WeeklySA_AdminSOLUTION: A ground-breaking study suggests a single nasal spray could one day protect against colds, flu, COVID — and even future pandemic viruses. But, while results in mice are promising, scientists caution that human trials will determine whether this universal approach truly delivers…
By Neil Mabbott
Vaccines have traditionally worked by teaching the immune system to recognise a specific virus or bacterium—in effect, showing it a wanted poster for a single suspect.
But what if one vaccine could protect against dozens of different infections at once? Researchers have now developed a potential candidate for such a vaccine, and a study in mice, published in the journal Science, offers promising results.
What is this new vaccine, and how does it work?
Most vaccines work by introducing the immune system to a specific pathogen—a weakened version of it, or a key protein from its surface—so that the body can recognise and fight it if it is encountered later.
This vaccine takes a fundamentally different approach. Rather than targeting any one bug, it contains molecules that mimic the signals the body naturally produces when it is under attack from a virus or bacterium. The effect is to put certain immune cells into a prolonged state of high alert, ready to respond rapidly to a wide range of threats, rather than being trained to spot just one.
However, the consequences of dialing up the immune system beyond its normal state won’t be known until human trials are conducted.
Why is it given as a nasal spray rather than an injection?
The nose, throat and lungs are lined with what scientists call mucosal surfaces—the moist tissues that act as the body’s main point of contact with the outside world, and its first barrier against infection. The immune system in these tissues responds more powerfully when a vaccine is delivered directly to them, rather than into a muscle in the arm.
That principle already underlies the routine flu vaccine given to young children in the UK, which comes as a nasal spray. Research has also shown that COVID vaccines can block infection more effectively in animals when delivered this way, rather than by injection. Spraying the new vaccine into the nose allows it to reach immune cells deep in the lungs.
How can one vaccine protect against so many different pathogens?
The vaccine works by enhancing communication between two key types of immune cell. The first are alveolar macrophages—large cells positioned in the tiny air spaces of the lungs, where they act as a first line of defence against anything harmful that is inhaled. When primed by the vaccine, they are able to engulf and destroy invading pathogens far more rapidly than usual.
The second are T cells, which are pushed to mount faster antiviral responses. Because the vaccine is boosting these general frontline defenses rather than targeting any specific pathogen, it can in theory work against a broad range of threats.
In mice, it also appeared to suppress allergic reactions—to house dust mites, for example—because the strong inflammatory immune response it triggers appears to displace the quite different response that drives allergies.
The study was done in mice. How confident are scientists that it will work the same way in humans?
Cautiously hopeful, but not yet confident. There are well-documented differences between mouse and human immune systems, and promising results in animals frequently fail to translate to people. The critical next step will be controlled human infection studies—trials in which healthy volunteers are vaccinated, exposed to a specific pathogen under close medical supervision, and carefully monitored for both safety and immune response.
Could this really replace multiple jabs a year? Which ones, specifically?
Potentially, yes—at least for some. If it proves effective in humans, a vaccine of this kind could in principle replace the need for separate annual jabs against flu, COVID and common cold viruses, all of which are RNA-based viruses, meaning their genetic material is RNA rather than DNA. Whether it would extend to DNA-based viruses—those responsible for chickenpox or hepatitis, for example—is far less certain and would require separate investigation.
How long does the protection last, and would people need a booster?
In mice, protection lasted up to three months. This is considerably shorter than conventional vaccines in humans, some of which offer protection for years or even a lifetime. How long this type of vaccine might provide protection for humans is not currently known. A similarly short period of protection in humans could be viewed as a real limitation, but not necessarily a fatal one.
If the vaccine were given each autumn, it could provide meaningful protection to vulnerable people across the winter months, when respiratory infections peak. Even time-limited immunity, deployed strategically, could save lives.
What are the next steps before this reaches the public?
Demonstrating safety is the immediate priority. Because the vaccine is designed to keep parts of the immune system in a heightened state for an extended period, there is a need to confirm that this does not cause unintended harm to healthy tissue.
Scientists also need to establish that the strong inflammatory response it triggers does not increase susceptibility to other infections—intestinal parasites, for instance—whose biology overlaps with allergic responses.
How the vaccine performs in older people, who are most vulnerable to severe respiratory illness, is another important unknown. During aging, a low level of background inflammation, known as inflammaging, can also contribute to age-related diseases and reduce immunity to past infections.
How soon could we have this?
The study’s senior author, Bali Pulendran, says that in the best-case scenario, a universal respiratory vaccine might be available in five to seven years.
