Future bright for K-State’s bioscience center

In recent weeks scientists converged on farms in the Philippines to study the first recorded case of Ebola virus in pigs. Ebola virus is best known for striking monkeys and humans in the Congo of Africa.
Meanwhile, avian bird flu has resurfaced in Southeast Asia in response to the return of cold, wet weather. Nearly 400 human cases of bird flu have been confirmed since 2003, and tens of thousands of birds have been killed to contain it. The strain that inflicts humans mainly kills animals, but scientists fear it could mutate into a form that would allow it to jump more easily from human to human, potentially sparking a global pandemic.
Both viruses represent exactly the kind of deadly agent — or “fatal virus without cure” — that would be studied in a new top level National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility recently landed by Kansas State University after an extensive two-year selection process.
A U.S. Department of Agriculture laboratory in New York analyzed the swine samples that turned up with the Ebola strain. Ironically, while the disease was identified in the U.S., there is domestically no secure research lab capable of doing research on this potentially dangerous pathogen, points out Jürgen Richt, a regents distinguished professor of veterinary medicine, specialist in emerging viral diseases and lLead iInvestigator  of the animal facility forof K-State’s level three Biosecurity Research Institute.
That is why he is among those who cheered the recent announcement that the university will add the new national defense lab to its existing livestock disease and food safety facilities which combined are transforming the “Little Apple” into one of the world’s leading animal health and bioresearch centers.
“I am excited about having a BSL-4 facility (the highest level of bio-containment) in this part of the country,” Richt said. “I have long said that we have to build a facility like this and as soon as possible, and also that it must be properly operated and maintained.”
Identifying the threats
Originally from a farm in Southern Germany, Richt climbed through the scientific ranks to join the front lines in the war against some of the world’s most frightening livestock diseases. He’s the key scientist who helped identify the first U.S. case of BSE found in an imported cow from Canada during his tenure at the National Animal Disease Center, a part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in Ames, Iowa, back in late 2003. Later, in 2005, he identified the first indigenous case of BSE in a cow from Texas. The samples from that cow were initially thought to be negative, but Richt’s positive findings were later verified by a BSE reference lab in Weybridge, England. He also distinguished it as an “atypical” rather than “genetic” case of BSE, proving that the potentially pathogenic protein can spring up spontaneously. The cow passed along the same genetic mutation to her calf.
The significance of his finding is that BSE could occur anywhere in the world, including countries that have been officially designated as BSE-free, so control measures are needed worldwide.
“If we have these ‘atypical’ BSE cases popping up here and there and we don’t have our mitigations in place, we will have another BSE epidemic somewhere,” Richt said at the time his results were announced.
While in Iowa, he proved it is possible to eliminate the at-risk gene for prion diseases from the cattle population using genetic manipulation. In collaboration with Hematech Inc of Sioux Falls, S.D., he made cattle resistant to diseases such as BSE by “knocking out” the gene encoding the critical prion protein.
He has also been doing some work on highly contagious human and animal flu viruses such as bird flu and the 1918 Spanish flu, although he has to travel to Canada to do it. The nearest qualified research facility in North America is the National Center for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg, Canada.
“I work with these agents now,” he said. “The only difference is I have to do my work in Canada.”
Carrying out a strategic vision
Last spring Richt was lured to Kansas State University to play an important role in the operation of the state-of-the-art $54 million Biosecurity Research Institute — which is expected to become fully operational as a level three facility within months. In addition to common bovine scourges like BSE and Foot and Mouth Disease, the facility is designed to target threats like rift valley fever, anthrax, avian bird flu and SARS.
The center’s creation was part of the university’s strategic vision that pre-dates 9/11, back when terms like bioterrorism and biosecurity were barely a blip on the public’s radar screen.
It’s a much different world today, and the university is now well positioned to capitalize. In addition to the threat of agriculture-related bioterrorism, so-called “zoonotic” diseases — the ones that can be transmitted from animals to humans and vice versa — are a huge concern globally.
The Ebola virus is one such example. A disease of humans and monkeys, its recent discovery in Philippine pigs leads researchers to believe that a detailed knowledge of where and how the pigs contracted it will help to protect people against one of the most-feared infectious diseases.
It might also be critical to protecting the swine industry. The recent outbreak dealt a blow to Philippine plans to build a pork export industry. The government halted an inaugural shipment of frozen pork to Singapore and quarantined three swine farms following the discovery. And while pig Ebola is not considered a dangerous pathogen now, circumstances could change.
Richt, who launched his new K-State laboratory by hosting a symposium on emerging infections made up of researchers and clinicians from as far away as Japan, Israel, The Netherlands, Italy, France and Scotland back in November, said the focus now is on increasing the interaction between medical, veterinary, academic and government institutions to ensure early detection and prevention of animal diseases that could eventually jump to people.
Richt’s laboratory is prepared to play back-up as the existing Plum Island facility, built in 1954, transitions to a modern new replacement in Manhattan which is slated for completion in 2014.
Fears exist about placing such a high security lab within a 350-mile radius of nearly half the nation’s fed cattle, 40 percent of its hogs and 20 percent of the beef cows and calves. In August 2007, when foot and mouth disease virus escaped from a vaccine lab in England and contaminated a neighboring farm, it further highlighted the risks for area farmers. Herds were depopulated and cattle sales were impeded.
Some have questioned the wisdom of moving the Plum Island facility off of a physical island requiring a boat to reach it. Richt, on the other hand, said relying on a natural barrier for safety is a 20th century approach to 21st century challenges.
He concedes that risks are impossible to eradicate entirely, no matter what site is chosen. He points out that if foot and mouth disease drifted out of the lab in Winnipeg, Canada, it could be in North Dakota within hours.
According to an environmental impact study required to site the lab, Central Kansas does carry an elevated risk compared to some other locations. A loss estimate on an unintentional release of the FMD virus is $4.2 billion for Manhattan compared to $2.8 billion for Plum Island, $3.35 billion for Athens, Ga., or $4.1 billion for San Antonio, other sites that had been under consideration.
But in each case, the bulk of that loss — about $3.1 billion — occurs nationally no matter where the lab is sited and is pegged to the prospect of overseas trade embargoes on beef exports.
“If such an outbreak were to occur, livestock and meat commerce, trade, and movement would be halted,” explains Ted Schroeder, a K-State professor of agricultural economics who has modeled the financial impact of an FMD outbreak. “That represents a very, very expensive endeavor.”
With the high volumes of livestock shipments, any disease will greatly disrupt commerce no matter where the problem originates. Despite continuing criticism of the site selection among some cattle industry members, others are treating it as a necessary trade-off.
“Whether in Kansas, North Carolina or Georgia, it has to be built somewhere,” Richt said.
The risks come with some significant monetary benefits. In an increasingly troubled economy, the $450-plus million dollar investment the NBAF represents is no small thing, Richt insists.
“It will give the agricultural community around here a chance for sustainable growth and survival,” he said. “If there is only one sibling who can make a living on the farm, then at least a brother or sister can stay in the area. That way you have a support system. This will create high paying quality jobs so someone can still make a living and be part of an agriculture community.”
He said the key to safety is to make sure any such facility is properly built and maintained, and “we need to have people in charge who know how to work safely in high containment facilities.”
Adequate long-term financial support for the program will be absolutely essential, he adds.
Generally speaking, federal budget tightening and declining support of agricultural research is already a concern for the industry.