Slashdot Mirror


Gene Found In Black Death Survivors Stops HIV

WindozeSux writes "According to research done by Dr. Stephen O'Brien, a mutated gene known as delta 32 found in Black Death survivor descendants, stops HIV in its tracks. In order to be immune both parents have to have the delta 32 gene. From the Article: 'In 1996, research showed that delta 32 prevents HIV from entering human cells and infecting the body. O'Brien thought this principle could be applied to the plague bacteria, which affects the body in a similar manner. To determine whether the Eyam plague survivors may have carried delta 32, O'Brien tested the DNA of their modern-day descendents...'"

12 of 477 comments (clear)

  1. It also gives a mighty hankerin' for... by gardyloo · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....brainnnzzzz.....

    1. Re:It also gives a mighty hankerin' for... by xaosflux · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I think so, Brain, but I find scratching just makes it worse."

  2. Re:This could be fantastic news by Quirk · · Score: 5, Informative
    Vacca is latin for cow. The milkmaidens who had contracted cow pox were found to be more immune to small pox. The first 'vaccine' amounted to guesstimating the number and severity of scratches to hatch onto someone's arm then scabs from cowpox were rubbed into the wounds.This took place in England.

    Initially few took up the practise. Interesting many clergymen dennounced the vaccine practise as sin. The clergy believed smallpox was god's design and all, even the children, who died of smallpox were decreed by god to so die. What finally turned the tide some years later was the adoption of the vaccine practise by a high ranking member of the British aristocracy. She (her name and title don't immediately come to mind) had her children vaccinated. The strong british caste system was momentum enough to swing favour toward vaccination.

    --
    "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
    Cohen
  3. Re:Old news by geraint-nz · · Score: 5, Informative

    yes it's very old news, found this at http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi76.htm -

    The August 7, 1998, German daily, Die Welt, contained an article by Susanne Horst
    "Zehn Prozent der Europaeer sind vor Aids geschuetzt", summarizing the genetic findings of the national cancer center in Chicago as presented by molecular biologist Stephen J. O'Brien.

    Human Gene Mutation CCR-5-delta-32

    There is apparently a human gene mutation, "Mutation CCR-5-delta-32", which makes its holders nearly immune to AIDS, since this gene has no receptor for AIDS-similar viruses.

    Whoever has inherited this gene from BOTH parents is fairly immune to AIDS. Whoever has inherited this gene from only ONE parent also has a good deal of immunity. (The immunity is not perfect in either case, since rare strains of AIDS can use the receptor CXCR 4).

  4. Re:Probably as close as we'll get... by Muhammar · · Score: 5, Funny

    As you say - certain behaviors minimize the HIV risk and writing Slashdot tripe on Friday night is by far the most secure approach.

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  5. Re:Probably as close as we'll get... by at_slashdot · · Score: 5, Funny

    "3) Encourage long term monogamy"

    Why is always the cure worse than the disease?

    --
    "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
  6. Re:Probably as close as we'll get... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So 1950's...

    1. Sex is *not* primarily for producing children... you'll produce a sprog maybe a couple of times in your life. You'll normally have sex at least a few times more than that (well maybe your church won't let you, but most people will). Sex is *fun*. Enjoy it while you're young.
    2. There are plenty of healthy well adjusted people who are the children of unmarried parents. There are plenty of screwed up dickheads that are the children of married parents. Get with the late 20th century please at least... marriage is just a contract - if you really can't stay with someone without that then maybe you've not really found the right person. Marriage does *not* guarantee a lifelong relationship - there's a 50% divorce rate... fuelled by people like you who think that a bit of paper is a free pass to lifelong bliss - two people working hard at a relationship can do, and you don't need a contract for that.

  7. but was it designed, and why?? by Quadraginta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You mention a very, very interesting fact, which blew me away when I learned it about our genetics. What is it with (1) all this pointless intron DNA, and (2) all this God-damned splicing? Why don't the prokaryotes do that stuff? This is, as you say, weird.