However, progress will depend heavily on how early human trials perform. If the vaccine proves less potent in people than in mice, or if safety concerns emerge, the formulation will need to be revised, adding time at every stage.
A strong early showing, on the other hand, could build momentum. Either way, developing a human-ready formulation, completing safety trials, and testing how effective it is against multiple real-world pathogens is a substantial undertaking that cannot easily be rushed.
Could this work against future pandemic viruses we haven’t even encountered yet?
This is arguably where the potential is greatest. Conventional vaccines against flu and COVID require regular updating because the viruses mutate. And when the vaccine strain does not closely match what is actually circulating, protection can fall short.
A vaccine that places the immune system on broad, non-specific high alert could offer a critical first layer of defence against a new pandemic pathogen, limiting serious illness and death while a targeted bespoke vaccine is developed. In a world still living with the memory of COVID, that possibility alone makes this research worth watching.
If successful, such a vaccine could fundamentally change global vaccination strategy — particularly in lower- and middle-income countries where annual multi-dose campaigns are costly and logistically complex. – Science X
HEALTH Briefs
‘High-Fat Diet Speeds Up Breast Cancer’
A new study by researchers at Princeton University has found that a high-fat diet may significantly accelerate the growth and spread of triple-negative breast cancer — one of the most aggressive and difficult-to-treat forms of the disease.
Published in APL Bioengineering by AIP Publishing, the study used engineered tumour models grown in conditions designed to closely mimic human blood chemistry under different dietary states. Researchers tested four metabolic conditions: high-insulin, high-glucose, high-ketone and high-fat.
Contrary to expectations, the high-fat condition stood out. Tumours exposed to fat-rich environments grew faster and became more invasive. The researchers also observed increased levels of the enzyme MMP1, which breaks down surrounding tissue and is linked to poorer patient outcomes.
Unlike previous laboratory studies, the Princeton team recreated a more realistic tumour microenvironment using human plasma-like media. This allowed them to isolate how specific nutrients influence cancer cell behaviour more accurately.
Lead researcher Celeste M Nelson said the team now plans to explore whether tumours respond differently to chemotherapy depending on dietary conditions. The findings could eventually inform dietary guidance for patients undergoing specific cancer treatments.
While more research is needed, the study raises important questions about the impact of high-fat diets on aggressive breast cancer progression. – Newswise
Baby Food link to Liver Disease Risk
New research from Virginia Tech suggests that certain fats used in some infant formulas may contribute to early signs of steatotic liver disease in babies.
Published in the American Journal of Physiology–Endocrinology and Metabolism, the study found that new-born pigs fed formulas rich in medium-chain fatty acids — commonly derived from coconut oil — accumulated liver fat more rapidly than those fed formulas containing long-chain fats similar to those found in natural milk. Importantly, both groups received the same calories and protein. Within just seven days, researchers observed early fat build-up in the liver of pigs fed the medium-chain fat formula. After two weeks, the condition had progressed to a more severe inflammatory stage.
Surprisingly, the developing liver showed increased fat-burning activity alongside fat production, yet still became overwhelmed — a pattern that differs from adult liver disease.
Steatotic liver disease, previously known as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, is increasingly diagnosed in children and has been identified in some infants, raising concerns about early nutrition.
Lead researcher Professor Samer El-Kadi stressed that formula remains a vital and often lifesaving option when breastfeeding is not possible. The study aims not to discourage formula use, but to improve its composition and better protect infant metabolic health. – Newswise
Exercise ‘Can Starve Tumours of Fuel’
New research from Yale School of Medicine offers fresh insight into how exercise may help slow cancer growth.
In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Associate Professor Rachel Perry and her team examined how the body distributes glucose — a key fuel source for tumours — during physical activity. Using metabolic tracers in mouse models of breast cancer and melanoma, researchers found that working muscles effectively outcompete tumours for glucose when the body is active.
Because muscle contraction increases glucose uptake, exercise redirects this energy source away from tumours, limiting the fuel available for rapid cancer cell growth. Notably, even modest activity levels were enough to trigger this metabolic shift in certain tumour models.
The team also measured VO2 peak, a standard marker of aerobic fitness, and found that overall fitness sometimes predicted beneficial metabolic changes more strongly than exercise alone.
For patients undergoing treatment, strenuous workouts may not be feasible. However, the findings suggest that even light activity — such as regular walking — could have meaningful biological effects.
Researchers are now working to identify blood markers that could help track these metabolic changes in humans, potentially guiding future cancer care strategies. – Newswise
