Infectious Diseases, Immune System and Vaccines

Since ancient times the causes of severe infectious diseases in humans have been puzzling to people. Specifically, the recurrence of outbreaks, the severity of outcomes after infection ranging from permanent sequelae to premature death as well as the large impact in numbers in human populations have created the need to search for ways to learn about and prevent them. By continuous observations and through trial and error, civilizations were able to identify and distinguish the common features of certain infectious diseases and so to differentiate one from each other. Once fairly identified, people have been searching for effective and disease-specific ways to prevent them. It is in this search for prevention how vaccines appeared as tools against the nasty outcomes of infection. In this essay I will attempt a brief review of concepts related to how the immune system and vaccines work, and some key events in vaccine development.

Infectious diseases with severe outcomes in humans are several and new diseases  continuously appearing. Yet, using the particular causes or the origins of infectious diseases, they can broadly be classified into four groups: bacterial, viral, parasitic and fungi. Among these causes, there are not yet vaccines against any parasite or fungus causing severe disease in humans. Among all those diseases caused by bacteria or viruses only a few of them have a vaccine to prevent humans from their burden. Even less, the available vaccines are only against a few strains, serotypes or serogroups of a given bacterium or virus. Therefore, the number of pathogens (bacteria and viruses) that could cause severe infectious diseases in humans is several times larger than the number of vaccines we have against them. 

In general, bacterial and viral diseases are often grouped as pathogens causing diseases      

Humans have been exposed to environments full of dangerous pathogens. These continuous exposure to pathogens caused outbreaks and diseases. The threat of infection requires response from human bodies and so the human body often reacts and fights the attacks of pathogens using an innate nonspecific immunity level, which is part of the immunity system. This is often called “primary response” which occurs following the first exposure to a foreign agent. If the response is quick and effective, the infection will be contained or eliminated. Sometimes, however, the response fails so infection would cause a disease.  This could happen when the human body’s immunity is low and/or when the pathogen has a virulence to overcome the response, rapidly multiplying itself inside the human body and causing great damage to cells and tissues.     

When humans were or are able to survive and recover from certain infectious diseases, their bodies generate some specific level of immunity to reinfections. It is because the human bodies have an immune system which is essential for our survival and where some specific memory about previous infections is stored and keeps the defense abreast.  Specifically, that specific memory set in the immune system works as a first line of defense when potential reinfections with the same pathogens happen. Sometimes, such memory could wane in time and so make humans again susceptible to infection and disease; other times, exposure to the same pathogen would boost a decaying specific immunity and keep the protection against the attack of that pathogen high. Another important reason for humans becoming susceptible again is when the specific pathogen mutates and evolves, becoming unidentifiable and so making useless the previous specific memory of protection in our immune system.   

Among all types of pathogens, the new or foreign ones of great concern are those that cause severe disease and often overwhelm the immune system by making their response slow and ineffective. Often are those that cause a heavy disease burden in the human population with plenty of sequelae or death. One way to prepare the immune system to such rapid and virulent attacks and to build a defense against them is with vaccines.  Although there are different types of vaccines even against the same pathogen, in general all of them work like sparring for box or combat fighters; namely, as a sparring does, a vaccine safely and effectively stimulates the immune system, trains its rapid response and prepares it to fight. Effective vaccines are often able to mimic some or all specific characteristics – also known as antigens– of the pathogen. To keep the training of the immune system safe, these antigens in the vaccine are often weakened or killed versions of the real pathogen. In average, during the first two weeks after vaccination, the vaccine is able to prime the immune system to respond fast and with force, should an infection with the particular pathogen in full strength happen in the future. Some refer to this process as programming of the immune system and to the rapid and specific response as “secondary response” or “vaccine-induced response.” An effective secondary response is often faster and with force in the production of pathogen-specific antibodies and in creating more cellular memory in the immune system for future attacks. Yet, vaccine’s protection also could wane with time or the specific pathogen could mutate and evolve. Similar to natural immunity that could also wane, vaccine immunity could also wane or become useless against new versions of the pathogen making human bodies susceptible again to infection.