    So is it an accident? Given that there've been only about 10^5 generations of homo sapiens, whereas bacteria do that every 2-3 years, and they've been around billions of years -- is it just that we've not evolved as far as they? Will our DNA be a lot tighter in 30,000,000 AD (assuming we survive at all)?

    Or is there some reason designed in by...(audience holds breath)...no, not God for, uh, Christ's sake...but by natural selection that gives us an advantage with all this DNA swapping?

    Have I not heard the thought that it might be because a bacteria's big problem is a hostile environment and his lack of ability to manipulate it other than eating it, whereas one of our big problems (before modern medicine) was fighting off viral attackers? And, if that's the case, this screwball shuffling around of the DNA, plus "hiding" the real genes amongst acres of useless, identical-looking trash are clever techniques for making us much more elusive targets for viruses.

    Joe Virus successfully invades the pathetic human cell, sneaking past the killer white cells, snipping the wire and snaking under the membrane while the guard dogs howl....he makes it! Cleverly picks the lock on the super-secure citadel of the nucleus, gets out his dynamite, blows the doors off the chromatid fiber, and, chortling, inserts his DNA sequence into the host DNA.

    But alas for Joe, 90% of the DNA is never used, and so Joe has a 90% chance of having inserted himself into a string of rubbish that will never be transcribed. Poor bastard, waiting and waiting...

    Now to get back on topic, I've also heard that one caution people have about gene therapy (such as slipping in a gene that protects against HIV) is that if there are these ancient unexpressed viruses lying about in our DNA, what might we do if we muck around with it by slipping in some new genes? Might we accidentally "turn on" a virus dormant since the next to last Ice Age? If it's just a Neanderthal version of a head cold, big deal -- but what if it's something far worse than AIDS itself? As fatal as AIDS, say, but with a 60 day mean survival time and the ability to be spread through the air? Brrr.

    1. Re:but was it designed, and why?? by Grym · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...is it just that we've not evolved as far as they? Will our DNA be a lot tighter in 30,000,000 AD (assuming we survive at all)?

      While much of your post is generally on the fringes of what we know, I can say with general certainty that the answers to these questions is "No" and "No."

      For the first question, one shouldn't leap to the conclusion that the number of generations equates to evolutionary success. The two aren't necessarily related. Remember, evolution is essentially about the filling of available biological niches. The niches that humans and bacteria fill are vastly different. In light of this, calling one type of successful species "more evolved" than vastly different, yet also successful, species really carries little meaning. Perhaps a better way of putting it is this: Evolution is not forward-looking. There is no beginning, middle, or end to the evolutionary path of a species. Any species present today (simply by virtue of the fact that it has survived) is just as "evolved" as any other.

      For the second question, I seriously doubt our genome will (naturally) become smaller over time. Unlike bacteria, finding the extra nutrient sources to accommodate the amount of unused DNA or non-useful protein products doesn't appear to be a selective pressure. I'd suspect that this is because such an inefficiency is relatively minor for a large multi-cellular omnivore such as us and wasn't an evolutionary driving force in the past nor will be in the future.

      Lastly, I'm suspicious to call the DNA whose function remains unknown "junk DNA" as others do. Who's to say that it doesn't serve a purpose simply because we lack a theory for one? To do so reeks of scientific arrogance.

      -Grym

  8. Re:Probably as close as we'll get... by alicenextdoor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sex is absolutely not just about reproduction. It's perfectly possible to produce offspring without orgasm, and lots of species do. Pleasure in sex appears to function to promote closeness between partners, making that hypothetical long term marriage that much more likely. There's even a hypothesis that female orgasm is a by-product of the fact that men need orgasms to convince them to stick around and look after their mates, but I remain unconvinced. More research is required, and by God, I'm the woman to do it...

    --
    of course, biting monkeys is not to everyone's taste - Konrad Lorenz
  9. Re:Cure for HIV. . . by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny

    But it drastically increases your chance of saying 'virii', even though 'virii' isn't a word.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  10. Re:Probably as close as we'll get... by game+kid · · Score: 5, Funny
    More research is required, and by God, I'm the woman to do it...

    *adds alicenextdoor to Friends list*

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.