dialogue for short film - about scientists creating a vaccine (Jan/08/2010 )

Hey everyone,

So I am not a scientist whatsoever, but I wrote a short film that's going into production about scientists developing a vaccine. I looked up some language from studies, and it all sounds great to me, but I'm sure, of course, it'll have you all rolling your eyes at its inaccuracies. So I thought I'd show you guys, to see if you can point out if anything is incorrect, and how I should change it. Even pointing out something you would only say that in a study and not in real life would be awesome. I am, however, trying to make it as complicated and incomprehensible sounding to a layperson as possible.

I will, of course, list anyone and everyone I take advice from in the credits as consultants.

Here's the dialogue:

If the anti-PAV antibodies show a poly-specificity for non-neutralizing, linear epitopes, then they’ll increase the plasma viremia.
(Note: I made up "PAV" as the name of the fictional virus.)

Name of a study that's mentioned: Immunogenicity of Receptor 9 Agonist Vaccine for Postherpetic Neuralgia

When I started the stochastic activation of CD4 T cells, the latency was overcome by the Tat-mediated transactivation of the LTR, so the virus gene transcription and production of infection-competent viral particles reconstituted the viral reservoir.


Thanks a bunch!!

ricketybridge on Jan 8 2010, 07:36 PM said:

Hey ricketybridge........they're good cos even I didn't understand them......so is this to poke fun at the scientists or the laymen.....

hey rb.. u gona give a "invented by u" dictionary free along with the tiket to ur film??!!!
forget layman... even the noble laureate might take sum time to grasp wat is being said here!!!

Is your intent to be accurate in the dialog, or to be humorous?

Hey guys, thanks for reading.

Casandra: It pokes fun at both, I guess. More specifically, it makes fun of how whenever movies mention anything scientific, it's completely watered down, and yet how funny it would be if they weren't and the audience of lay-people had no idea what was going on. I told the whole idea to one of my friends who's a doctoral student in neuroscience, and he thought it was funny and wasn't offended, so I'm pretty confident I'm not being mean to scientists or anything.

Pradeep: Interesting. I guess you guys speak a little more casually in the lab then? At least I'll be able to get away with any inaccuracies then. ;-)

I am worried, however, that the reason you guys don't understand it is because it's complete gibberish...

HomeBrew: The intent is to be humorous, which is why I'll keep these lines totally incomprehensible, even if that doesn't exactly reflect reality. But beyond that, I would like to maintain accuracy as much as possible. No reason to have something stupid in there, like, say, mentioning something about viruses that can only be applied to bacteria.

Thanks for the feedback, guys!!!

Hey ricketybridge,

Nope, we're also not offended but we usually don't speak that way in the lab and if you do, you'd get beaten up for sure . For regular, work-related discussions, we may throw in a few words like epitopes, transactivation, immunogenecity, latency, (the "stochastic" meaning, I had to double-check tho) now and again but strung together as yours are--you'd probably only read the likes of those in journal articles or hear them delivered during seminars whose target audience are people in the know or with the background....otherwise, it's just kind of a parody.

Can I just ask what the film is for--is it a course project or for pedagogic or entertainment/commercial purposes?

1. Antibodies, not epitopes, are neutralizing or not -- epitopes are the targets to which antibodies bind.

2. Antibodies are not poly-specific -- they each recognize a specific target. If you have a solution of antibodies and they're all the same, they will all recognize the same target (or epitope). You can, however, have a poly-specific mixture of antibodies, a mixture in which all the antibodies are not the same; this type of antibody mixture (called a polyclonal mixture) contains antibodies targeted to many epitopes, and thus can be described as having poly-specificity.

3. Antibodies can not cause an increase in plasma viremia, but they can stop an increase from happening. Plasma viremia can increase, for example, if the antibodies are ineffective against the virus (one could call such antibodies non-neutralizing).

Re-write:

If the poly-specific anti-PAV antibodies targeted against the linear epitopes are non-neutralizing, an increase in the plasma viremia will result.

casandra on Jan 10 2010, 08:08 PM said:

lol. Pretty funny. This isn't for school; it's just a short my brother and I came up with, and a couple of my friends were interested in shooting it. The goal is to post it online. So yeah, definitely for entertainment purposes.

HomeBrew: Thanks SOOO much!!! That's perfect! If you want to be listed in the credits as a consultant, just PM me your name! (Unless you want to be credited as "HomeBrew" haha.)

Okay, a slight complication:

I was going for a revelation rather than a statement of fact with that line (about the poly-specific antibodies). So I was thinking of: "If the plasma viremia is increasing, then that means the antibodies are non-neutralizing," but that doesn't seem that shocking; it's seems more like a statement of fact. Based on your explanation, if the plasma viremia increases, it's automatically obvious that the antibodies must be non-neutralizing and there'd really be no need to state that, right?

So... is there something I can say that's a more like a discovery? In lay-person speak, something like, "If we're getting x result, then y must be happening," but not something that's inherently obvious.

Any ideas?

Thanks again.

Reverse the tense?

The poly-specific anti-PAV antibodies targeted against the linear epitopes are neutralizing -- the plasma viremia is decreasing!

If you want to mention us, credit the members of the BioForum at www.protocol-online.org...