Search This Blog

Monday, February 14, 2022

Influenza pandemic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
Influenza ward at Walter Reed Hospital, in Washington, D.C. during the 1918 flu pandemic.

An influenza pandemic is an epidemic of an influenza virus that spreads across a large region (either multiple continents or worldwide) and infects a large proportion of the population. There have been six major influenza epidemics in the last 140 years, with the 1918 flu pandemic being the most severe; this is estimated to have been responsible for the deaths of 50–100 million people. The most recent, the 2009 swine flu pandemic, resulted in under 300,000 deaths and is considered relatively mild. These pandemics occur irregularly.

Influenza pandemics occur when a new strain of the influenza virus is transmitted to humans from another animal species. Species that are thought to be important in the emergence of new human strains are pigs, chickens and ducks. These novel strains are unaffected by any immunity people may have to older strains of human influenza and can therefore spread extremely rapidly and infect very large numbers of people. Influenza A viruses can occasionally be transmitted from wild birds to other species, causing outbreaks in domestic poultry, and may give rise to human influenza pandemics. The propagation of influenza viruses throughout the world is thought in part to be by bird migrations, though commercial shipments of live bird products might also be implicated, as well as human travel patterns.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has produced a six-stage classification that describes the process by which a novel influenza virus moves from the first few infections in humans through to a pandemic. This starts with the virus mostly infecting animals, with a few cases where animals infect people, then moves through the stage where the virus begins to spread directly between people, and ends with a pandemic when infections from the new virus have spread worldwide.

One strain of virus that may produce a pandemic in the future is a highly pathogenic variation of the H5N1 subtype of influenza A virus. On 11 June 2009, a new strain of H1N1 influenza was declared to be a pandemic (Stage 6) by the WHO after evidence of spreading in the southern hemisphere. The 13 November 2009 worldwide update by the WHO stated that "[a]s of 8 November 2009, worldwide more than 206 countries and overseas territories or communities have reported [503,536] laboratory confirmed cases of pandemic influenza H1N1 2009, including over 6,250 deaths."

Influenza

Structure of the influenza viron. The hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) proteins are shown on the surface of the particle. The viral RNAs that make up the genome are shown as red coils inside the particle and bound to Ribonuclear Proteins (RNPs).

Influenza, commonly known as the flu, is an infectious disease of birds and mammals. It was thought to be caused by comets, earthquakes, volcanoes, cosmic dust, the rising and setting of the sun, vapors arising from the air and ground, or a blast from the stars. Now we know that it is caused by an RNA virus of the family Orthomyxoviridae (the influenza viruses). In humans, common symptoms of influenza infection are fever, sore throat, muscle pains, severe headache, coughing, and weakness and fatigue. In more serious cases, influenza causes pneumonia, which can be fatal, particularly in young children and the elderly. While sometimes confused with the common cold, influenza is a much more severe disease and is caused by a different type of virus. Although nausea and vomiting can be produced, especially in children, these symptoms are more characteristic of the unrelated gastroenteritis, which is sometimes called "stomach flu" or "24-hour flu."

Typically, influenza is transmitted from infected mammals through the air by coughs or sneezes, creating aerosols containing the virus, and from infected birds through their droppings. Influenza can also be transmitted by saliva, nasal secretions, feces and blood. Healthy individuals can become infected if they breathe in a virus-laden aerosol directly, or if they touch their eyes, nose or mouth after touching any of the aforementioned bodily fluids (or surfaces contaminated with those fluids). Flu viruses can remain infectious for about one week at human body temperature, over 30 days at 0 °C (32 °F), and indefinitely at very low temperatures (such as lakes in northeast Siberia). Most influenza strains can be inactivated easily by disinfectants and detergents.

Flu spreads around the world in seasonal epidemics. Ten pandemics were recorded before the Spanish flu of 1918. Three influenza pandemics occurred during the 20th century and killed tens of millions of people, with each of these pandemics being caused by the appearance of a new strain of the virus in humans. Often, these new strains result from the spread of an existing flu virus to humans from other animal species, so close proximity between humans and animals can promote epidemics. In addition, epidemiological factors, such as the WWI practice of packing soldiers with severe influenza illness into field hospitals while soldiers with mild illness stayed outside on the battlefield, are an important determinant of whether or not a new strain of influenza virus will spur a pandemic. (During the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, this practice served to promote the evolution of more virulent viral strains over those that produced mild illness.) When it first killed humans in Asia in the 1990s, a deadly avian strain of H5N1 posed a great risk for a new influenza pandemic; however, this virus did not mutate to spread easily between people.

Vaccinations against influenza are most commonly given to high-risk humans in industrialized countries and to farmed poultry. The most common human vaccine is the trivalent influenza vaccine that contains purified and inactivated material from three viral strains. Typically this vaccine includes material from two influenza A virus subtypes and one influenza B virus strain. A vaccine formulated for one year may be ineffective in the following year, since the influenza virus changes rapidly over time and different strains become dominant. Antiviral drugs can be used to treat influenza, with neuraminidase inhibitors being particularly effective.

Variants and subtypes of Influenzavirus A

Variants of Influenzavirus A are identified and named according to the isolate that they are like and thus are presumed to share lineage (example Fujian flu virus like); according to their typical host (example Human flu virus); according to their subtype (example H3N2); and according to their deadliness (e.g., Low Pathogenic as discussed below). So a flu from a virus similar to the isolate A/Fujian/411/2002(H3N2) is called Fujian flu, human flu, and H3N2 flu.

The various types of influenza viruses in humans. Solid squares show the appearance of a new strain, causing recurring influenza pandemics. Broken lines indicate uncertain strain identifications.

Variants are sometimes named according to the species (host) the strain is endemic in or adapted to. Some variants named using this convention are:

Avian variants have also sometimes been named according to their deadliness in poultry, especially chickens:

  • Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza (LPAI)
  • Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI), also called: deadly flu or death flu

The Influenza A virus subtypes are labeled according to an H number (for hemagglutinin) and an N number (for neuraminidase). Each subtype virus has mutated into a variety of strains with differing pathogenic profiles; some pathogenic to one species but not others, some pathogenic to multiple species. Most known strains are extinct strains. For example, the annual flu subtype H3N2 no longer contains the strain that caused the Hong Kong Flu.

Influenza A viruses are negative sense, single-stranded, segmented RNA viruses. "There are 16 different HA antigens (H1 to H16) and nine different NA antigens (N1 to N9) for influenza A. Until recently, 15 HA types had been recognized, but recently two new types were isolated: a new type (H16) was isolated from black-headed gulls caught in Sweden and the Netherlands in 1999 and reported in the literature in 2005." "The other, H17, was isolated from fruit bats caught in Guatemala and reported in the literature in 2013."

Nature of a flu pandemic

Some pandemics are relatively minor such as the one in 1957 called Asian flu (1–4 million dead, depending on source). Others have a higher Pandemic Severity Index whose severity warrants more comprehensive social isolation measures.

The 1918 pandemic killed tens of millions and sickened hundreds of millions; the loss of this many people in the population caused upheaval and psychological damage to many people. There were not enough doctors, hospital rooms, or medical supplies for the living as they contracted the disease. Dead bodies were often left unburied as few people were available to deal with them. There can be great social disruption as well as a sense of fear. Efforts to deal with pandemics can leave a great deal to be desired because of human selfishness, lack of trust, illegal behavior, and ignorance. For example, in the 1918 pandemic: "This horrific disconnect between reassurances and reality destroyed the credibility of those in authority. People felt they had no one to turn to, no one to rely on, no one to trust."

A letter from a physician at one U.S. Army camp in the 1918 pandemic said:

It is only a matter of a few hours then until death comes [...]. It is horrible. One can stand it to see one, two or twenty men die, but to see these poor devils dropping like flies [...]. We have been averaging about 100 deaths per day [...]. Pneumonia means in about all cases death [...]. We have lost an outrageous number of Nurses and Drs. It takes special trains to carry away the dead. For several days there were no coffins and the bodies piled up something fierce [...].

Wave nature

Flu pandemics typically come in waves. The 1889–1890 and 1918–1919 flu pandemics each came in three or four waves of increasing lethality. But within a wave, mortality was greater at the beginning of the wave.

Variable mortality

Mortality varies widely in a pandemic. In the 1918 pandemic:

In U.S. Army camps where reasonably reliable statistics were kept, case mortality often exceeded 5 percent, and in some circumstances exceeded 10 percent. In the British Army in India, case mortality for white troops was 9.6 percent, for Indian troops 21.9 percent. In isolated human populations, the virus killed at even higher rates. In the Fiji islands, it killed 14 percent of the entire population in 16 days. In Labrador and Alaska, it killed at least one-third of the entire native population.

Influenza pandemics

A 1921 book lists nine influenza pandemics prior to the 1889–90 flu, the first in 1510. A more modern source lists six.

Asiatic flu (1889-1890)

The 1889–1890 pandemic, often referred to as the Asiatic flu or Russian flu, killed about 1 million people out of a world population of about 1.5 billion.

It was the last great pandemic of the 19th century, and is among the deadliest pandemics in history. The most reported effects of the pandemic took place from October 1889 to December 1890, with recurrences in 1891 to 1895.

Spanish flu (1918–1920)

The 1918 flu pandemic, commonly referred to as the Spanish flu, was a category 5 influenza pandemic caused by an unusually severe and deadly Influenza A virus strain of subtype H1N1.

The difference between the influenza mortality age-distributions of the 1918 epidemic and normal epidemics. Deaths per 100,000 persons in each age group, United States, for the interpandemic years 1911–1917 (dashed line) and the pandemic year 1918 (solid line).

The Spanish flu pandemic lasted from 1918 to 1920. Various estimates say it killed between 17 million and 100 million people This pandemic has been described as "the greatest medical holocaust in history" and may have killed as many people as the Black Death, although the Black Death is estimated to have killed over a fifth of the world's population at the time, a significantly higher proportion. This huge death toll was caused by an extremely high infection rate of up to 50% and the extreme severity of the symptoms, suspected to be caused by cytokine storms. Indeed, symptoms in 1918 were so unusual that initially influenza was misdiagnosed as dengue, cholera, or typhoid. One observer wrote, "One of the most striking of the complications was hemorrhage from mucous membranes, especially from the nose, stomach, and intestine. Bleeding from the ears and petechial hemorrhages in the skin also occurred." The majority of deaths were from bacterial pneumonia, a secondary infection caused by influenza, but the virus also killed people directly, causing massive hemorrhages and edema in the lung.

