From the University of Cape Town comes some bad news for global warming alarmists, Malaria deaths may soon be a thing of the past and their attempts to link such deaths to global warming will evaporate if this cure holds up in clinical trials. Of course it never did anyway: Another alarming climate myth bites the dust – mosquito borne malaria does NOT increase with temperature
So if this is a real cure, no more cushy grants for Michael Mann to study Malaria and AGW then, see Mann’s 1.8 million Malaria grant – ‘where do we ask for a refund’? The most amazing part is the research is only 18 months old….so I expect it will be given an even more rigorous clinical review. (h/t to WUWT reader Jason) – Anthony
African research identifies strong candidate for possible single-dose malaria cure
28 August 2012
A compound discovered by a UCT drug discovery programme has been selected by MMV for its potent activity against multiple points in parasite’s lifecycle
 |
 |
| Big news: Prof Kelly Chibale (centre), here with Minister Naledi Pandor, speaks about the compound MMV390048 that he and international collaborators hope will lead to the development of a single-dose treatment for malaria. | Panel report: Dr Tim Wells, Prof Kelly Chibale, Minister Naledi Pandor, Dr Max Price and Dr Richard Gordon of the Technology Innovation Agency address the media at a press conference where they announced the development of the new compound. |
A recently discovered compound – named MMV390048 – from the aminopyridine class not only has the potential to become part of a single-dose cure for all strains of malaria, but might also be able to block transmission of the parasite from person to person, according to a research collaboration involving the Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV), based in Switzerland, and the Drug Discovery and Development Centre (H3-D) at UCT.
This was announced at UCT today.
On the basis of initial results it was selected by MMV for further development – making it the first compound researched on African soil to enter preclinical development in partnership with MMV.
An African solution to save lives
Naledi Pandor, the Minister of Science & Technology, said: “This is a significant victory in the battle to alleviate the burden of disease in the subcontinent. Clearly the war on this disease is not yet won, but I am excited by the role that our excellent scientists have played in this milestone in finding a potential cure for malaria and possibly preventing its transmission. Congratulations to Professor Kelly Chibale and all involved. This is evidence of the world-class science being done in South Africa and the continent, and of the power of continental and international scientific collaboration in the multidisciplinary approaches that are essential in addressing the societal challenges of our time.”
Dr Max Price, the vice-chancellor of UCT, said: “H3-D was founded at UCT in 2010 for this very purpose: to develop African expertise towards solving the health problems that beset the developing world. We trust this clinical candidate is the first of many contributions Professor Chibale and his team will be making to the advancement of international medicine.”
H3-D identified a molecule, code named MMV390048, which was selected in July 2012 by MMV’s Expert Scientific Advisory Committee for further development. The promising new compound shows potent activity against multiple points in the malaria parasite’s lifecycle. This means it not only has the potential to become part of a single-dose cure for malaria but might also be able to block transmission of the parasite from person to person.
The aminopyridine series was initially identified by Griffith University scientists in Australia as part of MMV’s extensive malaria screening campaign of around 6 million compounds. A team of scientists from H3-D, led by UCT Professor Kelly Chibale, further scrutinised and explored the antimalarial potential of the series. With parasitological, pharmacological and contract chemistry support from the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Switzerland), the Centre for Drug Candidate Optimization at Monash University (Australia) and Syngene (India) respectively, the H3-D team selected the most promising compounds from the series to be optimised and retested.
In just 18 months the team had identified and developed a candidate suitable for preclinical development.
Equipping the next generation of African scientists
“We are very excited that this promising compound, researched by African scientists, has been selected by MMV for further development,” said Chibale, the founder and director of H3-D. “This is truly a proud day for African science and African scientists. Our team is hopeful that the compound will emerge from rigorous testing as an extremely effective medicine for malaria – a disease that accounts for 24% of total child deaths in sub-Saharan Africa. What is more, H3-D and MMV achieved MMV390048 as a clinical candidate in record time. In the process we have developed a unique model for successful technology platforms, and generic modern pharmaceutical industry expertise and skills, to discover drugs in potentially any disease area in Africa.”
Dr Tim Wells, MMV’s Chief Scientific Officer, said: “This is a great achievement and an excellent example of the quality of research that can be fostered in Africa. We look forward to seeing more exciting compounds emerge from Kelly’s team and are proud to be collaborating with H3-D; not only is it conducting excellent science today, but it is also providing world-class training for the next generation of African scientists.”
