One does not weaken "an antigen" = one weakens "a pathogen" - which has antigenic structures on its' surface. So a viral "capsid" is an envelope which encapsulates the viral DNA within it comprised of its' genes. On that capsid are structures made of proteins/peptides etc.. These are what allow a virus to attach to the membrane of a corresponding cell if those antigenic structures match up to the cell membrane receptors - not unlike specific keys fitting specific locks. Meanwhile the virus itself can be attenuated by exposing it typically to a compound which can "denature" its' capsid structure. Usually this is done by using diluted formalin which is destructive to protein bonds. The concentration is strong enough to damage the viral capsid and it's genetic content - yet not strong enough to kill it outright/alter its' structure to render it ineffective for antibody generation in that form. That way the virus is weak - yet it continues to try to attach and replicate itself = but it is impaired in doing so. This prevents full-blown infection while still allowing for your B-Cells to recognize the antigen structures and generate corresponding IgG specific antibodies + "Killer T-Cells" to recognize those antigen structures to eliminate any cells infected as evidenced by antigens on its' membrane. When a virus infects the cell it leaves those antigen "keys" on the cell membrane surface as its' "calling card". Circulatory immunoglobulins upon encountering these recognize the cell as abnormal.
Look rather to the nature of the pathogen in question for your answer. So there are different "types" of vaccines for various reasons representing the relative virulence of a pathogen + ease of manufacturing and stability of the product and so on. So older vaccine types pre-80's were either "inactivated" using an adjuvant - not terribly effective - or else "attenuated" vaccines. Attenuated vaccines can work quite well as the pathogen is still alive and thus continues to try to replicate itself yielding a strong immunological reaction by the body. Unfortunately this means a strong immune reaction which translates into = more severe possible side effects. Also some pathogens are simply too virulent to risk introducing them into a person - even in a weakened form. Post-80's however we saw the development of "recombinant DNA" technology whereby a virus could be broken down and only the needed antigenic parts used - or the genes which produce those parts inserted into an otherwise innocuous "vector" which could subsequently be attenuated. This then allowed for vaccines to be created against viruses - like say Ebola - which were otherwise too dangerous to risk using in an older style vaccine. Final thought. Older vaccines despite sometimes having lower efficacy are often easy to make being cheaply produced. An example is the older attenuated oral Polio vaccine which costs pennies a dose. Further they can sometimes be stored for long periods. This makes them more useful in places such as poorer Third World countries where the infrastructure is not good and where other vaccines like the mRNA ones which have special storage and transportation requirements make their use impractical. So variables like this must be accounted for when determining what "type" of vaccine is needed for a given population. As an aside. Some older vaccines which came with harsh possible side effects were subsequently reformulated via recombinant technology to make them better tolerated. So their efficacy compared to the original attenuated form might be less = but they do not have the same harsh side effects.
At any given moment your immune system in engaged in dealing with multiple possible threats. You have microorganisms living inside of you + you are constantly being exposed to more from your environment. Accordingly those are alive and hence pose more of a threat to you than weakened or dead versions you might receive in a vaccine. Vaccines administered concurrently have shown to pose no risk from such administration.
its not dna. mRNA (in humans at least) is already formed from DNA. mRNA will get translated by ribosomes into proteins. mRNA vaccines will use the ribosome to make the protein.
Perhaps. Yet inactivated vaccines - even when boosted with an adjuvant = tend to have lower efficacy. A dead virus is simply not as "reactive" to your immune system as a live one is. Subsequently antibody generation is often mediocre or poor depending upon the pathogen in question.
Wow I have a nursing school test tomorrow & this was perfect. Thank you.
Glad we could help! Good luck on your test.
It was so helpful than the others videos ... Thank you so much for this 😊
Peace… Shalom… Salam... Namaste and Thank You for All that you are doing to Heal our Mother Earth 🙏🏻 😊 🌈 ✌ 🌷 ☮️❤️
Salam❤
What is exactly done to the live attenuated vaccines to weaken the antigens in them?