The Spanish flu pandemic was truly global, spreading even to the Arctic and remote Pacific islands. The unusually severe disease killed between 10 and 20% of those infected, as opposed to the more usual flu epidemic mortality rate of 0.1%. Another unusual feature of this pandemic was that it mostly killed young adults, with 99% of pandemic influenza deaths occurring in people under 65, and more than half in young adults 20 to 40 years old. This is unusual since influenza is normally most deadly to the very young (under age 2) and the very old (over age 70). The total mortality of the 1918–1920 pandemic is estimated to be between 17 and 100 million people, constituting approximately 1–6% of the world's population. As many as 25 million may have been killed in the first 25 weeks; in contrast, HIV/AIDS has killed 25 million in its first 25 years.

Asian flu (1957–1958)

The Asian flu was a category 2 flu pandemic outbreak of avian influenza that originated in China in early 1956 lasting until 1958. It originated from a mutation in wild ducks combining with a pre-existing human strain. The virus was first identified in Guizhou. It spread to Singapore in February 1957, reached Hong Kong by April, and US by June. Death toll in the US was approximately 116,000. The elderly were particularly vulnerable. Estimates of worldwide deaths vary widely depending on source, ranging from 1 million to 4 million.

Hong Kong flu (1968–1969)

The Hong Kong flu was a category 2 flu pandemic caused by a strain of H3N2 descended from H2N2 by antigenic shift, in which genes from multiple subtypes reassorted to form a new virus. The Hong Kong Flu pandemic of 1968 and 1969 killed an estimated 1–4 million people worldwide. Those over 65 had the greatest death rates. In the US, there were about 100,000 deaths.

Russian flu (1977–1979)

The 1977 Russian flu was a relatively benign flu pandemic, mostly affecting population younger than the age of 26 or 25. It is estimated that 700,000 people died due to the pandemic worldwide. The cause was H1N1 virus strain, which was not seen after 1957 until its re-appearance in China and the Soviet Union in 1977. Genetic analysis and several unusual characteristics of the pandemic have prompted speculation that the virus was released to the public through a laboratory accident.

H1N1/09 flu pandemic (2009–2010)

An epidemic of influenza-like illness of unknown causation occurred in Mexico in March–April 2009. On 24 April 2009, following the isolation of an A/H1N1 influenza in seven ill patients in the southwest US, the WHO issued a statement on the outbreak of "influenza like illness" that confirmed cases of A/H1N1 influenza had been reported in Mexico, and that 20 confirmed cases of the disease had been reported in the US. The next day, the number of confirmed cases rose to 40 in the US, 26 in Mexico, six in Canada, and one in Spain. The disease spread rapidly through the rest of the spring, and by 3 May, a total of 787 confirmed cases had been reported worldwide. On 11 June 2009, the ongoing outbreak of Influenza A/H1N1, commonly referred to as swine flu, was officially declared by the WHO to be the first influenza pandemic of the 21st century and a new strain of Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 first identified in April 2009. It is thought to be a mutation (reassortment) of four known strains of influenza A virus subtype H1N1: one endemic in humans, one endemic in birds, and two endemic in pigs (swine). The rapid spread of this new virus was likely due to a general lack of pre-existing antibody-mediated immunity in the human population.

On 1 November 2009, a worldwide update by the WHO stated that "199 countries and overseas territories/communities have officially reported a total of over 482,300 laboratory confirmed cases of the influenza pandemic H1N1 infection, that included 6,071 deaths." By the end of the pandemic, there were more than 18,000 laboratory-confirmed deaths from H1N1. Due to inadequate surveillance and lack of healthcare in many countries, the actual total of cases and deaths was likely much higher than reported. Experts, including the WHO, have since agreed that an estimated 284,500 people were killed by the disease, about 15 times the number of deaths in the initial death toll.

Other pandemic threat subtypes

"Human influenza virus" usually refers to those subtypes that spread widely among humans. H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2 are the only known Influenza A virus subtypes currently circulating among humans.

Genetic factors in distinguishing between "human flu viruses" and "avian influenza viruses" include:

PB2: (RNA polymerase): Amino acid (or residue) position 627 in the PB2 protein encoded by the PB2 RNA gene. Until H5N1, all known avian influenza viruses had a glutamic acid at position 627, while all human influenza viruses had a lysine.
HA: (hemagglutinin): Avian influenza HA bind alpha 2–3 sialic acid receptors while human influenza HA bind alpha 2–6 sialic acid receptors.

"About 52 key genetic changes distinguish avian influenza strains from those that spread easily among people, according to researchers in Taiwan, who analyzed the genes of more than 400 A type flu viruses." "How many mutations would make an avian virus capable of infecting humans efficiently, or how many mutations would render an influenza virus a pandemic strain, is difficult to predict. We have examined sequences from the 1918 strain, which is the only pandemic influenza virus that could be entirely derived from avian strains. Of the 52 species-associated positions, 16 have residues typical for human strains; the others remained as avian signatures. The result supports the hypothesis that the 1918 pandemic virus is more closely related to the avian influenza A virus than are other human influenza viruses."

Highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza kills 50% of humans that catch it. In one case, a boy with H5N1 experienced diarrhea followed rapidly by a coma without developing respiratory or flu-like symptoms.

The Influenza A virus subtypes that have been confirmed in humans, ordered by the number of known human pandemic deaths, are:

H1N1
External images
image icon Microscopic image of the H1N1 virus
image icon Microscopic image of the H1N1 virus

H1N1 is currently endemic in both human and pig populations. A variant of H1N1 was responsible for the Spanish flu pandemic that killed some 50 million to 100 million people worldwide over about a year in 1918 and 1919. Controversy arose in October 2005, after the H1N1 genome was published in the journal, Science. Many fear that this information could be used for bioterrorism.

When he compared the 1918 virus with today's human flu viruses, Dr. Taubenberger noticed that it had alterations in just 25 to 30 of the virus's 4,400 amino acids. Those few changes turned a bird virus into a killer that could spread from person to person.

In mid-April 2009, an H1N1 variant appeared in Mexico, with its center in Mexico City. By 26 April the variant had spread widely; with cases reported in Canada, the US, New Zealand, the UK, France, Spain and Israel. On 29 April WHO raised the worldwide pandemic phase to 5. On 11 June 2009 the WHO raised the worldwide pandemic phase to 6, which means that the H1N1 swine flu has reached pandemic proportions, with nearly 30,000 confirmed cases worldwide. A 13 November 2009 worldwide update by the UN's World Health Organization (WHO) states that "206 countries and overseas territories/communities have officially reported over 503,536 laboratory confirmed cases of the influenza pandemic H1N1 infection, including 6,250 deaths."

H2N2

The Asian Flu was a pandemic outbreak of H2N2 avian influenza that originated in China in 1957, spread worldwide that same year during which an influenza vaccine was developed, lasted until 1958 and caused between one and four million deaths.

H3N2

H3N2 is currently endemic in both human and pig populations. It evolved from H2N2 by antigenic shift and caused the Hong Kong Flu pandemic of 1968 and 1969 that killed up to 750,000." An early-onset, severe form of influenza A H3N2 made headlines when it claimed the lives of several children in the United States in late 2003."

The dominant strain of annual flu in January 2006 is H3N2. Measured resistance to the standard antiviral drugs amantadine and rimantadine in H3N2 has increased from 1% in 1994 to 12% in 2003 to 91% in 2005.

[C]ontemporary human H3N2 influenza viruses are now endemic in pigs in southern China and can reassort with avian H5N1 viruses in this intermediate host.

H7N7

H7N7 has unusual zoonotic potential. In 2003 in Netherlands 89 people were confirmed to have H7N7 influenza virus infection following an outbreak in poultry on several farms. One death was recorded.

H1N2

H1N2 is currently endemic in both human and pig populations. The new H1N2 strain appears to have resulted from the reassortment of the genes of the currently circulating influenza H1N1 and H3N2 subtypes. The hemagglutinin protein of the H1N2 virus is similar to that of the currently circulating H1N1 viruses and the neuraminidase protein is similar to that of the current H3N2 viruses.

Assessment of a flu pandemic

Stages

WHO Pandemic Influenza Phases (2009)
Phase Description
Phase 1 No animal influenza virus circulating among animals have been reported to cause infection in humans.
Phase 2 An animal influenza virus circulating in domesticated or wild animals is known to have caused infection in humans and is therefore considered a specific potential pandemic threat.
Phase 3 An animal or human-animal influenza reassortant virus has caused sporadic cases or small clusters of disease in people, but has not resulted in human-to-human transmission sufficient to sustain community-level outbreaks.
Phase 4 Human to human transmission of an animal or human-animal influenza reassortant virus able to sustain community-level outbreaks has been verified.
Phase 5 Human-to-human spread of the virus in two or more countries in one WHO region.
Phase 6 In addition to the criteria defined in Phase 5, the same virus spreads from human-to-human in at least one other country in another WHO region.
Post peak period Levels of pandemic influenza in most countries with adequate surveillance have dropped below peak levels.
Post pandemic period Levels of influenza activity have returned to the levels seen for seasonal influenza in most countries with adequate surveillance.

The World Health Organization (WHO) developed a global influenza preparedness plan, which defines the stages of a pandemic, outlines WHO's role and makes recommendations for national measures before and during a pandemic.

In the 2009 revision of the phase descriptions, the WHO has retained the use of a six-phase approach for easy incorporation of new recommendations and approaches into existing national preparedness and response plans. The grouping and description of pandemic phases have been revised to make them easier to understand, more precise, and based upon observable phenomena. Phases 1–3 correlate with preparedness, including capacity development and response planning activities, while phases 4–6 clearly signal the need for response and mitigation efforts. Furthermore, periods after the first pandemic wave are elaborated to facilitate post pandemic recovery activities.

In February 2020, WHO spokesperson Tarik Jasarevic explained that the WHO no longer uses this six-phase classification model: "For the sake of clarification, WHO does not use the old system of 6 phases—that ranged from phase 1 (no reports of animal influenza causing human infections) to phase 6 (a pandemic)—that some people may be familiar with from H1N1 in 2009."

For reference, the phases are defined below.

In nature, influenza viruses circulate continuously among animals, especially birds. Even though such viruses might theoretically develop into pandemic viruses, in Phase 1 no viruses circulating among animals have been reported to cause infections in humans.

In Phase 2 an animal influenza virus circulating among domesticated or wild animals is known to have caused infection in humans, and is therefore considered a potential pandemic threat.

In Phase 3, an animal or human-animal influenza reassortant virus has caused sporadic cases or small clusters of disease in people, but has not resulted in human-to-human transmission sufficient to sustain community-level outbreaks. Limited human-to-human transmission may occur under some circumstances, for example, when there is close contact between an infected person and an unprotected caregiver. However, limited transmission under such restricted circumstances does not indicate that the virus has gained the level of transmissibility among humans necessary to cause a pandemic.

