Norwegian version of this page

Influenza and adaptive immunity

“We know even less about the immune system as compared to the virus, so clearly, that is where my focus should be”.


Gunnveig Grødeland, head of P1H, explores the understanding of the interaction between a virus and a host. Furthermore, she works on the use of vaccination to modulate immune responses to achieve optimal protection against new and emerging viruses. 

A professor standing in front of a blank wall

Prof. Gunnveig Grødeland, Leader of P1H. Photo: Julie Boelen

The Centre for Pandemics and One-health Research (P1H) aims to conduct a series of interviews, ‘P1H Coffee break’, with researchers to raise understanding and awareness regarding the field of pandemics and One-health.

What motivated you to do research on this topic?

The lack of knowledge. First it was viruses in itself that caught my attention. You have this small particle that can bring down people, society, and create a lot of problems. But it's so simple in its structure. It consists of just a protein coat and some genetic material, and that is the virus. And still, we do not understand it. For me that was the starting point, and then, when I studied a bit more, I found out that my interest really was on what happens as a virus is entering our immune system. 

We know even less about the immune system as compared to the virus, so clearly, that is where my focus should be. The reason why influenza ended up as my main research model is because this is a virus that we have studied since the 1930s. You would think we knew a lot about it, and we indeed have a lot of models with it, reagents for it. But still, there is a lot we do not understand. It is a good model in which we can also actually get information about also different viruses and their interaction with our immune system. I think that is why I am in the field that I am. 

What is the aim of the research?

There are many aims, but first, I would hope that we can understand the interaction between the virus and the host for our immune system better, and that we can use vaccines or other therapeutics to modulate immune responses to meet specifically the kind of protection we need against a given virus. If we can get there, and also make sure that we consider the fact that the population is heterogeneous so people do not necessarily need the same type of protection against the given virus, then I think we have come a long way.

Why is this topic important?

If you first look at the interaction between a virus and a host, it is important to understand the general principles better. In terms of pandemics, we do not know which virus is going to hit us next. We know that we have viruses in plants, in birds and in mammals. The plant viruses are likely not a concern for us, but those in birds and mammals might be. We do not know all that is out there, so we might be facing the unknown sooner than we would like. The more knowledge we have on that general interaction, the better prepared we will be. 

For influenza specifically, we have now a lot of concerning transmissions between mammals with H5 influenza virus. Bird influenza has also been considered to be the most likely pandemic candidate for the past 20-ish years. So, it is important to also be prepared for that, for the novel types of influenza viruses that might reach the human population and that we have never been exposed to before. There are many reasons why this is an important topic.

Would you say that there is a bigger interest or more funding in research on adaptive immunity after the COVID-19 pandemic?

I would say surprisingly no. I fear that the reason might be that people think we learned so much about vaccines and viruses during the pandemic. We indeed learned a lot about SARS-CoV-2 and coronaviruses. We used mRNA vaccines for the general population for the first time, but different mRNA vaccines were evaluated in clinical trials years before the pandemic, so were not exactly a novel concept. I think people have an exaggerated picture of what it is that we learned and what we know. The matter is, if it is a truly unknown virus that emerges the next time, we really do not have a good starting point. So yes, I think surprisingly, the funding situation has not improved. On the other hand, I don't want funding specifically on this topic. I want basic funding for basic science because that is really what we need. We need to understand the basics, and then we can compete with good applications. So that is most important for me and also one of my “pet peeves”. 

How are studies on pandemics or one- health related to your field of research?

It is spot on, but I think maybe a question is, why do I want to take a broader angle? My main interest is what the immune system does, the virus, and biology.  I have also learned during the years that I can make super cool vaccines, but that is not going to matter unless I also understand how to use them in the population. Unless I understand how to communicate their use to the population, and unless the population trusts my information, the government's information, and whatever is needed to actually use these vaccines. So that also means that I must have a broader angle on my research, and this is why the Pandemic Centre(P1H) is perfect. 

I think there are a lot of interesting topics regarding the psychology of individuals now and in the aftermath of the pandemic, where I am sure that more and more key cases of suspected adverse events will appear. Many of them will probably not be related to the vaccine at all, but some of them might be. But that does not matter. Whatever is the actual cause of suspected adverse events, it is going to spin out in social media as a potential harmful vaccination campaign. This is potentially going to reduce trust in a larger part of the population than we have experienced before in Norway. That is something we should be very mindful of. I think also there are a lot of legal questions that we should be addressing a bit further. How can we maintain democracy in a situation where we are forced to use measures that are not really traditionally democratic? There is a lot to look at there. So, there is so much to understand to be better prepared the next time.

How would you describe your research in three words?

I would say the first word is fun, because that is why we are doing it.
I think the second one would be unknown, because it is the unknown that makes us curious, and that is what we are attacking. The third word is maybe a bit counterintuitive to the first, because I would say applicable, in the sense that at some point I would also like my research to benefit society. 

Thank you to Gunnveig for participating in this interview. Check out our Instagram at @unioslo_cp1h to see snippets of the interview. 

Published May 28, 2024 1:15 PM - Last modified May 28, 2024 2:32 PM