TWiV 1165: What doesn’t kill us primes our macrophages

November 10, 2024

TWiV notes the passing of virologist Diane Griffin, first H5N1 influenza virus in US pigs, Innate immune control of influenza virus interspecies adaptation via IFITM3, and antiviral trained innate immunity in alveolar macrophages after SARS-CoV-2 infection reduces secondary influenza A virus disease.

Hosts: Vincent Racaniello, Alan Dove, Rich Condit, Kathy Spindler, and Brianne Barker

Click arrow to play
Download TWiV 1165 (63 MB .mp3, 105 min)
Subscribe (free): Apple PodcastsRSSemail

Become a patron of TWiV!

Links for this episode

Weekly Picks 1:21:01

AngelaSee a giant ‘ghost particle’ detector and more — October’s best science images
BrianneOctober 27 APoD: Bat nebula
DicksonNikon Small World Contest 2024 winners
KathyAAAS 150th anniversary video, celebrating scientists and Pew’s 2024 annual Trust in Science survey findings
Rich – Cats Basically Are a Liquid After All, Study Confirms
Alan – HHMI’s Beautiful Biology site
VincentEcoHealth Alliance Fights Back

Listener Picks

HunterDon’t stop me now: Queen’s Brian May on saving badgers — and the scientific method
AnneReasons to be cheerful

Intro music is by Ronald Jenkees

Send your virology questions and comments to twiv@microbe.tv

Content in this podcast should not be construed as medical advice.

The post TWiV 1165: What doesn’t kill us primes our macrophages first appeared on This Week in Virology.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

0 comments on “TWiV 1165: What doesn’t kill us primes our macrophages

  1. Jamison May 25, 2012

    Wow! This episode is bookmarked for relistening. I was really drawn into
    the scope and frank discussion of core concepts that literally run the
    world of science as I have come to know it. I have always admired
    Vincent and companies opinion regarding the need for openness and
    transparency of science, but
    even then I had no idea how incredibly dire the need was until it was
    ranked it terms that your average joe could digest. I assumed that the
    21st century system for funding, disseminating, and application of
    scientific research is primarily based on universally grounded
    principles itself and it appears that it is just not so. Competition is
    an essential tool for some areas of science, how much did we gain as an
    aside because Edison and Teslas ideas fought for supremacy? Never the
    less it can also cost us unmeasured leaps in human progress when we
    waste effort competing for the same end. Brilliant astronauts and
    cosmonauts died fruitlessly because governments define the benefits of
    competition as gospel rather then dynamic. Discouraging
    cooperation/collaboration of data amongst scientific experts is
    irrational far beyond sharing the vapid benefits of prestige and wealth a
    hundred times over. In words that make the most sense to a tax payer
    like me: why the hell isn’t the science of science based on the science
    of science? There is no shades of grey here… A scientist should
    believe that data and research is either open source or close minded,
    period.
     

    • funnycreature Feb 3, 2015

      Definitely one of the most eyeopening episodes yet! I’ll share expecting that nothing has changed yet…