Phase 4 is characterized by verified human-to-human transmission of an animal or human-animal influenza reassortant virus able to cause "community-level outbreaks". The ability to cause sustained disease outbreaks in a community marks a significant upwards shift in the risk for a pandemic. Any country that suspects or has verified such an event should urgently consult with the WHO so that the situation can be jointly assessed and a decision made by the affected country if implementation of a rapid pandemic containment operation is warranted. Phase 4 indicates a significant increase in risk of a pandemic but does not necessarily mean that a pandemic is a foregone conclusion.

Phase 5 is characterized by human-to-human spread of the virus into at least two countries in one WHO region. While most countries will not be affected at this stage, the declaration of Phase 5 is a strong signal that a pandemic is imminent and that the time to finalize the organization, communication, and implementation of the planned mitigation measures is short.

Phase 6, the pandemic phase, is characterized by community level outbreaks in at least one other country in a different WHO region in addition to the criteria defined in Phase 5. Designation of this phase will indicate that a pandemic is under way.

During the post-peak period, pandemic disease levels in most countries with adequate surveillance will have dropped below peak observed levels. The post-peak period signifies that pandemic activity appears to be decreasing; however, it is uncertain if additional waves will occur and countries will need to be prepared for a second wave.

Previous pandemics have been characterized by waves of activity spread over months. Once the level of disease activity drops, a critical communications task will be to balance this information with the possibility of another wave. Pandemic waves can be separated by months and an immediate "at-ease" signal may be premature.

In the post-pandemic period, influenza disease activity will have returned to levels normally seen for seasonal influenza. It is expected that the pandemic virus will behave as a seasonal influenza A virus. At this stage, it is important to maintain surveillance and update pandemic preparedness and response plans accordingly. An intensive phase of recovery and evaluation may be required.

Influenza intervals in the CDC's Pandemic Intervals Framework

In 2014, The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention introduced an analogous framework to the WHO's pandemic stages titled the Pandemic Intervals Framework. It includes two pre-pandemic intervals,

  • Investigation
  • Recognition

and four pandemic intervals,

  • Initiation
  • Acceleration
  • Deceleration
  • Preparation

It also includes a table defining the intervals and mapping them to the WHO pandemic stages.

Severity

Estimates of hypothetical influenza deaths in the 2010 United States population (308,745,538 persons) across varying values of case-fatality ratio and the cumulative incidence of infection in the population. Selected estimated numbers of deaths are indicated with a black line, across each relevant combination of case-fatality ratio and cumulative incidence. In addition, the background color transitions from blue to yellow to red as the estimated absolute number of deaths increases. Case-fatality ratio is an example of a clinical severity measure and cumulative incidence of infection is an example of a transmissibility measure in the Pandemic Severity Assessment Framework.
 
Scaled examples of past influenza pandemics and past influenza seasons. Color scheme included to represent corresponding hypothetical estimates of influenza deaths in the 2010 US population, with the same color scale as the previous figure.

In 2014 the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adopted the Pandemic Severity Assessment Framework (PSAF) to assess the severity of pandemics. The PSAF superseded the 2007 linear Pandemic Severity Index, which assumed 30% spread and measured case fatality rate (CFR) to assess the severity and evolution of the pandemic.

Historically, measures of pandemic severity were based on the case fatality rate. However, the case fatality rate might not be an adequate measure of pandemic severity during a pandemic response because:

  • Deaths may lag several weeks behind cases, making the case fatality rate an underestimate
  • The total number of cases may not be known, making the case fatality rate an overestimate
  • A single case fatality rate for the entire population may obscure the effect on vulnerable sub-populations, such as children, the elderly, those with chronic conditions, and members of certain racial and ethnic minorities
  • Fatalities alone may not account for the full effects of the pandemic, such as absenteeism or demand on healthcare services

To account for the limitations of measuring the case fatality rate alone, the PSAF rates severity of a disease outbreak on two dimensions: clinical severity of illness in infected persons; and the transmissibility of the infection in the population. Each dimension can be measured using more than one measure, which are scaled to allow comparison of the different measures.

Management of a flu pandemic

Strategies to prevent a flu pandemic

This section contains strategies to prevent a flu pandemic by a Council on Foreign Relations panel.

If influenza remains an animal problem with limited human-to-human transmission it is not a pandemic, though it continues to pose a risk. To prevent the situation from progressing to a pandemic, the following short-term strategies have been put forward:

  • Culling and vaccinating livestock
  • Vaccinating poultry workers against common flu
  • Limiting travel in areas where the virus is found

The rationale for vaccinating poultry workers against common flu is that it reduces the probability of common influenza virus recombining with avian H5N1 virus to form a pandemic strain. Longer-term strategies proposed for regions where highly pathogenic H5N1 is endemic in wild birds have included:

  • changing local farming practices to increase farm hygiene and reduce contact between livestock and wild birds.
  • altering farming practices in regions where animals live in close, often unsanitary quarters with people, and changing the practices of open-air "wet markets" where birds are kept for live sale and slaughtered on-site. A challenge to implementing these measures is widespread poverty, frequently in rural areas, coupled with a reliance upon raising fowl for purposes of subsistence farming or income without measures to prevent propagation of the disease.
  • changing local shopping practices from purchase of live fowl to purchase of slaughtered, pre-packaged fowl.
  • improving veterinary vaccine availability and cost.

Strategies to slow down a flu pandemic

Public response measures

The main ways available to tackle a flu pandemic initially are behavioural. Doing so requires a good public health communication strategy and the ability to track public concerns, attitudes and behaviour. For example, the Flu TElephone Survey Template (FluTEST) was developed for the UK Department of Health as a set of questions for use in national surveys during a flu pandemic.

  • Social distancing: By traveling less, working from home or closing schools, there is less opportunity for the virus to spread. Reduce the time spent in crowded settings if possible. And keep your distance (preferably at least 1 metre) from people who show symptoms of influenza-like illness, such as coughing and sneezing. However, social distancing during a pandemic flu will likely carry severe mental health consequences; therefore, sequestration protocols should take mental health issues into consideration.
  • Respiratory hygiene: Advise people to cover their coughs and sneezes. If using a tissue, make sure you dispose of it carefully and then clean your hands immediately afterwards. (See "Handwashing Hygiene" below.) If you do not have a tissue handy when you cough or sneeze, cover your mouth as much as possible with the crook of your elbow.
  • Handwashing hygiene: Frequent handwashing with soap and water (or with an alcohol-based hand sanitizer) is very important, especially after coughing or sneezing, and after contact with other people or with potentially contaminated surfaces (such as handrails, shared utensils, etc.)
  • Other hygiene: Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth as much as possible.
  • Masks: No mask can provide a perfect barrier, but products that meet or exceed the NIOSH N95 standard recommended by the World Health Organization are thought to provide good protection. WHO recommends that health-care workers wear N95 masks and that patients wear surgical masks (which may prevent respiratory secretions from becoming airborne). Any mask may be useful to remind the wearer not to touch the face. This can reduce infection due to contact with contaminated surfaces, especially in crowded public places where coughing or sneezing people have no way of washing their hands. The mask itself can become contaminated and must be handled as medical waste when removed.
  • Risk communication: To encourage the public to comply with strategies to reduce the spread of disease, "communications regarding possible community interventions [such as requiring sick people to stay home from work, closing schools] for pandemic influenza that flow from the federal government to communities and from community leaders to the public not overstate the level of confidence or certainty in the effectiveness of these measures."

The Institute of Medicine has published a number of reports and summaries of workshops on public policy issues related to influenza pandemics. They are collected in Pandemic Influenza: A Guide to Recent Institute of Medicine Studies and Workshops, and some strategies from these reports are included in the list above. Relevant learning from the 2009 flu pandemic in the UK was published in Health Technology Assessment, volume 14, issue 34. Asymptomatic transmission appears to play a small role, but was not well studied by 2009.

Anti-viral drugs

There are two groups of antiviral drugs available for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza: neuraminidase inhibitors such as Oseltamivir (trade name Tamiflu) and Zanamivir (trade name Relenza), and adamantanes such as amantadine and rimantadine. Due to the high rate of side effects and risk of antiviral resistance, use of adamantanes to fight influenza is limited.

Many nations, as well as the World Health Organization, are working to stockpile anti-viral drugs in preparation for a possible pandemic. Oseltamivir is the most commonly sought drug, since it is available in pill form. Zanamivir is also considered for use, but it must be inhaled. Other anti-viral drugs are less likely to be effective against pandemic influenza.

Both Tamiflu and Relenza are in short supply, and production capabilities are limited in the medium term. Some doctors say that co-administration of Tamiflu with probenecid could double supplies.

There also is the potential of viruses to evolve drug resistance. Some H5N1-infected persons treated with oseltamivir have developed resistant strains of that virus.

Vaccines

A vaccine probably would not be available in the initial stages of population infection. A vaccine cannot be developed to protect against a virus which does not exist yet. The avian flu virus H5N1 has the potential to mutate into a pandemic strain, but so do other types of flu virus. Once a potential virus is identified and a vaccine is approved, it normally takes five to six months before the vaccine becomes available.

The capability to produce vaccines varies widely from country to country; only 19 countries are listed as "influenza vaccine manufacturers" according to the World Health Organization. It is estimated that, in a best scenario situation, 750 million doses could be produced each year, whereas it is likely that each individual would need two doses of the vaccine to become immuno-competent. Distribution to and inside countries would probably be problematic. Several countries, however, have well-developed plans for producing large quantities of vaccine. For example, Canadian health authorities say that they are developing the capacity to produce 32 million doses within four months, enough vaccine to inoculate every person in the country.

Another concern is whether countries which do not manufacture vaccines themselves, including those where a pandemic strain is likely to originate, will be able to purchase vaccine to protect their population. Cost considerations aside, they fear that the countries with vaccine-manufacturing capability will reserve production to protect their own populations and not release vaccines to other countries until their own population is protected. Indonesia has refused to share samples of H5N1 strains which have infected and killed its citizens until it receives assurances that it will have access to vaccines produced with those samples. So far, it has not received those assurances. However, in September 2009, Australia, Brazil, France, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA agreed to make 10 percent of their H1N1 vaccine supply available to less-developed countries.

