Human Blood May Contain A Cure For AIDS

Lisandro writes "German scientists at the University of Ulm have identified a natural ingredient of human blood that prevents the HIV-1 virus from from infecting immune cells and multiplying. The molecule, which they call virus-inhibitory peptide (VIRIP), promises new types of effective treatment for HIV in the future. 'Tweaks to its amino acid components boosted its anti-HIV potency by two orders of magnitude. Tests also showed that some derivatives of the molecule are highly stable in human blood plasma, and non-toxic even at very high concentrations. A synthetic version of VIRIP also proved effective at blocking HIV, excluding the possibility that some other factor was responsible. VIRIP targets a sugar molecule which HIV uses to infect a host cell. '"

Comments

the real solution made apparent

[dAzED1]

"VIRIP targets a sugar molecule which HIV uses to infect a host cell."

Well clearly then, the real solution is to destroy all the sugars in your body! /sarcasm

Good for them though, lets get this solved.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[gurps_npc]

A huge number of viruses target sugars. It is a common material in the human body.

No, that is not a sad comment on the human diet, it is instead an explanation for why we like sugar so much, it is so usefull and neccessary.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[drinkypoo]

instead an explanation for why we like sugar so much, it is so usefull and neccessary.

It's useful, but not necessary. The body can run on ketones.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[RSKennan]

It's sweet and delicious because we need it.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[drinkypoo]

I consumed very little carbohydrates (very hard to eat NONE) for over a year - in most cases less than 10g/day, and I was in the best health in which I had ever been. I lost weight, I put on muscle, my cholesterol was lower than it had been when I was eating carbs. Your mileage may vary, but your FUD is pathetic. You're either misled and spreading someone else's FUD, or you're making the usual idiot mistake of confusing ketosis with ketoacidosis, which are not remotely the same thing.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[beckerist]

Predators, like cats, cannot taste sweet because their body receives enough sugars from their food sources that they don't require the need to seek more out. We, as omnivores, have a much larger "taste range" as we require many different, and many more nutrients.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[Anonymous Coward]

The better question is why are you tasting your ass?

Re:the real solution made apparent

[Spazntwich]

At 16, you should be focusing more on increasing physical activity levels than dieting to lose weight, but if you had 50lbs to lose in the first place, you're doing the right thing in dropping a good bit of it.

I'd suggest stopping the low carb diet once you hit somewhere below 15% bodyfat. A good indication is when what might be a spare tire turns into more of a small set of saddlebags, and you've got decent definition in your arms.

You've got at least two, probably 3 or 4, years of growth left in you, and it would be a pity to stunt your growth due to any deficiencies in nutrients you suffered losing weight you could lose later anyway.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[drinkypoo]

Were you on a specific diet? What foods did you a) eat and b) not eat. Just a health-aware geek trying to get in shape.

I was on something like the Atkins diet, but I didn't buy a book or anything. I just kept my carb intake below 50g/day religiously - NO CHEATING - and the weight dropped off. For the first nine months I was pretty much sitting on my ass and consistently lost ten pounds a month.

I wrote the following two articles about the atkins diet and the food pyramid and what to eat on the atkins diet for Everything2.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[morcego]

Actually (even tho I sense you were aiming for Funny), this is an evolutionary imperative (or something like that).
Our primitive ancestors who enjoyed (and could metabolize) sugar (and fat) were able to get much more energy into their bodies. They were better adapter to an environment where finding food/energy was difficult.
So yes, you ARE genetically predisposed to like sugars (and fat foods).

Re:the real solution made apparent

[boriquajake]

Actually not all carnivores have lost the ability to sense carbohydrates. Dogs do have the ability to sense sweetness though at a reduced level compared to us and bears.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[drinkypoo]

Look, low-carb diets do produce weight loss, and you should not eat an excessive amount of carbs

That's interesting, especially since your link says "Many promoters of dietary schemes would have us believe that a special substance or combination of foods will automatically result in weight reduction. That's simply not true. To lose weight, you must eat less, or exercise more, or do both." This is, of course, not true. As you and I both apparently know (since you said it would produce weight loss) you can lose weight without eating less and without exercising. I know because I've done it! I would get up and have four sausage links and four eggs for breakfast, I'd have a big fucking salad smothered in bleu cheese dressing (and usually with at least one sliced hardboiled egg on it, and some real bacon bits) and then dinner was a fucking huge steak fried in butter and maybe some of the lower-carb veggies - also with butter. Nine months, lost ninety pounds.

