« AIDS: Against abstinence-only | Main | Cancer: the prognosis »

Chink found in flu virus enzymes

New drug targets could combat resistance.

Biologists have uncovered subtle variations in the structure of a key flu virus enzyme, a finding that might lead to better anti-flu drugs.

Read the story here.

Posted by Helen Pearson on August 16, 2006 07:20 PM |

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1016

Comments

chink is an offensive word choice. while i know it is a real word that has a real definition other than the racial slur it has come to represent. it doesn't really add to the article.

Posted by: andrew chen | August 16, 2006 11:36 PM

A recent article confirmed that Relenza (zanamivir) is quite resistance proof, unlike Tamiflu (oseltamivir).
tinyurl.com/s2s63
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006 Aug 5; [Epub ahead of print]
Mutations conferring zanamivir resistance in human influenza virus N2 neuraminidases compromise virus fitness and are not stably maintained in vitro.

It seems our first step is to develop an IV formulation of this excellent antiviral and accelerate the development of dimeric zanamivir which is 100 times as potent and can be given as a once a week treatment (otherwise known as LANI or FluNet). Being based on zanamivir one would expect it's resistance characteristics to be similar.

It seems a waste of time to develop narrow spectrum antivirals for a theoretical resistance problem when we have a broad spectrum antiviral that is resistance proof already in clinical use.

Posted by: Dr Dank | August 17, 2006 05:58 AM

Does "chink" in the expression, "that'll throw a chink into the works", have a derivation? Is it derived from the meaning of chink, as in crack or vulnerability, or is the derivation orginally somehow racist? Thanks!

So that I don't get replies on this forever, please do not respond beyond 5/1/07. Thank you.

Posted by: Samson | March 5, 2007 02:40 AM

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by staff before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief. Excessively long entries may be cropped. Remember this is for feedback and discussion - not for publishing papers or press releases.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is just in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately. They won’t be published.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'inthefield at nature.com'.

Search