There are two serious technical problems associated with the development of a vaccine against H5N1. The first problem is this: seasonal influenza vaccines require a single injection of 15 μg haemagluttinin in order to give protection; H5 seems to evoke only a weak immune response and a large multicentre trial found that two injections of 90 µg H5 given 28 days apart provided protection in only 54% of people. Even if it is considered that 54% is an acceptable level of protection, the world is currently capable of producing only 900 million doses at a strength of 15 μg (assuming that all production were immediately converted to manufacturing H5 vaccine); if two injections of 90 μg are needed then this capacity drops to only 70 million. Trials using adjuvants such as alum, AS03, AS04 or MF59 to try and lower the dose of vaccine are urgently needed. The second problem is this: there are two circulating clades of virus, clade 1 is the virus originally isolated in Vietnam, clade 2 is the virus isolated in Indonesia. Vaccine research has mostly been focused on clade 1 viruses, but the clade 2 virus is antigenically distinct and a clade 1 vaccine will probably not protect against a pandemic caused by clade 2 virus.

Since 2009, most vaccine development efforts have been focused on the current pandemic influenza virus H1N1. As of July 2009, more than 70 known clinical trials have been completed or are ongoing for pandemic influenza vaccines. In September 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration approved four vaccines against the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus, and expected the initial vaccine lots to be available within the following month.

Government preparations for a potential H5N1 pandemic (2003–2009)

According to The New York Times as of March 2006, "governments worldwide have spent billions planning for a potential influenza pandemic: buying medicines, running disaster drills, [and] developing strategies for tighter border controls" due to the H5N1 threat.

[T]he United States is collaborating closely with eight international organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), and 88 foreign governments to address the situation through planning, greater monitoring, and full transparency in reporting and investigating avian influenza occurrences. The United States and these international partners have led global efforts to encourage countries to heighten surveillance for outbreaks in poultry and significant numbers of deaths in migratory birds and to rapidly introduce containment measures. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Departments of State, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Agriculture (USDA) are coordinating future international response measures on behalf of the White House with departments and agencies across the federal government.

Together steps are being taken to "minimize the risk of further spread in animal populations", "reduce the risk of human infections", and "further support pandemic planning and preparedness".

Ongoing detailed mutually coordinated onsite surveillance and analysis of human and animal H5N1 avian flu outbreaks are being conducted and reported by the USGS National Wildlife Health Center, the CDC, the ECDC, the World Health Organization, the European Commission, the National Influenza Centers, and others.

United Nations

In September 2005, David Nabarro, a lead UN health official, warned that a bird flu outbreak could happen at any time and had the potential to kill 5–150 million people.

World Health Organization

The World Health Organization (WHO), believing that the world was closer to another influenza pandemic than it has been any time since 1968, when the last of the 20th century's three pandemics swept the globe, has developed guidelines on pandemic influenza preparedness and response. The March 2005 plan includes guidance on roles and responsibilities in preparedness and response; information on pandemic phases; and recommended actions for before, during, and after a pandemic.

United States

"[E]fforts by the federal government to prepare for pandemic influenza at the national level include a $100 million DHHS initiative in 2003 to build U.S. vaccine production. Several agencies within Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)—including the Office of the Secretary, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), CDC, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)—are in the process of working with vaccine manufacturers to facilitate production of pilot vaccine lots for both H5N1 and H9N2 strains as well as contracting for the manufacturing of 2 million doses of an H5N1 vaccine. This H5N1 vaccine production will provide a critical pilot test of the pandemic vaccine system; it will also be used for clinical trials to evaluate dose and immunogenicity and can provide initial vaccine for early use in the event of an emerging pandemic."

Each state and territory of the United States has a specific pandemic flu plan which covers avian flu, swine flu (H1N1), and other potential influenza epidemics. The state plans together with a professionally vetted search engine of flu related research, policies, and plans, is available at the current portal: Pandemic Flu Search.

On 26 August 2004, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson released a draft Pandemic Influenza Response and Preparedness Plan, which outlined a coordinated national strategy to prepare for and respond to an influenza pandemic. Public comments were accepted for 60 days.

In a speech before the United Nations General Assembly on 14 September 2005, President George W. Bush announced the creation of the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza. The Partnership brings together nations and international organizations to improve global readiness by:

  • elevating the issue on national agendas;
  • coordinating efforts among donor and affected nations;
  • mobilizing and leveraging resources;
  • increasing transparency in disease reporting and surveillance; and
  • building capacity to identify, contain and respond to a pandemic influenza.

On 5 October 2005, Democratic Senators Harry Reid, Evan Bayh, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, and Tom Harkin introduced the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act as a proposal to deal with a possible outbreak.

On 27 October 2005, the Department of Health and Human Services awarded a $62.5 million contract to Chiron Corporation to manufacture an avian influenza vaccine designed to protect against the H5N1 influenza virus strain. This followed a previous awarded $100 million contract to sanofi pasteur, the vaccines business of the sanofi-aventis Group, for avian flu vaccine.

In October 2005, Bush urged bird flu vaccine manufacturers to increase their production.

On 1 November 2005 Bush unveiled the National Strategy To Safeguard Against The Danger of Pandemic Influenza. He also submitted a request to Congress for $7.1 billion to begin implementing the plan. The request includes $251 million to detect and contain outbreaks before they spread around the world; $2.8 billion to accelerate development of cell-culture technology; $800 million for development of new treatments and vaccines; $1.519 billion for the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Defense to purchase influenza vaccines; $1.029 billion to stockpile antiviral medications; and $644 million to ensure that all levels of government are prepared to respond to a pandemic outbreak.

On 6 March 2006, Mike Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services, said U.S. health agencies are continuing to develop vaccine alternatives that will protect against the evolving avian influenza virus.

The U.S. government, bracing for the possibility that migrating birds could carry a deadly strain of bird flu to North America, plans to test nearly eight times as many wild birds starting in April 2006 as have been tested in the past decade.

On 8 March 2006, Dr. David Nabarro, senior UN coordinator for avian and human influenza, said that given the flight patterns of wild birds that have been spreading avian influenza (bird flu) from Asia to Europe and Africa, birds infected with the H5N1 virus could reach the Americas within the next six to 12 months.

July 5, 2006, (CIDRAP News) – "In an update on pandemic influenza preparedness efforts, the federal government said last week it had stockpiled enough vaccine against H5N1 avian influenza virus to inoculate about 4 million people and enough antiviral medication to treat about 6.3 million."

Canada

The Public Health Agency of Canada follows the WHO's categories, but has expanded them. The avian flu scare of 2006 prompted The Canadian Public Health Agency to release an updated Pandemic Influenza Plan for Health Officials. This document was created to address the growing concern over the hazards faced by public health officials when exposed to sick or dying patients.

Malaysia

Since the Nipah virus outbreak in 1999, the Malaysian Health Ministry have put in place processes to be better prepared to protect the Malaysian population from the threat of infectious diseases. Malaysia was fully prepared during the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) situation (Malaysia was not a SARS-affected country) and the episode of the H5N1 (bird flu) outbreak in 2004.

The Malaysian government has developed a National Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Plan (NIPPP) which serves as a time bound guide for preparedness and response plan for influenza pandemic. It provides a policy and strategic framework for a multisectoral response and contains specific advice and actions to be undertaken by the Ministry of Health at the different levels, other governmental departments and agencies and non-governmental organizations to ensure that resources are mobilized and used most efficiently before, during and after a pandemic episode.

Sunday, February 13, 2022

Expanded genetic code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
There must not be crosstalk between the new tRNA/synthase pair and the existing tRNA/synthase molecules, only with the ribosomes

An expanded genetic code is an artificially modified genetic code in which one or more specific codons have been re-allocated to encode an amino acid that is not among the 22 common naturally-encoded proteinogenic amino acids.

The key prerequisites to expand the genetic code are:

Expanding the genetic code is an area of research of synthetic biology, an applied biological discipline whose goal is to engineer living systems for useful purposes. The genetic code expansion enriches the repertoire of useful tools available to science.

In May 2019, researchers, in a milestone effort, reported the creation of a new synthetic (possibly artificial) form of viable life, a variant of the bacteria Escherichia coli, by reducing the natural number of 64 codons in the bacterial genome to 61 codons (eliminating two out of the six codons coding for serine and one out of three stop codons) - of which 59 used to encode 20 amino acids.

Introduction

It is noteworthy that the genetic code for all organisms is basically the same, so that all living beings use the same ’genetic language’. In general, the introduction of new functional unnatural amino acids into proteins of living cells breaks the universality of the genetic language, which ideally leads to alternative life forms. Proteins are produced thanks to the translational system molecules, which decode the RNA messages into a string of amino acids. The translation of genetic information contained in messenger RNA (mRNA) into a protein is catalysed by ribosomes. Transfer RNAs (tRNA) are used as keys to decode the mRNA into its encoded polypeptide. The tRNA recognizes a specific three nucleotide codon in the mRNA with a complementary sequence called the anticodon on one of its loops. Each three-nucleotide codon is translated into one of twenty naturally occurring amino acids. There is at least one tRNA for any codon, and sometimes multiple codons code for the same amino acid. Many tRNAs are compatible with several codons. An enzyme called an aminoacyl tRNA synthetase covalently attaches the amino acid to the appropriate tRNA. Most cells have a different synthetase for each amino acid (20 or more synthetases). On the other hand, some bacteria have fewer than 20 aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and introduce the "missing" amino acid(s) by modification of a structurally related amino acid by an aminotransferase enzyme. A feature exploited in the expansion of the genetic code is the fact that the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase often does not recognize the anticodon, but another part of the tRNA, meaning that if the anticodon were to be mutated the encoding of that amino acid would change to a new codon. In the ribosome, the information in mRNA is translated into a specific amino acid when the mRNA codon matches with the complementary anticodon of a tRNA, and the attached amino acid is added onto a growing polypeptide chain. When it is released from the ribosome, the polypeptide chain folds into a functioning protein.

In order to incorporate a novel amino acid into the genetic code several changes are required. First, for successful translation of a novel amino acid, the codon to which the novel amino acid is assigned cannot already code for one of the 20 natural amino acids. Usually a nonsense codon (stop codon) or a four-base codon are used. Second, a novel pair of tRNA and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase are required, these are called the orthogonal set. The orthogonal set must not crosstalk with the endogenous tRNA and synthetase sets, while still being functionally compatible with the ribosome and other components of the translation apparatus. The active site of the synthetase is modified to accept only the novel amino acid. Most often, a library of mutant synthetases is screened for one which charges the tRNA with the desired amino acid. The synthetase is also modified to recognize only the orthogonal tRNA. The tRNA synthetase pair is often engineered in other bacteria or eukaryotic cells.

In this area of research, the 20 encoded proteinogenic amino acids are referred to as standard amino acids, or alternatively as natural or canonical amino acids, while the added amino acids are called non-standard amino acids (NSAAs), or unnatural amino acids (uAAs; term not used in papers dealing with natural non-proteinogenic amino acids, such as phosphoserine), or non-canonical amino acids.