What is so unique and exciting about MMV390048
- It is very potent: it displayed a complete cure of animals infected with malaria parasites in a single dose given orally, and thus has the potential to cure millions of people.
- It is active against a wide panel of resistant strains of the malaria parasite.
- Developing the drug has made possible the training of more than 10 local scientists and cemented a strong relationship with an international partner.
- The clinical candidate is in line to enter clinical trials in late 2013.
View a video of Prof Kelly Chibale speaking about H3-D.
Tim: and…
Overall, our results challenge current understanding of the effects of temperature on malaria transmission dynamics. We expect the effects to be robust across human malarias and possibly other vector-borne diseases. If so, the findings have significant implications for the various strategic modelling frameworks informing current disease control and eradication efforts [18,19], as they suggest that control at higher temperatures might be more feasible than currently predicted. The results also add complexity to studies investigating the possible effects of climate warming [20], as increases in temperature need not simply lead to increases in transmission.
My emphasis.
The conclusion of that paper pretty well negates everything you have been stating on temperature dependence of the parasite.
“Now, quote the rest…”
Yes, I saw that, but as I stated above in many posts I am skeptical of their argument. As I said, I work on the molecular and cellular biology of malaria parasite transmission to mosquitoes, and use the rodent malaria model as a tool in my lab. The rodent malaria parasite model is a great system, and good for many things, but it departs from the human malaria parasite with respect to temperature and transmission (and elsewhere, unrelated to the topic at hand).
Regarding the WHO Global Malaria Eradication Program, here is a start:
“Some Lessons for the Future from the Global Malaria Eradication Programme (1955–1969)”
Najera et al PLoS Medicine (8:e1000412; 2011)
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000412
Yes, politics were involved, the program sought to eradicate malaria (the “E” word, as it is called in the malaria research community). The program was largely funded by the USA, and by the late 1960s congress was disappointed by the lack of results. They pulled the plug. Without funding it is hard to implement DDT indoor residual spraying programs.
Another factor was the renewed emphasis on chloroquine, and limited money resources were poured into medicine rather than insecticides. All in all, as I said, a complex situation, and to blame Rachel Carson is disingenuous.
“The conclusion of that paper pretty well negates everything you have been stating on temperature dependence of the parasite.”
But, the caveat, the elephant that needs to be escorted from the room, is that the study needs to be repeated with the appropriate experimental system: the human malaria parasite. My argument all along.
My suspicion is that the researchers chose Plasmodium yoelii because P. falciparum transmission to mosquitoes is far more difficult to work on. They are forced to make arguments in the Discussion section of the manuscript, rather than data in the Results section, because their facility is not equipped to culture P. falciparum, transmit to mosquitoes, and safely contain those infectious mosquitoes. Very few labs can do this, and to date they have not.
Elephant escorted from the room? Again, inappropiate use of words and phrases.
your
is that the study needs to be repeated with the appropriate experimental system: the human malaria parasite. My argument all along.
The authors state that the P. yoelii is a reasonable model, with a reference. Agreed, it needs to be tested to be validated. But the evidence suggests that malaria is not receptive to warmer temperatures.
If you have other references that dispute this, please provide them.
Your
All in all, as I said, a complex situation, and to blame Rachel Carson is disingenuous.
Not at all. After the US ban, and the subsequent world wide bans on DDT, malaria cases went up 2-3 times compared to pre-DDT ban. Note that environmental groups made dealing with the World Bank impossible if they produced their own DDT. The greens were inspired by Carson.
If Carson had not demonized DDT, 10s of millions of women and children would not have died.
“Elephant escorted from the room? Again, inappropiate use of words and phrases. ”
No, it isn’t. Why are you determined to suggest that I am uneducated? And the previous was a reference to Shakespeare.
“But the evidence suggests that malaria is not receptive to warmer temperatures.”
Malaria is a disease. You mean the malaria parasite. That is, if we are going to talk about inappropriate use of words.
