Could some vaccines make diseases more deadly?

By
Kai Kupferschmidt
27 July 2015 2:00 pm
1 Comment
Vaccines save millions of lives every year by teaching our immune systems how to combat certain
viruses or bacteria. But a new study suggests that, paradoxically, they could sometimes teach pathogens
to become more dangerous as well.
The study is controversial. It was done in chickens, and some scientists say it has little relevance for
human vaccination; they worry it will reinforce doubts about the merits or safety of vaccines. It
shouldn't, says lead author Andrew Read, a biologist at Pennsylvania State University, University Park:
The study provides no support whatsoever for the antivaccine movement. But it does suggest that some
vaccines may have to be monitored more closely, he argues, or supported with extra measures to
prevent unintended consequences.
Evolutionary science suggests that many pathogens aren't deadly, or not even very virulent, because if
they kill their host too quickly they cant spread to other victims. Now enter vaccination. Some
vaccines don't prevent infection, but they do reduce how sick patients become. As Read first argued in
a Nature paper 14 years ago, by keeping their hosts alive, such "imperfect" or "leaky" vaccines could
give deadlier pathogens an edge, allowing them to spread when they would normally burn out quickly.
Now, Read has published a paper showing that this seems to have happened with Mareks disease, a
viral infection in chickens. Marek's disease spreads when infected birds shed the virus from their
feather follicles, which is then inhaled with dust by other chickens. Poultry farmers routinely vaccinate
against the disease, which keeps their flocks healthy but does not stop chickens from becoming infected
and spreading the virus. Over the past few decades, Marek's disease has become much more virulent
which some researchers believe is the result of vaccination.
Read and researchers at the Pirbright Institute in Compton, U.K., infected chickens with Mareks
disease virus of different strains known to span the spectrum from low to high virulence. When the
birds weren't vaccinated, infection with highly virulent strains killed them so fast that they shed very
little virusorders of magnitude less than when they were infected with less virulent strains. But in
vaccinated birds, the opposite was true: Those infected with the most virulent strains shed more virus
than birds infected with the least virulent strain.
In one experiment, unvaccinated birds infected with the most virulent strains were housed together with
healthy birds. Again, the infected chickens were dead in no time, leaving them no chance to spread the
disease to their healthy cagemates. But when vaccinated birds were infected with the highly virulent
strain, they lived longer and all the healthy birds housed with them became infected and died. Thus,
"vaccination enabled the onward transmission of viruses otherwise too lethal to transmit, putting

unvaccinated individuals at great risk of severe disease and death, the authors write online today in
PLOS Biology.
The study is convincing, says Michael Lssig, a physicist at the University of Cologne in Germany who
studies the evolution of influenza. "But its a very special set of circumstances," he cautions. "I would
be careful about drawing general conclusions.
Adrian Hill, a vaccine researcher at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, says the
experiments support the idea that vaccines helped make Mareks disease deadlier, but don't prove it.
Many other things have changed in the poultry industry in the last decades; flocks have become much
bigger, for instance, which could also favor more virulent strains. But Read says those "hot strains"
would die out very quickly if the vaccines were taken away.
Hill doesn't doubt that some vaccines could lead to enhanced virulence; the real question is how likely
this is to happen. His answer: It's highly unlikely, and not something we should be worried about.
"They have taken 15 years to do an experiment on the only example of this happening.
Read counters that there may well be other examples. Feline calicivirus, which causes a respiratory
infection in cats, is a strong candidate, he says; there have been outbreaks of superhot strains in
vaccinated populations. Read is particularly worried about avian influenza. In Europe and the United
States, entire poultry flocks are usually culled to stop an outbreak; Asian farmers often use bird flu
vaccines. "You could have the emergence of superhot strains, as a result, he says. Ab Osterhaus, a
virologist at Erasmus MC in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, says this is very unlikely, but a scenario that
cannot be excluded.
But what about human diseases? Most human vaccines in use today aren't "leaky"; they are very good
at stopping disease transmission. But as researchers turn to diseases that are more difficult to protect
against, such as malaria or HIV, they are setting their sights lower, aiming for vaccines that prevent
severe disease but not infection. "We are entering the era of leaky vaccines in humans, Read says.
Candidate vaccines against Ebola or malariaone of which recently received an important stamp of
approval in Europeshould definitely be used if they are safe and effective, he says, but they could
lead to more virulent pathogens. "We need to have a responsible discussion about this.
But to Hill, these comments themselves are irresponsible. Read "has no more evidence this will happen
with an Ebola vaccine than that itll happen with any other vaccine in humans, he says. "He should
stop scaremongering. The whole distinction between leaky and nonleaky vaccines is flawed, Hill
argues: "Every vaccine is leaky, in that some people dont get protected by it, some people are partially
protected, some people have prevention of disease, and others prevention of infection. Hundreds of
millions of people around the world receive a myriad of shots every month and there is no evidence
that that has ever led to any disease becoming deadlier, Hill says.
What's more, natural immunity should have the same effect, he adds: After we recover from a disease,
we usually end up with a limited, leaky protection against a pathogen that is not very different from
what vaccines achieve, Hill says. "For malaria, whatever todays vaccine does is a drop in the ocean of
all the immunity that is happening in Africa from all the infections in all the people.

Hill worries that Read's work will play into the hands of antivaxxers. But Read says that even if a
human vaccine is ever shown to cause dangerous evolution of the pathogen, that wouldn't be a reason
not to vaccinate. The most important thing would be to support vaccination with other measures that
curb transmission, such as bed nets for malaria.
Ironically, increased virulence would make it even more important to vaccinate everyone, he says,
because universal vaccination would prevent the more dangerous strains from harming anyone. This is
actually what has happened in Mareks disease, Read says. "I believe because of these vaccines the
industry has created superhot strains, but the vaccine still works fantastically well, because it can be
delivered to every single vulnerable bird."