Non-standard amino acids

Tyrosine and some synthetic tyrosine variants used for protein labeling. Different variants of tyrosine have been synthesized and can be incorporated into proteins using an expanded genetic code. The variants depicted here are all used for chemical or photochemical linking. This means that the incorporated AA specifically reacts with either a particular chemical group (such as hydrazides, amines, azides, or thiols) or can be UV-activated to crosslink with other AAs.

The first element of the system is the amino acid that is added to the genetic code of a certain strain of organism.

Over 71 different NSAAs have been added to different strains of E. coli, yeast or mammalian cells. Due to technical details (easier chemical synthesis of NSAAs, less crosstalk and easier evolution of the aminoacyl-tRNA synthase), the NSAAs are generally larger than standard amino acids and most often have a phenylalanine core but with a large variety of different substituents. These allow a large repertoire of new functions, such as labeling (see figure), as a fluorescent reporter (e.g. dansylalanine) or to produce translational proteins in E. coli with Eukaryotic post-translational modifications (e.g. phosphoserine, phosphothreonine, and phosphotyrosine).

The founding work was reported by Rolf Furtner, who singlehandedly used yeast tRNAPhe/PheRS pair to incorporate p-iodophenylalanine in E.coli.

Unnatural amino acids incorporated into proteins include heavy atom-containing amino acids to facilitate certain x-ray crystallographic studies; amino acids with novel steric/packing and electronic properties; photocrosslinking amino acids which can be used to probe protein-protein interactions in vitro or in vivo; keto, acetylene, azide, and boronate-containing amino acids which can be used to selectively introduce a large number of biophysical probes, tags, and novel chemical functional groups into proteins in vitro or in vivo; redox active amino acids to probe and modulate electron transfer; photocaged and photoisomerizable amino acids to photoregulate biological processes; metal binding amino acids for catalysis and metal ion sensing; amino acids that contain fluorescent or infra-red active side chains to probe protein structure and dynamics; α-hydroxy acids and D-amino acids as probes of backbone conformation and hydrogen bonding interactions; and sulfated amino acids and mimetics of phosphorylated amino acids as probes of post-translational modifications.

Availability of the non-standard amino acid requires that the organism either import it from the medium or biosynthesize it. In the first case, the unnatural amino acid is first synthesized chemically in its optically pure L-form. It is then added to the growth medium of the cell. A library of compounds is usually tested for use in incorporation of the new amino acid, but this is not always necessary, for example, various transport systems can handle unnatural amino acids with apolar side-chains. In the second case, a biosynthetic pathway needs to be engineered, for example, an E. coli strain that biosynthesizes a novel amino acid (p-aminophenylalanine) from basic carbon sources and includes it in its genetic code. Another example: the production of phosphoserine, a natural metabolite, and consequently required alteration of its pathway flux to increase its production.

Codon assignment

Another element of the system is a codon to allocate to the new amino acid.

A major problem for the genetic code expansion is that there are no free codons. The genetic code has a non-random layout that shows tell-tale signs of various phases of primordial evolution, however, it has since frozen into place and is near-universally conserved. Nevertheless, some codons are rarer than others. In fact, in E. coli (and all organisms) the codon usage is not equal, but presents several rare codons (see table), the rarest being the amber stop codon (UAG).

Amber codon suppression

The possibility of reassigning codons was realized by Normanly et al. in 1990, when a viable mutant strain of E. coli read through the UAG ("amber") stop codon. This was possible thanks to the rarity of this codon and the fact that release factor 1 alone makes the amber codon terminate translation. Later, in the Schultz lab, the tRNATyr/tyrosyl-tRNA synthetase (TyrRS) from Methanococcus jannaschii, an archaebacterium, was used to introduce a tyrosine instead of STOP, the default value of the amber codon. This was possible because of the differences between the endogenous bacterial synthases and the orthologous archaeal synthase, which do not recognize each other. Subsequently, the group evolved the orthologonal tRNA/synthase pair to utilise the non-standard amino acid O-methyltyrosine. This was followed by the larger naphthylalanine and the photocrosslinking benzoylphenylalanine, which proved the potential utility of the system.

The amber codon is the least used codon in Escherichia coli, but hijacking it results in a substantial loss of fitness. One study, in fact, found that there were at least 83 peptides majorly affected by the readthrough Additionally, the labelling was incomplete. As a consequence, several strains have been made to reduce the fitness cost, including the removal of all amber codons from the genome. In most E. coli K-12 strains (viz. Escherichia coli (molecular biology) for strain pedigrees) there are 314 UAG stop codons. Consequently, a gargantuan amount of work has gone into the replacement of these. One approach pioneered by the group of Prof. George Church from Harvard, was dubbed MAGE in CAGE: this relied on a multiplex transformation and subsequent strain recombination to remove all UAG codons—the latter part presented a halting point in a first paper, but was overcome. This resulted in the E. coli strain C321.ΔA, which lacks all UAG codons and RF1. This allowed an experiment to be done with this strain to make it "addicted" to the amino acid biphenylalanine by evolving several key enzymes to require it structurally, therefore putting its expanded genetic code under positive selection.

Rare sense codon reassignment

In addition to the amber codon, rare sense codons have also been considered for use. The AGG codon codes for arginine, but a strain has been successfully modified to make it code for 6-N-allyloxycarbonyl-lysine. Another candidate is the AUA codon, which is unusual in that its respective tRNA has to differentiate against AUG that codes for methionine (primordially, isoleucine, hence its location). In order to do this, the AUA tRNA has a special base, lysidine. The deletion of the synthase (tilS) was possible thanks to the replacement of the native tRNA with that of Mycoplasma mobile (no lysidine). The reduced fitness is a first step towards pressuring the strain to lose all instances of AUA, allowing it to be used for genetic code expansion.

Four base (quadruplet) codons

While triplet codons are the basis of the genetic code in nature, programmed +1 frameshift is a natural process that allows the use of a four-nucleotide sequence (quadruplet codon) to encode an amino acid. Recent developments in genetic code engineering also showed that quadruplet codon could be used to encode non-standard amino acids under experimental conditions. This allowed the simultaneous usage of two unnatural amino acids, p-azidophenylalanine (pAzF) and N6-[(2-propynyloxy)carbonyl]lysine (CAK), which cross-link with each other by Huisgen cycloaddition. Quadrupled decoding in wild-type, non-recoded strains is very inefficient. This stems from the fact that the interaction between engineered tRNAs with ternary complexes or other translation components is not as favorable and strong as with cell endogenous translation elements. This problem can be overcome by specifically engineering and evolving tRNA that can decode quadruplet codons in non-recoded strains. Up to 4 different quadruplet orthogonal tRNA/tRNA synthethase pairs can be generated in this manner. Quadruplet codon decoding approach has also been applied to the construction of an HIV-1 vaccine.

tRNA/synthetase pair

Another key element is the tRNA/synthetase pair.

The orthologous set of synthetase and tRNA can be mutated and screened through directed evolution to charge the tRNA with a different, even novel, amino acid. Mutations to the plasmid containing the pair can be introduced by error-prone PCR or through degenerate primers for the synthetase's active site. Selection involves multiple rounds of a two-step process, where the plasmid is transferred into cells expressing chloramphenicol acetyl transferase with a premature amber codon. In the presence of toxic chloramphenicol and the non-natural amino acid, the surviving cells will have overridden the amber codon using the orthogonal tRNA aminoacylated with either the standard amino acids or the non-natural one. To remove the former, the plasmid is inserted into cells with a barnase gene (toxic) with a premature amber codon but without the non-natural amino acid, removing all the orthogonal synthases that do not specifically recognize the non-natural amino acid. In addition to the recoding of the tRNA to a different codon, they can be mutated to recognize a four-base codon, allowing additional free coding options. The non-natural amino acid, as a result, introduces diverse physicochemical and biological properties in order to be used as a tool to explore protein structure and function or to create novel or enhanced protein for practical purposes.

Several methods for selecting the synthetase that accepts only the non-natural amino acid have been developed. One of which is by using a combination of positive and negative selection

Orthogonal sets in model organisms

The orthogonal pairs of synthetase and tRNA that work for one organism may not work for another, as the synthetase may mis-aminoacylate endogenous tRNAs or the tRNA be mis-aminoacylated itself by an endogenous synthetase. As a result, the sets created to date differ between organisms.

Pair Source E. coli Yeast Mammals Notes
tRNATyr-TyrRS Methanococcus jannaschii Yes No No
tRNALys–LysRS Pyrococcus horikoshii Yes No No
tRNAGlu–GluRS Pyrococcus horikoshii Yes No No
tRNALeu–LeuRS tRNA: mutant Halobacterium sp.
RS: Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum
Yes No No
tRNAAmber-PylRS Methanosarcina barkeri and Methanosarcina mazei Yes Yes Yes
tRNAAmber-3-iodotyrosyl-RS RS: variant Methanocaldococcus jannaschii aaRS Yes No No
tRNATyr/Amber-TyrRS Escherichia coli No Yes No Reported in 2003, mentioned in
2014 LeuRS
tRNAiMet-GlnRS tRNA: human
RS: Escherichia coli
No Yes No Switched to Amber codon.
tRNAifMet-TyrRS tRNA: Escherichia coli
RS: S. cerevisiae
Yes Yes No Switched to Amber codon.
tRNALeu/Amber-LeuRS Escherichia coli No Yes Yes Reported in 2004 and mutated for
2-Aminooctanoic acid, o-methyl
tyrosine, and o-nitrobenzyl cysteine.
Evolved in yeast for 4,5-dimethoxy-
2-nitrobenzyl serine, tested in mice
and mammalian cells with photo-
sensitive 4,5-dimethoxy-2-
nitrobenzyl-cysteine.
tRNATyr-TyrRS Bacillus stearothermophilus No No Yes
tRNATrp-TrpRS Bacillus subtilis, RS modified No No Yes New AA is 5-OH Trp.

In 2017 a mouse engineered with an extended genetic code that can produce proteins with unnatural amino acids was reported.

Orthogonal ribosomes

Similarly to orthogonal tRNAs and aminoacyl tRNA synthetases (aaRSs), orthogonal ribosomes have been engineered to work in parallel to the natural ribosomes. Orthogonal ribosomes ideally use different mRNA transcripts than their natural counterparts and ultimately should draw on a separate pool of tRNA as well. This should alleviate some of the loss of fitness which currently still arises from techniques such as Amber codon suppression. Additionally, orthogonal ribosomes can be mutated and optimized for particular tasks, like the recognition of quadruplet codons. Such an optimization is not possible, or highly disadvantageous for natural ribosomes.

o-Ribosome

In 2005 three sets of ribosomes were published, which did not recognize natural mRNA, but instead translated a separate pool of orthogonal mRNA (o-mRNA). This was achieved by changing the recognition sequence of the mRNA, the Shine-Dalgarno sequence, and the corresponding recognition sequence in the 16S rRNA of ribosomes, the so-called Anti-Shine-Darlgarno-Sequence. This way the base pairing, which is usually lost if either sequence is mutated, stays available. However the mutations in the 16S rRNA were not limited to the obviously base-pairing nucleotides of the classical Anti-Shine-Darlgarno sequence.