From the first vaccine developed in 1796 to the latest Covid19 vaccine, they are considered one of the greatest achievements of modern medicine. Throughout the last three centuries, several developments ranging from the advances in laboratory techniques, the discoveries in germ theory, the introduction of attenuated toxins, the cultivation of viruses, the evolution of cell culture to the introduction of recombinant DNA and the whole genome sequencing techniques have allowed the development of different vaccines and enjoy the progress and benefits we see today from them. In general, diseases that have caused the highest burden in morbidity and mortality in societies have received more attention and resources from those interested in developing vaccines. 

Although vaccines have been an effective tool against infectious diseases, the development of each vaccine for a specific pathogen has often been a slow and research intensive process. Still, there were several attempts against some pathogens that did not end up with a safe and effective vaccine.  Vaccine development follows a rigorous scientific process focused primarily on safety and then on its effectiveness. All these processes should have a sound foundation on basic biology research, scientific discovery of vaccine candidates as viable proof of concept. This is the point when the application of the investigation of a new vaccine should be submitted. After approval, a three-phase clinical studies and trial begins.  

Roughly summarized, Phase I is focused on vaccine safety conducting trials in small groups of both animals and humans; phase II is focused on vaccine effectiveness trials in an increased number of humans. Phase III is one of the most important ones. In this phase, thousands of individuals are recruited and the sample distribution should be representative of the population where the vaccine will be targeted. Individuals are then randomly assigned to often two groups  – this is referred to as random control trials or RCT.  RCTs often have a control group not exposed to the vaccine (control) and a trial group that will be exposed to the vaccine (trial group). Except for the exposure to the candidate vaccine, it is expected that both groups have very similar demographics and clinical characteristics to avoid confounding factors. Then, both groups are followed and clinical and lab data collected. By comparing the rates of disease cases in the exposed group with those of the control group is how the vaccine safety and effectiveness are determined. If successfully safe and effective, the vaccine data is then submitted for analysis by independent institutions and then the vaccine is licensed and recommended.     

In the recent past, the research and development of new vaccines used to take about 15 to 20 years. However, thanks to more than three decades of advances in DNA sequencing and the stable production of proteins in human cells exposed to messenger RNA (mRNA), the research and development time has been reduced substantially and made possible the development of Covid19 vaccines in less than a year. Had the Covid19 pandemic occurred 30 years ago, we would have been in worse shape to control or prevent their consequences.  

Overall, human’s immune systems could rely on more effective and safe vaccines to prime their response against pathogens’ attacks. Yet, the burden of infectious diseases could only be partially reduced by vaccines. As mentioned above, among all those diseases caused by bacteria or viruses only a few of them have a vaccine to prevent humans from their burden and for those with a vaccine, the protection is often partial and may wane in time.   

 

*Note: All the ideas developed in this essay were based on the references listed below.  

References:

  1. “A Brief History of Vaccination.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/history-of-vaccination/a-brief-history-of-vaccination. 
  2. Coon, Lisa. “The History of Vaccines and How They’re Developed.” OSF HealthCare Blog, 11 Feb. 2022, https://www.osfhealthcare.org/blog/the-history-of-vaccines-and-how-theyre-developed/. 
  3. Diseases.” History of Vaccines RSS, https://historyofvaccines.org/diseases.
  4. Dolgin, Elie. “The Tangled History of Mrna Vaccines.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 14 Sept. 2021, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w. 
  5. Offit, Paul. “Developments by Year.” Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 20 Nov. 2014, https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-history/developments-by-year. 
  6. Saleh A, Qamar S, Tekin A, Singh R, Kashyap R. Vaccine Development Throughout History. Cureus. 2021 Jul 26;13(7):e16635. doi: 10.7759/cureus.16635. PMID: 34462676; PMCID: PMC8386248. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8386248/#:~:text=The%20first%20trials%20to%20develop,the%20United%20States%20in%201945. 
  7.  “U.S. Vaccine Safety – Overview, History, and How It Works.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 9 Sept. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/history/index.html. 
  8. “Vaccine Development, Testing, and Regulation.” History of Vaccines RSS, https://historyofvaccines.org/vaccines-101/how-are-vaccines-made/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation.

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.