So basically, you just discredited your own link. And frankly I'm so fucking tired of sites like quackwatch telling lies about the atkins diet that I'm starting to become disenchanted with all of them. But I especially do not take quackwatch seriously any more, having read that article in the past. That article is a mixture of studies that actually say positive things about the diet, and studies which clearly have flawed conclusions (e.g. "Because so few Atkins dieters were found in the Registry, the researchers concluded that the Atkins diet may not create the favorable "metabolic advantage" claimed for it".)

Atkins-style diets will cause ketosis, which is (1) inefficient and (2) can lead to cardiovascular damage.

First of all, who cares if it's inefficient? That's a fucking feature if you're trying to lose weight.

Second of all, lots of things can lead to cardiovascular damage. Including being a big fatass - which causes a lot of other serious health problems. But it hasn't been shown that it does lead to cardiovascular damage, period. Some people have speculated that it does so, but there are no long-term studies of the diet. What we do know is that peoples of the world who have traditionally eaten much in the way of carbohydrates tend to be obese. You can see this tendency today amongst Italians, who tend toward obesity (especially later in life.) It was observed in the 1800s among said peoples as well as among residents of the Caribbean who also traditionally ate a diet centered around carbohydrates.

We also know that the diets eaten by primitive humans were generally closer to the atkins diet than anything we eat today. These people were hunter-gatherers and had access primarily to some green vegetables relatively low in carbohydrates, and to meat, as well as nuts and some seasonal fruits. So during harvest times they'd eat some carbs, but through the winter there was little to live on but what animals you could hunt down. Most humans are evolved to eat like a hunter-gatherer, because selection pressure has been much reduced ever since we settled down to farming and animal husbandry.

If you really want to lose weight, reduce calorie intake, get more aerobic and anaerobic exercise daily, and change your diet to avoid processed foods.

I have asthma, so if I engage in aerobic activity, it's not a good thing. Even when I was a kid I could run maybe an eighth of a mile before I was basically incapable of anything more than a shuffling walk. It's probably less these days; after losing all that weight I went off the diet with my now-ex-girlfriend.

I will not argue that there are no dangers to the diet, of course. If you don't drink enough water on it, bad things can happen to your liver and kidneys. You might even get gall stones, which is what happened to my ex. She was obstinate and didn't want to drink water, simply because she was tired of me being

Re:the real solution made apparent

[Korin43]

Because corn syrup is cheap and most of your pet food is fillers?

Re:the real solution made apparent

[joshv]

Actually, the brain needs about 100g of glucose a day to function properly. The body however, is perfectly capable of synthesizing this amount of glucose from protein intake via a process call "gluconeogenesis". Thus your brain can function quite well with zero carb intake.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[evultrole]

No offense obviously, but the brain in particular runs more efficiently on ketones than it does on glucose.

Why are you stupid?

No, really, why are you a stupid, biologically illiterate oaf?

"Ketone bodies, from the breakdown of fatty acids to acetyl groups, are also produced during this state, and are burned throughout the body. Excess ketone bodies are excreted in the breath and urine. The brain has a residual need for glucose because ketones can only provide energy when used during aerobic respiration in mitochondria. In the long thin neurons, much of the metabolically active cellular membrane must derive its energy from glucose via anaerobic respiration without the assistance of mitochondria."

Yes, that's right, parts of the brain are incapable of making use of ketones for energy (but who needs cellular membranes, right?).

Ever hear of ketosis? No, I don't mean the bull-shit "ketosis" that retards trying to push low-carb diets talk about, I'm talking about real ketosis, the time when your body ends up with a large overabundance of ketones and you end up "drunk" all day long. Then, after that, you end up in a ketone induced coma. Then you die.