Ribo-X

In 2007 the group of Jason W. Chin presented an orthogonal ribosome, which was optimized for Amber codon suppression. The 16S rRNA was mutated in such a way that it bound the release factor RF1 less strongly than the natural ribosome does. This ribosome did not eliminate the problem of lowered cell fitness caused by suppressed stop codons in natural proteins. However through the improved specificity it raised the yields of correctly synthesized target protein significantly (from ~20% to >60% percent for one amber codon to be suppressed and form <1% to >20% for two amber codons).

Ribo-Q

In 2010 the group of Jason W. Chin presented a further optimized version of the orthogonal ribosome. The Ribo-Q is a 16S rRNA optimized to recognize tRNAs, which have quadruplet anti-codons to recognize quadruplet codons, instead of the natural triplet codons. With this approach the number of possible codons rises from 64 to 256. Even accounting for a variety of stop codons, more than 200 different amino acids could potentially be encoded this way.

Ribosome stapling

The orthogonal ribosomes described above all focus on optimizing the 16S rRNA. Thus far, this optimized 16S rRNA was combined with natural large-subunits to form orthogonal ribosomes. If the 23S rRNA, the main RNA-component of the large ribosomal subunit, is to be optimized as well, it had to be assured, that there was no crosstalk in the assembly of orthogonal and natural ribosomes (see figureX B). To ensure that optimized 23S rRNA would only form into ribosomes with the optimized 16S rRNA, the two rRNAs were combined into one transcript. By inserting the sequence for the 23S rRNA into a loop-region of the 16S rRNA sequence, both subunits still adopt functioning folds. Since the two rRNAs are linked and thus in constant proximity, they preferably bind each other, not other free floating ribosomal subunits.

Engineered peptidyl transferase center

In 2014 it was shown that by altering the peptidyl transferase center of the 23S rRNA, ribosomes could be created which draw on orthogonal pools of tRNA. The 3’ end of tRNAs is universally conserved to be CCA. The two cytidines base pair with two guanines the 23S rRNA to bind the tRNA to the ribosome. This interaction is required for translational fidelity. However, by co-mutating the binding nucleotides in such a way, that they can still base pair, the translational fidelity can be conserved. The 3’-end of the tRNA is mutated from CCA to CGA, while two cytidine nucleotides in the ribosomes A- and P-sites are mutated to guanidine. This leads to ribosomes which do not accept naturally occurring tRNAs as substrates and to tRNAs, which cannot be used as substrate by natural ribosomes.
To use such tRNAs effectively, they would have to be aminoacylated by specific, orthogonal aaRSs. Most naturally occurring aaRSs recognize the 3’-end of their corresponding tRNA. aaRSs for these 3’-mutated tRNAs are not available yet. Thus far, this system has only been shown to work in an in-vitro translation setting where the aminoacylation of the orthogonal tRNA was achieved using so called “flexizymes”. Flexizymes are ribozymes with tRNA-amino-aclylation activity.

Applications

With an expanded genetic code, the unnatural amino acid can be genetically directed to any chosen site in the protein of interest. The high efficiency and fidelity of this process allows a better control of the placement of the modification compared to modifying the protein post-translationally, which, in general, will target all amino acids of the same type, such as the thiol group of cysteine and the amino group of lysine. Also, an expanded genetic code allows modifications to be carried out in vivo. The ability to site-specifically direct lab-synthesized chemical moieties into proteins allows many types of studies that would otherwise be extremely difficult, such as:

  • Probing protein structure and function: By using amino acids with slightly different size such as O-methyltyrosine or dansylalanine instead of tyrosine, and by inserting genetically coded reporter moieties (color-changing and/or spin-active) into selected protein sites, chemical information about the protein's structure and function can be measured.
  • Probing the role of post-translational modifications in protein structure and function: By using amino acids that mimic post-translational modifications such as phosphoserine, biologically active protein can be obtained, and the site-specific nature of the amino acid incorporation can lead to information on how the position, density, and distribution of protein phosphorylation effect protein function.
  • Identifying and regulating protein activity: By using photocaged aminoacids, protein function can be "switched" on or off by illuminating the organism.
  • Changing the mode of action of a protein: One can start with the gene for a protein that binds a certain sequence of DNA and, by inserting a chemically active amino acid into the binding site, convert it to a protein that cuts the DNA rather than binding it.
  • Improving immunogenicity and overcoming self-tolerance: By replacing strategically chosen tyrosines with p-nitro phenylalanine, a tolerated self-protein can be made immunogenic.
  • Selective destruction of selected cellular components: using an expanded genetic code, unnatural, destructive chemical moieties (sometimes called "chemical warheads") can be incorporated into proteins that target specific cellular components.
  • Producing better protein: the evolution of T7 bacteriophages on a non-evolving E. coli strain that encoded 3-iodotyrosine on the amber codon, resulted in a population fitter than wild-type thanks to the presence of iodotyrosine in its proteome
  • Probing protein localization and protein-protein interaction in bacteria.

Future

The expansion of the genetic code is still in its infancy. Current methodology uses only one non-standard amino acid at the time, whereas ideally multiple could be used. In fact, the group of Jason Chin has recently broken the record for a genetically recoded E.coli strain that can simultaneously incorporate up to 4 unnatural amino acids. Moreover, there has been development in software that allows combination of orthogonal ribosomes and unnatural tRNA/RS pairs in order to improve protein yield and fidelity.

Recoded synthetic genome

One way to achieve the encoding of multiple unnatural amino acids is by synthesising a rewritten genome.[74] In 2010, at the cost of $40 million an organism, Mycoplasma laboratorium, was constructed that was controlled by a synthetic, but not recoded, genome. The first genetically recoded organism was created by a collaboration between George Church's and Farren Isaacs' labs, when the wild type E.coli MG1655 was recoded in such a way that all 321 known stop codons (UAG) were substituted with synonymous UAA codons and release factor 1 was knocked out in order to eliminate the interaction with the exogenous stop codon and improve unnatural protein synthesis. In 2019, Escherichia coli Syn61 was created, with a 4 megabase recoded genome consisting of only 61 codons instead of the natural 64. In addition to the elimination of the usage of rare codons, the specificity of the system needs to be increased as many tRNA recognise several codons.

Expanded genetic alphabet

Another approach is to expand the number of nucleobases to increase the coding capacity.

An unnatural base pair (UBP) is a designed subunit (or nucleobase) of DNA which is created in a laboratory and does not occur in nature. A demonstration of UBPs were achieved in vitro by Ichiro Hirao's group at RIKEN institute in Japan. In 2002, they developed an unnatural base pair between 2-amino-8-(2-thienyl)purine (s) and pyridine-2-one (y) that functions in vitro in transcription and translation for the site-specific incorporation of non-standard amino acids into proteins. In 2006, they created 7-(2-thienyl)imidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (Ds) and pyrrole-2-carbaldehyde (Pa) as a third base pair for replication and transcription. Afterward, Ds and 4-[3-(6-aminohexanamido)-1-propynyl]-2-nitropyrrole (Px) was discovered as a high fidelity pair in PCR amplification. In 2013, they applied the Ds-Px pair to DNA aptamer generation by in vitro selection (SELEX) and demonstrated the genetic alphabet expansion significantly augment DNA aptamer affinities to target proteins.

In 2012, a group of American scientists led by Floyd Romesberg, a chemical biologist at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, California, published that his team designed an unnatural base pair (UBP). The two new artificial nucleotides or Unnatural Base Pair (UBP) were named "d5SICS" and "dNaM." More technically, these artificial nucleotides bearing hydrophobic nucleobases, feature two fused aromatic rings that form a (d5SICS–dNaM) complex or base pair in DNA. In 2014 the same team from the Scripps Research Institute reported that they synthesized a stretch of circular DNA known as a plasmid containing natural T-A and C-G base pairs along with the best-performing UBP Romesberg's laboratory had designed, and inserted it into cells of the common bacterium E. coli that successfully replicated the unnatural base pairs through multiple generations. This is the first known example of a living organism passing along an expanded genetic code to subsequent generations. This was in part achieved by the addition of a supportive algal gene that expresses a nucleotide triphosphate transporter which efficiently imports the triphosphates of both d5SICSTP and dNaMTP into E. coli bacteria. Then, the natural bacterial replication pathways use them to accurately replicate the plasmid containing d5SICS–dNaM.

The successful incorporation of a third base pair into a living micro-organism is a significant breakthrough toward the goal of greatly expanding the number of amino acids which can be encoded by DNA, thereby expanding the potential for living organisms to produce novel proteins. The artificial strings of DNA do not encode for anything yet, but scientists speculate they could be designed to manufacture new proteins which could have industrial or pharmaceutical uses.

In May 2014, researchers announced that they had successfully introduced two new artificial nucleotides into bacterial DNA, and by including individual artificial nucleotides in the culture media, were able to passage the bacteria 24 times; they did not create mRNA or proteins able to use the artificial nucleotides.

Related methods

Selective pressure incorporation (SPI) method for production of alloproteins

There have been many studies that have produced protein with non-standard amino acids, but they do not alter the genetic code. These protein, called alloprotein, are made by incubating cells with an unnatural amino acid in the absence of a similar coded amino acid in order for the former to be incorporated into protein in place of the latter, for example L-2-aminohexanoic acid (Ahx) for methionine (Met).

These studies rely on the natural promiscuous activity of the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase to add to its target tRNA an unnatural amino acid (i.e. analog) similar to the natural substrate, for example methionyl-tRNA synthase's mistaking isoleucine for methionine. In protein crystallography, for example, the addition of selenomethionine to the media of a culture of a methionine-auxotrophic strain results in proteins containing selenomethionine as opposed to methionine (viz. Multi-wavelength anomalous dispersion for reason). Another example is that photoleucine and photomethionine are added instead of leucine and methionine to cross-label protein. Similarly, some tellurium-tolerant fungi can incorporate tellurocysteine and telluromethionine into their protein instead of cysteine and methionine. The objective of expanding the genetic code is more radical as it does not replace an amino acid, but it adds one or more to the code. On the other hand, proteome-wide replacements are most efficiently performed by global amino acid substitutions. For example, global proteome-wide substitutions of natural amino acids with fluorinated analogs have been attempted in E. coli and B. subtilis. A complete tryptophan substitution with thienopyrrole-alanine in response to 20899 UGG codons in E. coli was reported in 2015 by Budisa and Söll. Moreover, many biological phenomena, such as protein folding and stability, are based on synergistic effects at many positions in the protein sequence.