One does not weaken "an antigen" = one weakens "a pathogen" - which has antigenic structures on its' surface. So a viral "capsid" is an envelope which encapsulates the viral DNA within it comprised of its' genes. On that capsid are structures made of proteins/peptides etc..
These are what allow a virus to attach to the membrane of a corresponding cell if those antigenic structures match up to the cell membrane receptors - not unlike specific keys fitting specific locks.
Meanwhile the virus itself can be attenuated by exposing it typically to a compound which can "denature" its' capsid structure. Usually this is done by using diluted formalin which is destructive to protein bonds. The concentration is strong enough to damage the viral capsid and it's genetic content - yet not strong enough to kill it outright/alter its' structure to render it ineffective for antibody generation in that form. That way the virus is weak - yet it continues to try to attach and replicate itself = but it is impaired in doing so.
This prevents full-blown infection while still allowing for your B-Cells to recognize the antigen structures and generate corresponding IgG specific antibodies + "Killer T-Cells" to recognize those antigen structures to eliminate any cells infected as evidenced by antigens on its' membrane. When a virus infects the cell it leaves those antigen "keys" on the cell membrane surface as its' "calling card". Circulatory immunoglobulins upon encountering these recognize the cell as abnormal.
WHAT DAY IS IT??
thank you i love sci
Which type of vaccine is more effective?
Look rather to the nature of the pathogen in question for your answer. So there are different "types" of vaccines for various reasons representing the relative virulence of a pathogen + ease of manufacturing and stability of the product and so on.
So older vaccine types pre-80's were either "inactivated" using an adjuvant - not terribly effective - or else "attenuated" vaccines. Attenuated vaccines can work quite well as the pathogen is still alive and thus continues to try to replicate itself yielding a strong immunological reaction by the body. Unfortunately this means a strong immune reaction which translates into = more severe possible side effects. Also some pathogens are simply too virulent to risk introducing them into a person - even in a weakened form.
Post-80's however we saw the development of "recombinant DNA" technology whereby a virus could be broken down and only the needed antigenic parts used - or the genes which produce those parts inserted into an otherwise innocuous "vector" which could subsequently be attenuated. This then allowed for vaccines to be created against viruses - like say Ebola - which were otherwise too dangerous to risk using in an older style vaccine.
Final thought. Older vaccines despite sometimes having lower efficacy are often easy to make being cheaply produced. An example is the older attenuated oral Polio vaccine which costs pennies a dose. Further they can sometimes be stored for long periods. This makes them more useful in places such as poorer Third World countries where the infrastructure is not good and where other vaccines like the mRNA ones which have special storage and transportation requirements make their use impractical.
So variables like this must be accounted for when determining what "type" of vaccine is needed for a given population. As an aside. Some older vaccines which came with harsh possible side effects were subsequently reformulated via recombinant technology to make them better tolerated. So their efficacy compared to the original attenuated form might be less = but they do not have the same harsh side effects.
That 3 different type of vaccine can be taking by 1 person....
Im sorry just asking.
At any given moment your immune system in engaged in dealing with multiple possible threats. You have microorganisms living inside of you + you are constantly being exposed to more from your environment.
Accordingly those are alive and hence pose more of a threat to you than weakened or dead versions you might receive in a vaccine. Vaccines administered concurrently have shown to pose no risk from such administration.
Thank you so much for the explanation
You're so beautiful
'DNA' should have been used over 'machinery' I think
its not dna. mRNA (in humans at least) is already formed from DNA. mRNA will get translated by ribosomes into proteins. mRNA vaccines will use the ribosome to make the protein.
Inaactivated vaccine is old but safest
Perhaps. Yet inactivated vaccines - even when boosted with an adjuvant = tend to have lower efficacy. A dead virus is simply not as "reactive" to your immune system as a live one is. Subsequently antibody generation is often mediocre or poor depending upon the pathogen in question.
what vaccine? COVID19?