patients with a severe condition, who just need some extra help until their own immune system can get going
- Assuming there is a large group of people who have already recovered from the virus (wait 3-4 weeks after symptoms disappear) and willing to go to the blood bank to do a plasma donation
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunoglobulin_therapy

Transferring live white blood cells into a sick patient is likely to create a war between the patient's immune system (fighting the "invading" cells), and the injected cells (fighting this "foreign" body they now find themselves inhabiting).
- This could divert the patient's immune system from fighting the real invader: the virus.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfusion-associated_graft-versus-host_disease

But maybe there are ways we could educate the patient's immune system about the virus
- We normally do this through a vaccine (if we have time to develop one...)

 thank you for the reply. Your are however referencing a different type of medical practice to the one I was suggesting we try.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Interesting question, but not do-able I'm afraid.

Has it actually  been tried?

The way the immune system works is that specialised cells "present" components of viruses (or other infecting entities) to other cells in the immune system in the cellular equivalent of a shop window. Other passing immune cells (shoppers) browse and inspect what's on sale. Cells that happen to like (have an affinity for) what's in the window then get excited and a chemical (cytokine) "sales pitch" starts up between them and the cell displaying the thing they like.

Ultimately, this leads to the excited cells starting to clonally expand by cell division. This leads to the production of a big population of cells that can make antibodies (of different types) that recognise the invader. It also, via a similar mechanism, leads to the production of cells that can kill off cells displaying features of the invader.

And why process cannot be replicated in petri dish you have not explained.

When scientists want to make therapeutic antibodies, they need to rely on the above process to find "the" cell from among the billions in the body that makes the right antibody.

Yet B cells and the production of anti bodies is only one part of the immune response.

I was also interested in CD4 cells identifying the virus then being returned to the body.

That's why we still have to resort to injecting the thing into a rabbit to begin with. From that rabbit you home in on the cell you want, and from that cell you home in on the gene it's using to make the antibody you want. Then you're in business and can make huge amounts of the antibody in an artificial cell system.

But no one is kidding themselves that we could make enough therapeutic antibody to protect the population from coronavirus infection. These antibodies are hard to make in sufficient bulk, so it's just not practical.

I wasn't suggesting we repeat that. I was wondering if we couldn't identify the b-cells responsible and then replicate them.

So rather then giving an antibody injection you would give a Bcell injection and allow them to produce the antibodies inside the patient afterwards.

It's reactive Bcell identification and reproduction.

And CD4s.

Although I'm sure other areas of the immune response could also be considered...

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Could a VIP have a political prisoner who is well checked for viruses and of the correct blood group injected with COVID-19 and use his his blood plasma as treatment.
It would not normally get past ethics committees but they don't cut much ice when its a matter of "national importence"

That's a horrible idea.  While some think prisoners should have no rights. Experimenting on prisoners is a disgraceful suggestion.

Besides what you are suggesting, doesnt relate to my idea.

I was talking about extracting  blood and then educating it and then returning it to the person it came from with that immunial education present.
In theory you could gain herd immunity without anyone ever having the virus in their body.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

I think you all missed that was actually proposing a completely new from of immunological education.

Where a persons blood is extracted, then shown different diseases and allowed to identify them.

The person blood once educated is returned to the patient. It would mean if it worked that we could give people an immunity to many diseases while only ever giving them back their own blood. Nothing foreign would be put into the persons body, only their own blood but an educated blood able to teach the rest of the immune system.

It's a different from of immunology.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Theoretically it's a form of immunological education that should have no side effects. While providing immunity to diseases.

[set fair]

It has been tried in the Phillipines with T cells. I think the idea is - get the T cells to attack or recognise the virus, put them back in the person hoping they are taken to a secondary lymphoid site where they get the 'ere what you been up to treatment and specific T cells will be produced. I presume we would have heard if this works.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

It has been tried in the Phillipines with T cells. The idea is - get the T cells to attack or recognise the virus, put them back in the person hoping they are taken to a secondary lymphoid site where they get the 'ere what you been up to treatment and specific T cells will be produced. I presume we would have heard if this works.

Awesome.

When did they try this? You have anymore information?

My suggestion is broader then T-cells, but it's a start. Bcells and CD4s ect.
I was thinking maybe their are processes we are not aware of, so if we just exposed the blood to a virus, saw a reaction and then returned the blood it might be enough.

[set fair]

Not quite as I remeber it https://www.biospectrumasia.com/news/26/15833/singapore-explores-immunotherapy-for-covid-19-treatment.html

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Not quite as I remeber it https://www.biospectrumasia.com/news/26/15833/singapore-explores-immunotherapy-for-covid-19-treatment.html

Ultimately my suggestion is to find a persons memory B and T cells in an extracted blood sample and then expose those cells to a virus or bacteria and then return those cells to the persons body, after they have been educated.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Would exposing memory B and T cells from a persons blood sample and gaining a response, then returning the educated blood sample to the person.

Allow for gained immunity to disease without any side effects?

You are only injecting into people their own blood.

[evan_au]

Would exposing memory B and T cells from a persons blood sample and gaining a response, then returning the educated blood sample to the person.

I don't know how long the "education" phase would take, but I have been through plasmapheresis, which took about 45 minutes (plus setting up and clearing away the equipment, probably another 15 minutes).
- There is a centrifuge to separate the red blood cells from the plasma
- Maybe you don't need so much plasma as I gave, so maybe you only need to spend 5 minutes extracting the plasma?

Using a disposable needle to inject a vaccine is cheaper and quicker than extracting white blood cells, educating them and then reinjecting them.
- There is lots of non-reusable equipment when extracting blood plasma.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmapheresis

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Would exposing memory B and T cells from a persons blood sample and gaining a response, then returning the educated blood sample to the person.

I don't know how long the "education" phase would take, but I have been through plasmapheresis, which took about 45 minutes (plus setting up and clearing away the equipment, probably another 15 minutes).
- There is a centrifuge to separate the red blood cells from the plasma
- Maybe you don't need so much plasma as I gave, so maybe you only need to spend 5 minutes extracting the plasma?

Using a disposable needle to inject a vaccine is cheaper and quicker than extracting white blood cells, educating them and then reinjecting them.
- There is lots of non-reusable equipment when extracting blood plasma.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmapheresis

Developing a vaccine takes a lot longer.

This idea would mean immunity without any side effects.

[syhprum]

Jolly 2 "That's a horrible idea" of course but horrible things are done when its In "the national interest" ( like burning people to death with atom bombs) , on a more mundane level kidneys or even hearts are removed from "voluntaries" for transplant I was not offering my approval for such practices but just noting there is no limit to human cruelty when its a matter of national interest

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Jolly 2 "That's a horrible idea" of course but horrible things are done when its In "the national interest" ( like burning people to death with atom bombs) , on a more mundane level kidneys or even hearts are removed from "voluntaries" for transplant I was not offering my approval for such practices but just noting there is no limit to human cruelty when its a matter of national interest

What are you talking about exactly?

[syhprum]

"Could a VIP have a political prisoner who is well checked for viruses and of the correct blood group injected with COVID-19 and use his his blood plasma as treatment.
It would not normally get past ethics committees but they don't cut much ice when its a matter of "national importance"
I made this comment in no implying approval to the procedure but was told it was a horrible idea.
I grew up in war and was never surprised as to what could be perpetuated