In this context, the SPI method generates recombinant protein variants or alloproteins directly by substitution of natural amino acids with unnatural counterparts. An amino acid auxotrophic expression host is supplemented with an amino acid analog during target protein expression. This approach avoids the pitfalls of suppression-based methods and it is superior to it in terms of efficiency, reproducibility and an extremely simple experimental setup. Numerous studies demonstrated how global substitution of canonical amino acids with various isosteric analogs caused minimal structural perturbations but dramatic changes in thermodynamic, folding, aggregation spectral properties and enzymatic activity.

in vitro synthesis

The genetic code expansion described above is in vivo. An alternative is the change of coding in vitro translation experiments. This requires the depletion of all tRNAs and the selective reintroduction of certain aminoacylated-tRNAs, some chemically aminoacylated.

Chemical synthesis

There are several techniques to produce peptides chemically, generally it is by solid-phase protection chemistry. This means that any (protected) amino acid can be added into the nascent sequence.

In November 2017, a team from the Scripps Research Institute reported having constructed a semi-synthetic E. coli bacteria genome using six different nucleic acids (versus four found in nature). The two extra 'letters' form a third, unnatural base pair. The resulting organisms were able to thrive and synthesize proteins using "unnatural amino acids". The unnatural base pair used is dNaM–dTPT3. This unnatural base pair has been demonstrated previously, but this is the first report of transcription and translation of proteins using an unnatural base pair.

Cathodic protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Aluminium sacrificial anodes (light colored rectangular bars) mounted on a steel jacket structure.
 
Zinc sacrificial anode (rounded object) screwed to the underside of the hull of a small boat.

Cathodic protection is a technique used to control the corrosion of a metal surface by making it the cathode of an electrochemical cell. A simple method of protection connects the metal to be protected to a more easily corroded "sacrificial metal" to act as the anode. The sacrificial metal then corrodes instead of the protected metal. For structures such as long pipelines, where passive galvanic cathodic protection is not adequate, an external DC electrical power source is used to provide sufficient current.

Cathodic protection systems protect a wide range of metallic structures in various environments. Common applications are: steel water or fuel pipelines and steel storage tanks such as home water heaters; steel pier piles; ship and boat hulls; offshore oil platforms and onshore oil well casings; offshore wind farm foundations and metal reinforcement bars in concrete buildings and structures. Another common application is in galvanized steel, in which a sacrificial coating of zinc on steel parts protects them from rust.

Cathodic protection can, in some cases, prevent stress corrosion cracking.

History

Cathodic protection was first described by Sir Humphry Davy in a series of papers presented to the Royal Society in London in 1824. The first application was to HMS Samarang in 1824. Sacrificial anodes made from iron attached to the copper sheath of the hull below the waterline dramatically reduced the corrosion rate of the copper. However, a side effect of cathodic protection was the increase in marine growth. Usually, copper when corroding releases copper ions which have an anti-fouling effect. Since excess marine growth affected the performance of the ship, the Royal Navy decided that it was better to allow the copper to corrode and have the benefit of reduced marine growth, so cathodic protection was not used further.

Davy was assisted in his experiments by his pupil Michael Faraday, who continued his research after Davy's death. In 1834, Faraday discovered the quantitative connection between corrosion weight loss and electric current and thus laid the foundation for the future application of cathodic protection.

Thomas Edison experimented with impressed current cathodic protection on ships in 1890, but was unsuccessful due to the lack of a suitable current source and anode materials. It would be 100 years after Davy's experiment before cathodic protection was used widely on oil pipelines in the United States — cathodic protection was applied to steel gas pipelines beginning in 1928 and more widely in the 1930s.

Types

Galvanic sacrificial anode attached to the hull of a ship, showing corrosion.

Galvanic

In the application of passive cathodic protection, a galvanic anode, a piece of a more electrochemically "active" metal (more negative electrode potential), is attached to the vulnerable metal surface where it is exposed to an electrolyte. Galvanic anodes are selected because they have a more "active" voltage than the metal of the target structure (typically steel).

Concrete has a pH around 13. In this environment the steel reinforcement has a passive protective layer and remains largely stable. Galvanic systems are "constant potential" systems that aim to restore the concrete's natural protective environment by providing a high initial current to restore passivity. It then reverts to a lower sacrificial current while harmful negative Chloride ions migrate away from the steel and towards the positive anode. The anodes remain reactive through their lifetime (10-20 years typically) increasing current when the resistivity decreases due to corrosion hazards such as rainfall, temperature increases or flooding. The reactive nature of these anodes makes them an efficient choice.

Unlike ICCP systems steel constant polarization is not the goal, rather the restoration of the environment. Polarization of the target structure is caused by the electron flow from the anode to the cathode, so the two metals must have a good electrically conductive contact. The driving force for the cathodic protection current is the difference in electrode potential between the anode and the cathode. During the initial phase of high current, the potential of the steel surface is polarized (pushed) more negative protecting the steel which hydroxide ion generation at the steel surface and ionic migration restore the concrete environment.

Over time the galvanic anode continues to corrode, consuming the anode material until eventually it must be replaced.

Galvanic or sacrificial anodes are made in various shapes and sizes using alloys of zinc, magnesium and aluminium. ASTM International publishes standards on the composition and manufacturing of galvanic anodes.

In order for galvanic cathodic protection to work, the anode must possess a lower (that is, more negative) electrode potential than that of the cathode (the target structure to be protected). The table below shows a simplified galvanic series which is used to select the anode metal. The anode must be chosen from a material that is lower on the list than the material to be protected.

Metal Potential with respect to a Cu:CuSO4

reference electrode in neutral pH environment (volts)

Carbon, Graphite, Coke +0.3
Platinum 0 to −0.1
Mill scale on Steel −0.2
High Silicon Cast Iron −0.2
Copper, brass, bronze −0.2
Mild steel in concrete −0.2
Lead −0.5
Cast iron (not graphitized) −0.5
Mild steel (rusted) −0.2 to −0.5
Mild steel (clean) −0.5 to −0.8
Commercially pure aluminium −0.8
Aluminium alloy (5% zinc) −1.05
Zinc −1.1
Magnesium Alloy (6% Al, 3% Zn, 0.15% Mn) −1.6
Commercially Pure Magnesium −1.75

Impressed current systems

Simple impressed current cathodic protection system. A source of DC electric current is used to help drive the protective electrochemical reaction.

In some cases, impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) systems are used. These consist of anodes connected to a DC power source, often a transformer-rectifier connected to AC power. In the absence of an AC supply, alternative power sources may be used, such as solar panels, wind power or gas powered thermoelectric generators.

Anodes for ICCP systems are available in a variety of shapes and sizes. Common anodes are tubular and solid rod shapes or continuous ribbons of various materials. These include high silicon cast iron, graphite, mixed metal oxide (MMO), platinum and niobium coated wire and other materials.

For pipelines, anodes are arranged in groundbeds either distributed or in a deep vertical hole depending on several design and field condition factors including current distribution requirements.

Cathodic protection transformer-rectifier units are often custom manufactured and equipped with a variety of features, including remote monitoring and control, integral current interrupters and various type of electrical enclosures. The output DC negative terminal is connected to the structure to be protected by the cathodic protection system. The rectifier output DC positive cable is connected to the anodes. The AC power cable is connected to the rectifier input terminals.

The output of the ICCP system should be optimised to provide enough current to provide protection to the target structure. Some cathodic protection transformer-rectifier units are designed with taps on the transformer windings and jumper terminals to select the voltage output of the ICCP system. Cathodic protection transformer-rectifier units for water tanks and used in other applications are made with solid state circuits to automatically adjust the operating voltage to maintain the optimum current output or structure-to-electrolyte potential. Analog or digital meters are often installed to show the operating voltage (DC and sometime AC) and current output. For shore structures and other large complex target structures, ICCP systems are often designed with multiple independent zones of anodes with separate cathodic protection transformer-rectifier circuits.

Hybrid Systems

Hybrid systems have been used for over a decade and incorporate the coordination, monitoring and high restorative current flow of ICCP systems with the reactive, lower cost and easier to maintain galvanic anodes.

The system is made up of wired galvanic anodes in arrays typically 400mm apart which are then initially powered for a short period to restore the concrete and power ionic migration. The power supply is then taken away and the anodes simply attached to the steel as a galvanic system. More powered phases can be administered if needed. Like Galvanic systems corrosion rate monitoring from polarisation tests and half-cell potential mapping can be used to measure corrosion. Polarization is not the goal for the life of the system.

Applications

Hot Water Tank / Water Heater

This technology is also used to protect water heaters. Indeed, the electrons sent by the imposed current anode (composed of titanium and covered with MMO) prevents the inside of the tank from rusting.

In order to be recognized as effective, these anodes must comply with certain standards: A cathodic protection system is considered efficient when its potential reaches or exceeds the limits established by the cathodic protection criteria. The cathode protection criteria used come from the standard NACE SP0388-2007 (formerly RP0388-2001) of the NACE National Association of Corrosion Engineers.

Pipelines

An air cooled cathodic protection rectifier connected to a pipeline.
 
Cathodic protection markers over a gas pipeline in Leeds, West Yorkshire, England.

Hazardous product pipelines are routinely protected by a coating supplemented with cathodic protection. An impressed current cathodic protection system (ICCP) for a pipeline consists of a DC power source, often an AC powered transformer rectifier and an anode, or array of anodes buried in the ground (the anode groundbed).

The DC power source would typically have a DC output of up to 50 amperes and 50 volts, but this depends on several factors, such as the size of the pipeline and coating quality. The positive DC output terminal would be connected via cables to the anode array, while another cable would connect the negative terminal of the rectifier to the pipeline, preferably through junction boxes to allow measurements to be taken.

Anodes can be installed in a groundbed consisting of a vertical hole backfilled with conductive coke (a material that improves the performance and life of the anodes) or laid in a prepared trench, surrounded by conductive coke and backfilled. The choice of groundbed type and size depends on the application, location and soil resistivity.

The DC cathodic protection current is then adjusted to the optimum level after conducting various tests including measurements of pipe-to-soil potentials or electrode potential.

It is sometimes more economically viable to protect a pipeline using galvanic (sacrificial) anodes. This is often the case on smaller diameter pipelines of limited length. Galvanic anodes rely on the galvanic series potentials of the metals to drive cathodic protection current from the anode to the structure being protected.