“The authors state that the P. yoelii is a reasonable model, with a reference. ”
You should read that reference. The authors of that reference state compatibility between the two experimental systems (and so do I)…but also highlight many differences (and so do I). Even in the Abstract they state: “However, some of the genes identified in these screens have no effect on the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum; raising the question of whether different mosquito effector genes mediate anti-parasitic responses to different Plasmodium species.” and later in the article, “It is well documented that An. gambiae mosquitoes have a different transcriptional response to infection with P. berghei and P. falciparum”
“If Carson had not demonized DDT, 10s of millions of women and children would not have died. After the US ban, and the subsequent world wide bans on DDT, malaria cases went up 2-3 times compared to pre-DDT ban.”
A convenient coincidence used by conservatives to demonize the environmental movement. Coincidence does not equal causation. If one were interested in such fluffy propaganda tactics they could say that Ruckelshaus, Nixon and the GOP banned DDT, and have blood on their hands. But the truth is more complex, and more interesting.
Tim: your
No, it isn’t. Why are you determined to suggest that I am uneducated? And the previous was a reference to Shakespeare.
“Escort the elephant from the room” makes no sense. Its also a mixed metaphor. Another sign of pretension.
The reference to Shakespeare? Its the second reference when googled. I assume that is what you saw when you googled the term, after I pointed out the error. Assuming you meant to use “equivocator”, I don’t see how it makes sense to call the internet that pejorative.
You are correct. I should have said “parasite”, not “malaria”.
your
You should read that reference.
You seem confused. We were talking of the parasites response to temperature, and how it should remain similar across species. Now you are talking about the mosquitoes response to the parasite.
your
A convenient coincidence used by conservatives to demonize the environmental movement. Coincidence does not equal causation.
Malaria rates fell when DDT was used. Rates rose when it was banned. Rates fell in areas that used indoor spraying, since DDT was re-instated. WHO, the EDF (who originally capianged for the ban) and the Sierra Club all say that DDT is vital to the control of malaria. Helluva coincidence, no?
If one were interested in such fluffy propaganda tactics they could say that Ruckelshaus, Nixon and the GOP banned DDT, and have blood on their hands. But the truth is more complex, and more interesting.
I hope there is a special place in hell for Ruckleshaus and Nixon, for the ban. But again, it was the greens, especially the EDF, that campaigned for the ban, based on Carson’s book.
BTW, I am left of center in economic and libertarian matters. That would make me a liberal.
one more inconsistent use. And one that a researcher should know.
Coincidence does not equal causation.
Its actually “correlation does equal causation”.
corrigendum:
12:37 post should read “(who originally campaigned for the ban)” and not “(who originally capianged for the ban)”
2:20 post – should read “correlation does not equal causation” and not “correlation does equal causation”
…mixed metaphor…
What metaphor was the elephant mixed with?
….correlation does not…
Yes, but I chose to use coincidence instead, because your DDT argument isn’t worthy of the word correlation. Ain’t I a stinker, to purposefully switch words and phrases all the time.
My Shakespeare reference wasn’t from google, it was from my high school reading of Macbeth, many decades ago.
…now you are talking about the mosquito…
If two species of parasites are equivalent, then the mosquito response should be the same. Since the mosquito response shows differences, that indicates that the parasites are not equivalent.
…helluva coincidence, no…
Not really, I would like to see a reference that environmental groups opposed DDT use against malaria. They were against agricultual use of DDT.
Malaria rates fell in countries that had the money and infrastructure to fight malaria. The strong correlation of malaria control is with…money and wherewithall. Witness South Africa, in contrast to poorer African nations. Witness the decline in malaria now, it is not DDT, but a huge multi-national effort (fueled in large part by Gates). If they choose DDT as a tool in their toolbox, then I am more than OK with it.
Tim: your
What metaphor was the elephant mixed with?
The elephant in the room metaphor. He is not escorted out, he is discussed.
Yes, but I chose to use coincidence instead, because your DDT argument isn’t worthy of the word correlation. Ain’t I a stinker, to purposefully switch words and phrases all the time.
Except I dont think you switch them intentionally. Least of all because it often makes no sense.
My Shakespeare reference wasn’t from google, it was from my high school reading of Macbeth, many decades ago.
Still doesn’t explain why you think the internet is the great equivocator.
If two species of parasites are equivalent, then the mosquito response should be the same. Since the mosquito response shows differences, that indicates that the parasites are not equivalent.
Hardly. If the temperature response is the same through parasite species, then the mosquito response is moot. The topic was parasite temperature response, not mosquito response to the parasite.
