Is it possible to inject animals' antibody into human? Does it work without complications?
86937
Yes. In some cases it is required that a person be given antibodies raised in an animal. This is called passive immunization.\n\nRead more about it in the source link
538154
Won't work--but not for the reasons most of the other people think.\n\nImmune rejection should not be a problem--after all normal babies are immunogenically different from their mothers and they aren't attacked by her immune system.  While antibodies can cross the placental barrier, antigen presenting cells can't.  In order for the body to mount a specific immune response, an antigen presenting cell has to encounter the foreign antigen first.  As long as the implantation process is done right, that should never happen.\n\nThe real reason it would fail is that in utero development depends on more than just oxygen and glucose (otherwise we could grow babies in jars).  The mother produces hormones that influence the baby's development on a strict timeline.  Different species have different gestational requirements.  Closely related species might be able to bring a baby to full term, but it would probably be developmentally "challenged."
812140
Hi, i have had dogs all my life, they  have been around me and my kids when we have had the flu and the cold over and over again and they never got sick, i don't think that a dog can get the flu or the cold from a human ,,, but there is a flu or cold they could catch , they get  fever, runny nose and a cough ,, very contagious between dogs that is called kennel cough .and the dog gets very sick that requires to be seen by a vet,,just call a vet or shelter and ask them,, its just a question that they should be able to give you some kind answer that you can be sure ..\ngood luck\nLeena
1087354
No the only thing you can catch from animals is you can get AIDS from monkeys anything from dogs and cats your safe or they are safe.
561843
The most interesting question of the day, so I had to do some research. While I thought it was impossible because of the antigens present in blood types, this article seems to indicate that it can be done. That sure will relieve blood supply issues.
245917
Sadly, many animal rights groups would lead you to believe that animals are exposed to anything and everything. In reality, any compound intended to be used on human skin is extensively tested in labs prior to being tested on animals. They check everything from basic corrosive properties to chemical interactions. Scientists are not out there spraying concetrated Nitric Acid into rabbits eyes out of curiosity.\n\nThe actual animal testing is done only if they already have a resonable expectation that it would be OK. Further more, once animal testing is done, they also do human testing as a final verification prior to gaining approval for public use.
489439
The short answer is that it is virtually impossible.\n\nThe example you are citing is quite an unusual case in which Corynebacterium diphtheriae produces diphtheria  toxin only when it is infected by a particular phage β, and this is because the toxin-encoding gene is carried by the phage (bacteria targetted virus) and not Corynebacterium diphtheriae itself.\n\nThe phage gains entry to a cell in the same way as any virus - by adhering to, and using to it's advantage particular surface proteins.  This is why HIV can only infect helper T-cells - it gets in by adhering to the CD4 receptor which is specific to these cells.  If any other cell in the body expressed this receptor, they too would be vulnerable to HIV infection.  But they don't.\n\nSo HIV can only infect cells expressing CD4.  So why is it only VIRTUALLY impossible, and not COMPLETELY impossible?  Well, because HIV is a retrovirus, so relies on the Reverse Transcriptase enzyme to replicate it's genome.  The replication is so poor, that mutation occurs on a MASSIVE scale.  A person infected with HIV will typically have 10,000 strains of the same virus!!  As it mutates so quickly, it is argueably just a matter of time before it randomly acquires the ability to infect a bacterium which will after all be more likely to be present in the body of an individual who is immunocompromised with HIV in the first place.\n\nNote:\nThe answer above stating that the HIV virus has an RNA-based genome is true, but completely irrelevant.  Most virusus use RNA rather than DNA, and this has no bearing on their capacity for lysogenic conversion.
13027
There is no vaccine for it and low resistance. People who are weak will die more easily. It is not 100% fatal, just very severe.\nThe real danger may be that it could reduce the population of birds, both domestic and wild.  The damage to food production could be very bad.
313098
You can\n\n1) Not do anything\n\n2) Bring the cat in for testing for rabies - realize that this sometimes means destroying the cat, since they need a brain tissue specimen\n\n3) Just observe the cat - realize this means if the cat does develop further symptoms of rabies, then you have not had any treatment and vaccinations done for it during this time and the virus could be incubating nicely in you\n\n4) Get the prophylaxis shot and vaccination series.\n\nWith a stray cat that you don't know the rabies status of, I would recommend post-exposure prophylaxis to be on the safe side. Of course the decision is yours and you need to be aware of the risks and benefits.\n\nThe prophylaxis involves an injection of immunoglobulins (antibodies) specific for the rabies virus. Half of it is injected in those bite sites in your hand and the other half is injected in the arm on the opposite side of where you get the vaccinations.\n\nThe vaccination requires a series of 5 shots over the course of a month with the first shot being that first visit. Neither the immunoglobulins nor the vaccination series is administered by shots in the abdomen.\n\nRealize that the tetanus shot is just a booster shot. If you are not immune to tetanus already, it will help you develop immunity, but not in time to treat tetanus if you caught it from this bite.\n\nThe choice of antibiotics is a bit off. The antibiotic of choice for animal bites is Augmentin which is a combination medication of amoxicillin and clavulanic acid. Amoxicillin by itself is insufficient treatment as there are several strains of bacteria that require the additional activity conferred by the clavulanic acid part. The two together work synergistically to treat infections caused by those. However, Augmentin does tend to be a bit pricey. \n\nChances are, you probably won't get rabies or tetanus, but you should watch the wound very carefully for signs of infection. One of the bacteria involved with cat bites (cat have long sharp teeth which act to inoculate any bacteria deep within your tissue) is Pasturella multocida which can be particularly bad and can develop very quickly over the course of the day. If you start seeing increased redness, swelling or purulent discharge from any of the wounds or you develop a fever, go to the ER immediately - you will need to get a course of antibiotics intravenously and may even need to stay in the hospital to make sure it does not get worse. Definitely get that medication switched to the Augmentin to be on the safe side. While the amoxicillin will cover the Pasturella aspect of the infection, it does not cover infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus, and may require a second medication with the amoxicillin (like cephalexin) or switching to the Augmentin.\n\nThe reliability of doctors depends a lot on the kind of training they have. I do not feel many doctors necessarily know what is medically appropriate nor keep up with developments in medicine. Do not automatically assume they know everything including a doc-in-a-box (urgent care clinic docs).