The atkins diet has been changed three or four times because the original "Atkins" crap was pretty much globally recognized as being dangerous.

Yes, there are a lot of retards who say things like "A lot of people mistakenly think Ketoacidosis when they hear ketosis, but it's a completely different thing."

No it isn't you jerks, Ketoacidosis is just another name for Ketosis (interestingly ketosis was referred to as the danger condition by medical professionals 20-40 years ago, it changed to "a natural body process" with a different name for the condition around the time of these low-card diets).

"Ketosis occurs when there is not enough insulin in the body to metabolize glucose and provide energy to the cells of the body. The blood fluids become increasingly acidic until the starving body cells malfunction, causing staggering, slurred speech, disorientation and poor judgement. Eventually, the victim of ketosis may have seizures, go into a deep coma and die if untreated." http://www2.jsonline.com/alive/column/aug99/howard s83099.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketoacidosis

See, here's the way it works. Ketones are emergency power for some cells in your body, i.e. if you are starving you'll have enough energy to go kill something, but that's about it.

Outside of that single use, ketones are a giant danger to your nervous system. If you don't drink large amounts of water to wash them out of your system you end up staggering around like a drunken hobo. Atkins guy, try laying off the water intake for a couple days then see how you feel. At that point, come back and tell us how well the brain runs on ketones.

The fact that you can function at all is due to the fact that you keep washing the toxin out of your body in your urine, if you didn't your blood would end up too acidic for you to live... and, well, you wouldn't any longer.

Ketones are better than glucose my ass...

well...

[mapkinase]

Abstract of original article in Cell.

A variety of molecules in human blood have been implicated in the inhibition of HIV-1. However, it remained elusive which circulating natural compounds are most effective in controlling viral replication in vivo. To identify natural HIV-1 inhibitors we screened a comprehensive peptide library generated from human hemofiltrate. The most potent fraction contained a 20-residue peptide, designated VIRUS-INHIBITORY PEPTIDE (VIRIP), corresponding to the C-proximal region of 1-antitrypsin, the most abundant circulating serine protease inhibitor. We found that VIRIP inhibits a wide variety of HIV-1 strains including those resistant to current antiretroviral drugs. Further analysis demonstrated that VIRIP blocks HIV-1 entry by interacting with the gp41 fusion peptide and showed that a few amino acid changes increase its antiretroviral potency by two orders of magnitude. Thus, as a highly specific natural inhibitor of the HIV-1 gp41 fusion peptide, VIRIP may lead to the development of another class of antiretroviral drugs.

Patent Pending

[Anonymous Coward]

Sincerely,

God

Weird

[stratjakt]

Cuz I got it by drinking human blood.

Now is that the definition of irony or what?

Tired of hearing it

[slusich]

Seems like every six months or so now, there's some new research promising new hope for AIDS.
I really hope that this turns into something, but until one of these new finds turns into a cure or at least a vaccine I'll still be seeing freinds die.
I'm just sick of hearing of new breakthroughs and then not hearing another word about them.

So, I wonder... why doesn't the body make more?

[Dr. Manhattan]

non-toxic even at very high concentrations

Does this stuff affect other viruses? (Is it something that evolved for this reason?) If so, why doesn't the body make more of it already? Would that be too biologically expensive, or would that have problematic effects we haven't recognized yet?

Re:So, I wonder... why doesn't the body make more?

[Frozen Void]

Non-toxic doesn't mean its harmless.It could alter metabolism or immune function such that they work expending 2x more energy or making adverse effects(e.g. like cytokine storm) when fighting something else.
Besides the virus is too young(several human generations age) for us to evolve(and Central Africa would be the first to have evolutionary advantage) more of the anti-virus functions.

Re:So, I wonder... why doesn't the body make more?

[lawpoop]

"Does this stuff affect other viruses? "

Perhaps, but probably not.

"If so, why doesn't the body make more of it already? Would that be too biologically expensive, or would that have problematic effects we haven't recognized yet?"