Water pipelines of various pipe materials are also provided with cathodic protection where owners determine the cost is reasonable for the expected pipeline service life extension attributed to the application of cathodic protection.

Ships and boats

The white patches visible on the ship's hull are zinc block sacrificial anodes.

Cathodic protection on ships is often implemented by galvanic anodes attached to the hull and ICCP for larger vessels. Since ships are regularly removed from the water for inspections and maintenance, it is a simple task to replace the galvanic anodes.

Galvanic anodes are generally shaped to reduced drag in the water and fitted flush to the hull to also try to minimize drag.

Smaller vessels, with non-metallic hulls, such as yachts, are equipped with galvanic anodes to protect areas such as outboard motors. As with all galvanic cathodic protection, this application relies on a solid electrical connection between the anode and the item to be protected.

For ICCP on ships, the anodes are usually constructed of a relatively inert material such as platinised titanium. A DC power supply is provided within the ship and the anodes mounted on the outside of the hull. The anode cables are introduced into the ship via a compression seal fitting and routed to the DC power source. The negative cable from the power supply is simply attached to the hull to complete the circuit. Ship ICCP anodes are flush-mounted, minimizing the effects of drag on the ship, and located a minimum 5 ft below the light load line in an area to avoid mechanical damage. The current density required for protection is a function of velocity and considered when selecting the current capacity and location of anode placement on the hull.

Some ships may require specialist treatment, for example aluminium hulls with steel fixtures will create an electrochemical cell where the aluminium hull can act as a galvanic anode and corrosion is enhanced. In cases like this, aluminium or zinc galvanic anodes can be used to offset the potential difference between the aluminium hull and the steel fixture. If the steel fixtures are large, several galvanic anodes may be required, or even a small ICCP system.

Marine

Marine cathodic protection covers many areas, jetties, harbors, offshore structures. The variety of different types of structure leads to a variety of systems to provide protection. Galvanic anodes are favored, but ICCP can also often be used. Because of the wide variety of structure geometry, composition, and architecture, specialized firms are often required to engineer structure-specific cathodic protection systems. Sometimes marine structures require retroactive modification to be effectively protected 

Steel in concrete

The application to concrete reinforcement is slightly different in that the anodes and reference electrodes are usually embedded in the concrete at the time of construction when the concrete is being poured. The usual technique for concrete buildings, bridges and similar structures is to use ICCP, but there are systems available that use the principle of galvanic cathodic protection as well, although in the UK at least, the use of galvanic anodes for atmospherically exposed reinforced concrete structures is considered experimental.

For ICCP, the principle is the same as any other ICCP system. However, in a typical atmospherically exposed concrete structure such as a bridge, there will be many more anodes distributed through the structure as opposed to an array of anodes as used on a pipeline. This makes for a more complicated system and usually an automatically controlled DC power source is used, possibly with an option for remote monitoring and operation. For buried or submerged structures, the treatment is similar to that of any other buried or submerged structure.

Galvanic systems offer the advantage of being easier to retrofit and do not need any control systems as ICCP does.

For pipelines constructed from pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP), the techniques used for cathodic protection are generally as for steel pipelines except that the applied potential must be limited to prevent damage to the prestressing wire.

The steel wire in a PCCP pipeline is stressed to the point that any corrosion of the wire can result in failure. An additional problem is that any excessive hydrogen ions as a result of an excessively negative potential can cause hydrogen embrittlement of the wire, also resulting in failure. The failure of too many wires will result in catastrophic failure of the PCCP. To implement ICCP therefore requires very careful control to ensure satisfactory protection. A simpler option is to use galvanic anodes, which are self-limiting and need no control.

Internal cathodic protection

Vessels, pipelines and tanks which are used to store or transport liquids can also be protected from corrosion on their internal surfaces by the use of cathodic protection. ICCP and galvanic systems can be used. A common application of internal cathodic protection is water storage tanks and power plant shell and tube heat exchangers.

Galvanized steel

Galvanizing generally refers to hot-dip galvanizing which is a way of coating steel with a layer of metallic zinc or tin. Galvanized coatings are quite durable in most environments because they combine the barrier properties of a coating with some of the benefits of cathodic protection. If the zinc coating is scratched or otherwise locally damaged and steel is exposed, the surrounding areas of zinc coating form a galvanic cell with the exposed steel and protect it from corrosion. This is a form of localized cathodic protection - the zinc acts as a sacrificial anode.

Galvanizing, while using the electrochemical principle of cathodic protection, is not actually cathodic protection. Cathodic protection requires the anode to be separate from the metal surface to be protected, with an ionic connection through the electrolyte and an electron connection through a connecting cable, bolt or similar. This means that any area of the protected structure within the electrolyte can be protected, whereas in the case of galvanizing, only areas very close to the zinc are protected. Hence, a larger area of bare steel would only be protected around the edges.

Automobiles

Several companies market electronic devices claiming to mitigate corrosion for automobiles and trucks. Corrosion control professionals find they do not work. There is no peer reviewed scientific testing and validation supporting the use of the devices. In 1996 the FTC ordered David McCready, a person that sold devices claiming to protect cars from corrosion, to pay restitution and banned the names "Rust Buster" and "Rust Evader."

Testing

Electrode potential is measured with reference electrodes. Copper-copper sulphate electrodes are used for structures in contact with soil or fresh water. Silver/silver chloride/seawater electrodes or pure zinc electrodes are used for seawater applications. The methods are described in EN 13509:2003 and NACE TM0497 along with the sources of error in the voltage that appears on the display of the meter. Interpretation of electrode potential measurements to determine the potential at the interface between the anode of the corrosion cell and the electrolyte requires training and cannot be expected to match the accuracy of measurements done in laboratory work.

Problems

Production of hydrogen

A side effect of improperly applied cathodic protection is the production of atomic hydrogen, leading to its absorption in the protected metal and subsequent hydrogen embrittlement of welds and materials with high hardness. Under normal conditions, the atomic hydrogen will combine at the metal surface to create hydrogen gas, which cannot penetrate the metal. Hydrogen atoms, however, are small enough to pass through the crystalline steel structure, and lead in some cases to hydrogen embrittlement.

Cathodic disbonding

This is a process of disbondment of protective coatings from the protected structure (cathode) due to the formation of hydrogen ions over the surface of the protected material (cathode). Disbonding can be exacerbated by an increase in alkali ions and an increase in cathodic polarization. The degree of disbonding is also reliant on the type of coating, with some coatings affected more than others. Cathodic protection systems should be operated so that the structure does not become excessively polarized, since this also promotes disbonding due to excessively negative potentials. Cathodic disbonding occurs rapidly in pipelines that contain hot fluids because the process is accelerated by heat flow.

Cathodic shielding

Effectiveness of cathodic protection (CP) systems on steel pipelines can be impaired by the use of solid film backed dielectric coatings such as polyethylene tapes, shrinkable pipeline sleeves, and factory applied single or multiple solid film coatings. This phenomenon occurs because of the high electrical resistivity of these film backings. Protective electric current from the cathodic protection system is blocked or shielded from reaching the underlying metal by the highly resistive film backing. Cathodic shielding was first defined in the 1980s as being a problem, and technical papers on the subject have been regularly published since then.

A 1999 report concerning a 20,600 bbl (3,280 m3) spill from a Saskatchewan crude oil line contains an excellent definition of the cathodic shielding problem:

"The triple situation of disbondment of the (corrosion) coating, the dielectric nature of the coating and the unique electrochemical environment established under the exterior coating, which acts as a shield to the electrical CP current, is referred to as CP shielding. The combination of tenting and disbondment permits a corrosive environment around the outside of the pipe to enter into the void between the exterior coating and the pipe surface. With the development of this CP shielding phenomenon, impressed current from the CP system cannot access exposed metal under the exterior coating to protect the pipe surface from the consequences of an aggressive corrosive environment. The CP shielding phenomenon induces changes in the potential gradient of the CP system across the exterior coating, which are further pronounced in areas of insufficient or sub-standard CP current emanating from the pipeline's CP system. This produces an area on the pipeline of insufficient CP defense against metal loss aggravated by an exterior corrosive environment."

Cathodic shielding is referenced in a number of the standards listed below. Newly issued USDOT regulation Title 49 CFR 192.112, in the section for Additional design requirements for steel pipe using alternative maximum allowable operating pressure requires that "The pipe must be protected against external corrosion by a non-shielding coating" (see coatings section on standard). Also, the NACE SP0169:2007 standard defines shielding in section 2, cautions against the use of materials that create electrical shielding in section 4.2.3, cautions against use of external coatings that create electrical shielding in section 5.1.2.3, and instructs readers to take 'appropriate action' when the effects of electrical shielding of cathodic protection current are detected on an operating pipeline in section 10.9.

Standards

  • 49 CFR 192.451 - Requirements for Corrosion Control - Transportation of natural and other gas by pipeline: US minimum federal safety standards
  • 49 CFR 195.551 - Requirements for Corrosion Control - Transportation of hazardous liquids by pipelines: US minimum federal safety standards
  • AS 2832 - Australian Standards for Cathodic Protection
  • ASME B31Q 0001-0191
  • ASTM G 8, G 42 - Evaluating Cathodic Disbondment resistance of coatings
  • DNV-RP-B401 - Cathodic Protection Design - Det Norske Veritas
  • EN 12068:1999 - Cathodic protection. External organic coatings for the corrosion protection of buried or immersed steel pipelines used in conjunction with cathodic protection. Tapes and shrinkable materials
  • EN 12473:2000 - General principles of cathodic protection in sea water
  • EN 12474:2001 - Cathodic protection for submarine pipelines
  • EN 12495:2000 - Cathodic protection for fixed steel offshore structures
  • EN 12499:2003 - Internal cathodic protection of metallic structures
  • EN 12696:2012 - Cathodic protection of steel in concrete
  • EN 12954:2001 - Cathodic protection of buried or immersed metallic structures. General principles and application for pipelines
  • EN 13173:2001 - Cathodic protection for steel offshore floating structures
  • EN 13174:2001 - Cathodic protection for "Harbour Installations".
  • EN 13509:2003 - Cathodic protection measurement techniques
  • EN 13636:2004 - Cathodic protection of buried metallic tanks and related piping
  • EN 14505:2005 - Cathodic protection of complex structures
  • EN 15112:2006 - External cathodic protection of well casing
  • EN 15280-2013 - Evaluation of a.c. corrosion likelihood of buried pipelines
  • EN 50162:2004 - Protection against corrosion by stray current from direct current systems
  • BS 7361-1:1991 - Cathodic Protection
  • NACE SP0169:2013 - Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
  • NACE TM 0497 - Measurement Techniques Related to Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems

Inequality (mathematics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality...