Credit: Sanil George + Jessica Shartouny
Humans have long known that frogs come equipped with protective chemicals to maintain froggy health. This story describes a study of a single peptide from the mucus of a frog from India that lays waste to the H1 subtype of the influenza A virus–at least in the laboratory.
The story does an admirable job of explaining how the peptide kills the virus, provides good contextual comments from independent sources, and repeatedly reminds readers that testing in humans is yet to be accomplished. While we generally think preclinical research is too early to be of much use to a wide audience, the details here make this less about a hapless “new study proves xyz” and more about the scientific process of finding new tools against the flu.
On the flip side, the story is not helped by the headline, which leaves the question of applicability to humans quite open.
The risk of flu pandemics, however low, is now a permanent feature of the human landscape, and many worry about how to cope when a crisis outpaces the development of vaccines. This story about basic research into the antiviral potency of peptides in frog mucus offers an interesting look at an approach that might—emphasis on “might”—become a viable strategy.
This story describes basic research that has not even reached the human clinical test stage. Because it makes this clear and adds lots of backstopping so as to prevent readers from wondering if this is an available treatment, we’ll rate this N/A.
This was a tough call. The story reports that the peptide killed all of the H1 versions of the influenza A virus that it encountered in laboratory settings. And the text sends up a cautionary flag early in the story that the peptide has not yet been tested in human beings. In fact, the next step appears to be testing in ferrets.
But, it doesn’t really say much about the mice research. How did they determine that it worked? Did it clear infections? We were somewhat unclear on that aspect of the story.
Again, though, because the story didn’t oversell the findings, we’re leaning toward Satisfactory.
Given the early nature of the research–which the story makes clear is preliminary–we’ll rate this N/A.
Ideally, we’d like a statement to the effect that the safety is totally unknown. However the story does establish that future research might better pin down the harms, i.e., “If further studies show it has a low level of cytotoxicity…”
This was a real strength of the story. It does not oversell the findings–making it clear that this research is preliminary and preclinical. The text does not just reflect on the study design—albeit briefly—but then gives much space to an explanation of how the peptide does its job. For cursory readers, such a long story may be of little interest, but those seeking to understand the research will be both rewarded and entertained.
Flu viruses are ubiquitous and often dangerous. Seeking another line of defense to accompany vaccination and other drugs makes sense.
The primary source is clearly linked to the study, and two other sources are identified as independent of the research. Although the story does not mention funding sources, a news release describing the research indicates that funding came from the university itself, not from external sources.
The story would have benefited from information about how this possible antiviral treatment might fit in with other types of treatment. For example, the researchers note in the abstract of their report that vaccines may take too long to produce in pandemic situations, making antiviral treatments relevant.
The story makes it very clear that research has been conducted only in mice and that much more work needs to be done before it can even be assessed in humans.
As part of the explanation for how this peptide kills flu viruses, the story offers a brief history of the use of frogs (and, apparently, their peptides) to prevent illness in human beings. Sources then make clear that this study’s finding that a specific peptide seems to target only the H1 variants of influenza A is indeed novel.
The reporter for the story has clearly gone into enterprise mode here, soliciting information from other sources and investing in substantial explanation of the peptide’s modus operandi.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like