1157320
Not too sure i can give a firm answer for this... see the website below for some good resources\n\nhttp://www.awionline.org/lab_animals/rhesus/Pho-ref.htm
189212
Yes.\n\nThis site talks about blood groups in cattle:\n\n"Eleven blood groups have been recognised in cattle - some are simple with only one antigen presented, whilst others are more complicated"\n\nWhat, you thought humans would be unique? =)
1102024
The immunoglobulins present in the breast milk are passed on to the baby through passive immunity, meaning that whatever immunoglobulins the mother has aquired through the years will be passed on to her child and then the child will also be protected. As for AIDS patients and breast milk I'm not sure that it would work since 1. you would have to have many willing mothers to donate breast milk 2. i'm not sure that many AIDS patients would be willing to drink the milk and 3. even though a patient has AIDS they more than likely have all the immunoglobulins present that a person w/o AIDS would have. Also in order for the AIDS patient to receive immunoglobulins against AIDS (which I don't think have been isolated or even exist), the mother would have to have been exposed to AIDS herself in order for an antibody to be produced against it to be passed on through the milk.
987183
Absolutely..It could be transmitted to other animal,but I may lie you if I tell you that I am sure 100% that your pig is infected(bear in mind that sometimes the symptoms can be seen after period even of weeks)..So better a vet to take some blood samples from the pig or other animals just for your security.In our neighbour countries were observed such cases,but no one says with 100%  ceratainty which is the exact mechanism of infecting..Good luck!!I am crossgingering for you!!
172157
Not usually.\nOnce we have recovered from a bacterial or viral infection our body's defense system can very quickly protect us against a second attack - this is 'natural immunity'.\nWe make use of this mechanism in immunisation by injecting (usually) weakened or inactive microbes (or part of a microbe) which creates an immune response - production of antibodies. We are immune to future attacks.\n\nA second dose of a disease is unlikely but possible - I have had measles twice!\nScarlet fever is easily treated with antibiotics, though I've had this too. It is not pleasant.\n\nHave a look here:
272918
We may be able to. There is a noval process known as RNAi.\n\nUsing RNAi in mice we have been able to destroy the genome of HIV and Hepatitus C viruses. This is amazing. Once we figured out a way to get it into a persons infected cells, we may well be able to cure a virus infection. It'll take many yearsn though, but watch this space.\n\nThe futures bright, the futures RNAi
261923
Since Isolagen is an autologous system (exclusively using patient's own cells) there is a substantially reduced possibility of allergic reaction. No animal or foreign products are present in the cryovial containing patient cells.\nThe Isolagen process eliminates the chance of infection or rejection by using only the patients own cells. \n\nNo significant adverse effects were reported in Isolagen clinical trials. A few patients reported some minor reactions to the injection including redness and swelling which resolved itself within days. \n\nTo date Isolagen has treated over 2800 patients with over 6000 injections being administered. Isolagen has not had one serious adverse event. To date, more than 1700 patients and more than 3500 injections have been treated in the UK. There have been 0 serious adverse events reported.
1081778
No.  If it was possible, don't you think there's be a bunch of little monsters (literally) running around.\n\nHuman and animal sperm and egg are incompatible.  For example, sperm from a horse or a dog or something is incapable of fertilizing a human egg.  Thus, no child is born.\n\nA human egg is designed to only accept human sperm.  Animal sperm couldn't penetrate into the egg even if they wanted to, without specialised scientific equipment.  At the same time, human sperm is designed to only be able to penetrate a human egg, and does not posess the qualities necessary to get into an animal egg.\n\nThe only species that can cross breed are a horse and a donkey, which creates a mule.  However, mules are sterile, which means they are incapable of creating thier own offspring.\n\n\n\n\nOh, and as a response to the first answer, scientists HAVE found a way that they believe would work, but have deemed it unethical, and illegal to experiment further.  Why on Earth would we want to purposefully create little freaks for anyway?