The reason that we don't have more of it already is that there has been no selective pressure on our genome to produce more of it. That is, we reproduce ourselves well enough without it.

Sythesis

[DrWho520]

'Tweaks to its amino acid components boosted its anti-HIV potency by two orders of magnitude. Tests also showed that some derivatives of the molecule are highly stable in human blood plasma, and non-toxic even at very high concentrations. A synthetic version of VIRIP also proved effective at blocking HIV, excluding the possibility that some other factor was responsible. VIRIP targets a sugar molecule which HIV uses to infect a host cell. '"

Yes, but how effective. Generally, drug companies synthesize naturally occurring compounds (effedrine vs. psuedoeffedrine) to remove nasty side effects and improve performance. However, this systhesis also allows the companies to patent their drug formulations and charge exhorbitant amounts of money for they molecular forgeries. In this case, I wonder how "proved effective" matches up with a two orders of magnitude boost in potency. Everyone needs to see a return on investment, but if there is no reason to make a synthetic version and the (tweaked) naturally occuring version works as well or better, I would hope seeing return on investment is translated as "lives saved" and not "dollars earned."

How many friends???

[brunes69]

I don't mean to be insensitivity or brash. I am very hopeful this will turn into a cure. But statements like "I'll still be seeing friends die" sounds like lies to me - how many friends with HIV can you actually have?

When it comes down to it - HIV and AIDS are very easily preventable diseases. Anyone who takes proper minimal precautions will not get HIV or AIDS, unless they are maliciously targetted or woth in a health-related field and/or are VERY unlucky.

Personally I have always felt the absolutely enormous amounts of money funneled into AIDS research would be much better spent on areas like Type 1 diabetes, MLS, and other genetic diseases, which affect far more people and is not preventable in any way.

In the end, it of course all comes down to the all mighty dollar. The reason you see so much money pumped into HIV/AIDS is there is so much potential for money to be MADE FROM IT. If someone has HIV/AIDS they will pay ANYTHING for a cure. Someone with Type I diabetes can live a full life, even if the quality of it is degraded. You can't say the same for an AIDS patient, even if it is their fault they became infected.

Re:How many friends???

[slusich]

In the last 10 years I've lost 4 friends to AIDS. Two were gay. One had an unhealthy relationship with IV drugs. We still don't know how the last one contracted it.

Two close relatives have died, and one more is currently living with being HIV+.

I'm sorry if you don't believe me. Doesn't matter if you do or don't. Was just putting in my two cents.

Re:How many friends???

[nvrrobx]

If you don't mean to be insensitive or brash, why are you being that way?

I have lost two people so far to this disease in my life, and I have more than 5 friends that are HIV+ today.

To say that type 1 diabetes, a treatable disease, deserves more money than HIV/AIDS research is absolutely ludicrious. Type 1 diabetes will kill you if left untreated. HIV/AIDS will kill you, period. The retrovirals help extend your life, but have no doubt, it is a terminal disease. Have you ever seen someone die of HIV/AIDS? Please go down to Africa and explain to the people living with HIV and AIDS there that they aren't as important as a diabetes patient.

Are you aware how expensive the medication to treat HIV is? Compare that to the cost of insulin then get back to me.

Re:How many friends???

[Not_Wiggins]

It may be true to a certain degree in the West, but in Africa where 15 million have died from AIDS, and 24 million are infected, it's clearly not so 'easy' to prevent.

Errr... the problem with HIV/AIDS in Africa is a cultural and economic one, not one of "can't be prevented."

The use of condoms drastically reduces infection rates. The problem that I've been reading about in Africa is that condoms are not utilized because they interfere too much in the love making process (ie, takes too long to put them on, and they're too expensive). A prototype device is being introduced here to try and address those issues.

Spread of this disease is preventable (which was the GP post's point); efforts to educate and provide the protection would be immediately effective versus waiting for a scientific cure... which would also have to be made available cheaply enough to help impoverished Africa (ie, not for many years after being made available on the market).

Re:How many friends???

[Intron]

"I don't mean to be insensitivity"

you failed

"HIV and AIDS are very easily preventable diseases."