Not really, I would like to see a reference that environmental groups opposed DDT use against malaria. They were against agricultual use of DDT.
Really? And you are a DDT researcher? Under pressure from green groups, the World Bank would give loans only if DDT was discontinued.
http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=752
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4230
Malaria rates fell in countries that had the money and infrastructure to fight malaria. The strong correlation of malaria control is with…money and wherewithall.
And with the use of DDT. The eradication in Europe was almost entirely vector control, using DDT and controlling standing water.
Witness South Africa, in contrast to poorer African nations.
Yes, witness SA. The rates fell dramatically only after use of indoor spraying of DDT.
If they choose DDT as a tool in their toolbox, then I am more than OK with it.
The EDF, Sierra Fund, and greepeace are supporting DDT use now. WHO state that its VITAL.
The greens did not support DDT in the 70s and 80s, forcing the Wolrd Bank and the EU, even USAID, to be give money contigent on discontuning DDT.
TomT: these papers show that malaria in South Africa INCREASED after DDT was removed from the tool kit. Under pressure from green groups. These papers were written about 1999.
As you state, malaria has decreased since, and AFTER the re-instatment of DDT.
http://www.malaria.org/tren.html
He is not escorted out, he is discussed.
You are trying too hard to malign me.
Except I dont think you switch them intentionally.
You are trying too hard to malign me. And you are wrong.
The topic was parasite temperature response…
Incorrect, that reference was to support that the rodent and human malaria parasites are equivalent. The fact, pointed out in the reference, that the two parasites differentially provoke responses by the mosquito indicate that they are not equivalent.
And you are a DDT researcher?
Incorrect, pay attention to the thread, above I stated my profession. Speaking of my professional expertise, I did make one embarrassing mistake on this thread. You did not catch it, but no matter because the mistake doesn’t change the force of my arguments. But an error nonetheless.
The eradication in Europe…
…was fueled by money and infrastructure. Lots and lots and lots of it. If Africa had those resources then the world would be better off. Witness South Africa. Your emphasis on DDT is disingenuous. Indoor residual spraying with DDT or any insecticide requires a great investment in infrastructure, training and education.
The EDF, Sierra Fund, and greepeace are supporting DDT use now. WHO state that its VITAL.
Yes, I have never said that DDT is not a good thing. But you seem to be fixated on it and ignoring the greater, complex picture. Keep reading, and take off those blinders.
TomT: your
You are trying too hard to malign me.
No. You do a good enough job.
Incorrect, that reference was to support that the rodent and human malaria parasites are equivalent. The fact, pointed out in the reference, that the two parasites differentially provoke responses by the mosquito indicate that they are not equivalent.
The researchers, and their reference, state that that a similar response to temperature should be expected. The fact that the parasite provokes different responses in the mosquito is moot. One would expect differences in the species, or they would not be different species, would they? The researchers and the reference both agree that the temperature response should be the same. And that global warming may not aid the spread of the parasite.
was fueled by money and infrastructure. Lots and lots and lots of it.
And DDT. Lots and lots and lots of it.
Yes, I have never said that DDT is not a good thing.
No, what you said was that the green groups only opposed DDT in agriculture, not malaria control. As my references show, you are wrong.
As you are also wrong about DDT usage and malaria rates being a coincidence. My references suggest that there is a direct link.
Les, congratulations for slugging it out with Tom here, but it is a waste of time.
For a useful compendium of facts and references about DDT, I recommend:
http://junkscience.com/ddt/
Funnily enough, there is a big feature article on Slate this week about how mean and yucky and unfair it is to blame Rachel Carson and her followers for millions of human deaths. After all, she meant well …
johanna, likewise.
good intentions, Tom, good intentions…..
Of course, before they were for DDT, they were against it.
But, it appears that even Greenpeace and the WWF agree that DDT reduced malaria in South Africa.
“South Africa was right to use DDT,” said WWF spokesperson Richard Liroff. “If the alternatives to DDT aren’t working, as they weren’t in South Africa, geez, you’ve got to use it. In South Africa it prevented tens of thousands of malaria cases and saved lots of lives.”
Greenpeace spokesperson Rick Hind agreed. “If there’s nothing else and it’s going to save lives, we’re all for it. Nobody’s dogmatic about it.”
I would argue the dogmatic part. Greenpeace argued against DDT use until 2000, and then only changed after immense humanitarian pressure.