Submission + - New snake antivenom developed from snake owner's blood (abc.net.au) 1
piojo writes: Tim Friede, Wisconsin man, has been injecting himself with snake venom for 18 years to gain protection from his pet snakes. The antibodies he developed have formed two components of a three-part antivenom, which gives partial or total protection against 18 of 19 species of venomous snakes that were tested. Notably, the antivenom is ineffective against vipers.
The team's results have been published today in the journal Cell... The new antivenom described in the study is very different to traditional antivenoms, according to Peter Kwong, a biochemist at Columbia University and one of the study's authors.
Why is this different from existing antivenoms? (Score:2)
The magic is that three antibodies confer protection against many species of snake. But why doesn't this happen for existing antivenoms? From the original article [abc.net.au]:
antivenom is created using animal blood, like horses or other large mammals.
The animals are given small doses of the venom, and then over time given larger and larger doses. This helps the animal produce an increasing immune response without getting so sick they die.
From another article [theconversation.com]:
Broad-spectrum or “polyvalent” antivenoms are made by injecting horses with mixtures of venom from different species or different populations of snakes. However, the elevated antibody content per dose can increase the risk of adverse reactions.
It's not surprising that cells developed in a human are more suited to us than cells developed in horses. But the technique is fundamentally the same. Is the new antivenom better solely because it is human, or is it somehow more adapted as a result of being honed in vivo for 18 years?