So is the common cold, and the method is pretty similar, just never touch anybody else.

"even if it is their fault they became infected"

The real reason that you don't want to see money spent on AIDS research, your basic belief that they deserved what they got. Good thing you're never done anything stupid in your life.

Lung cancer and diabetes are also due to lifestyle, but nobody is blaming the victims they way they do with AIDS.

Re:How many friends???

[dru]

When it comes down to it - HIV and AIDS are very easily preventable diseases.

That may be true, in the same, clinical way that lung cancer and obesity are easily preventable diseases. The complication arises when you try to change human behavior on a societal level. People consume carbonated soda and french fries becase it tastes good! People smoke because it feels good! The same is true of sex and IV drugs.

Add to this the fact that humans are very bad at assessing risk, and you have a recipe for the HIV epidemic.

Re:How many friends???

[zymurgyboy]

I don't mean to be insensitivity or brash.

Then don't proceed to be. It doesn't excuse the insensitive, judgemental comments that follow.

Sure, some people weren't as careful as they should have been and got infected, but guess what... They live in the same world with the rest of us and can subsequently spread their illness. This is a public health issue. Morality judgements of people infected with STDs don't bring about cures for them any faster. Nor does the attempted imposition of the same morality on the rest of the, as yet, uninfected population seem to be having much effect in slowing down the spread either, let alone stopping it.

How 'bout instead of taking research money away from HIV and giving it some more morally worthy disease, we just resolve to spend more research money on all of them and stop making questionable moral assessments of sick people.

Re:How many friends???

[dharbee]

How weak is your position that instead of discussing the subject you mod me down for something that I didn't do?

I'm not allowed to expect people to be accountable for their mistakes? I have been and it sucked a lot.

I'm not allowed to prefer curing a disease that attacks anyone and everyone regardless of what they do or who they are over a disease that is almost entirely preventable?

There was no troll there. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Re:How many friends???

[SatanicPuppy]

Comparing AIDS and the common cold is ridiculous. You can get the cold from almost anything, but to get AIDS you have to either have sex with someone who has it, or inject their blood...As a virus goes, it's extremely difficult to catch.

While blaming the victim is rarely worthwhile, this is a disease that could basically be eradicated by education, testing, and self control. The reason it's spread so widely is that people aren't into any of those things.

Re:How many friends???

[cdrguru]

Africa has national leaders that say there is no link between HIV and AIDS.

In Africa it is a common belief that using a condom is "unmanly" and a woman, even a prostitute, that requests it is likely to get a beating. Condom use is a joke in Africa - it isn't going to happen.

What this means is you have infected people running around loose infecting more people constantly. Sure, there are millions of infected people. People that don't understand how the disease is transmitted and are constantly lied to about it. And people that are so completely caught up in the cultural prohibitions about things like condoms and birth control that it will never stop.

Spending money in Africa to control AIDS is like sending food aid to the warlords in Somalia.

Re:How many friends???

[brunes69]

When it comes down to it, you are born with Diabetes. You aren't born with AIDS - you got it either due to being extremely unlocky or due to your own ineptitide.

People with Type I diabetes lives are no picnic. Imagine telling a 1 year old child they have to inject a needle ito themselves 3 times a day for the rest of their known lives. Imagine having too explain to everyone you aren't a junkie, you are a diabetic, every time they see needles all over your house.

There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE in morality between treating someone who was born with a genetic defect, vs. treating someone who basically shot themselves in the foot by not wearing a condom or sharing needles.

Re:How many friends???

[compro01]

You aren't born with AIDS

yes, you can be. if your mother had it, odds are damn good you will.

Re:How many friends???

[SatanicPuppy]

On the part of their parents, perhaps? You don't get choices when you're that age, you get things handed to you. If you manage to be born without contracting HIV from an HIV positive mother, which is pretty likely if you can score a c-section, but still possible for a natural birth, you can still catch it from breast milk.

I still think coming out of the body of someone who is HIV positive qualifies as "hard to get this disease", and "drinking the breast milk of an infected individual" is pretty high up there as well.

Re:How many friends???

[zymurgyboy]

What makes you so sure his friends spread it, or that the people that gave it to them knew they had it. The incubation period for HIV can last for years with no noticeable symptoms.

AIDS is a terrible disease but unless it is dealt with as a health crisis and not a badge of honor or rebellion, it isn't going to get much better. And the idea that it is somehow a right to spread the disease uncontrollably is not helping.

It is a terrible disease but everything you said right after that is absolutely asinine. Find someone who has it and ask them if they feel like a rebel or if they feel honored to have joined the ranks of the terminally ill. WTF??!?

If we treated this disease like the measles were treated in the 1800's AIDS would be gone in 10 years, never to be heard from again.

Measles incubation prior to apparent symptoms being displayed is all of 7 to 14 days. The possibility of going for years with the infection, not knowing you have it, and spreading it to others is just not the case with that. Criss-crossing the globe in a day wasn't possible in the nineteenth century. Not mention, measles hasn't exactly been eradicated yet.

virus mutation

[wizardforce]

HIV mutates very quickly, it is able to survive in the body because it changes so often which also means that if this treatment works as well as they say and gets used alot, the virus will likely adapt to survive against it. eventually we will have the same problem with this treatment as we do with antibiotics.

It reads like this on Etherealworld Slashdot

[Tatisimo]

"Patch found for AIDS vulnerability in human bodies."

Humans said goodbye to Darwin years ago

[ObiWanStevobi]

Humans have been circumventing Darwin for centuries. The only thing left we don't control are viruses and cancer. And it's not like it's such a bad thing, with the exception of stupid people living so long. Modern society, with it's welfare, social security, laws, birth control, medicine, and safety regulations all fly in the face of natural selection. If you're stupid, we have all these laws and people looking out for you to keep you from doing something stupid and killing youself. If you're lazy, we'll make sure someone gets you food so you don't starve. If you're not a dominant member of the herd, we'll try to make sure those that are treat you fairly.

Once again, those aren't by any means bad things (unless Idiocracy was a doumentary), just saying we've been immune to most aspects of natural selection for a long time now.

Re:Humans said goodbye to Darwin years ago

[xenocide2]

"Natural selection should select the most fit to survive."

That's not strictly true. Natural selection is survival of the fittest, to reproduce. Once you stop having children, natural selection becomes much weaker, as your contributions to the population is merely ensuring that your children survive and reproduce, en masse. Not much selection against cancer when you're 80.

Even though our society has shifted away from having children to make ends on the farm meet, to investing in the survival of every child some selective forces still apply. If your children are predisposed to diseases, at the margin I imagine you'll have to reduce the number of children you have. So there's still a shift, it's just much slower thanks to the progress of modern medicine. And like you said, there's plenty of people opposed to contraceptives that wind up with large families.

Eventually gene therapy may allow us to fight off bad mutations, but there's some that theorize that bad genes exist for a reason and curing genetic diseases reduces important genetic variations.

Re:Maybe we've been here before...

[geek]

Remember that AIDs is a plague to both chimps and cats. It's been around a while but has mutated multiple times. It's not surprising there is something in our blood that will fight it, whether or not it can win is another story and these guys have a long way to prove it.

Re:Unnatural selection

[voice_of_all_reason]

I'd put money that if the human race survives a few thousand more years, that antibiotic allergies will be selected out of the gene pool.

Is the correllary true? That if the human race diminishes we will not have acess to this AIDS technology? The pool will be "closed", so to speak?

Re:Proof is in the pudding...

[onkelonkel]

Actually the saying goes "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". The saying is one of the oldest in our language. Only recently has it been shortened and corrupted to "The proof is in the pudding". The meaning of the original is quite clear while "The proof is in the pudding" makes no sense at all.

OberGrammarFuehrer von Umlaut at your service!

/clicks heels

Re:So: how long will it take HIV to evolve ...

[the_wishbone]

It's out to reproduce, that's its job.

How'd it get THAT job? I'm gonna kill my guidance counselor...

Re:Proof is in the pudding...

[Quiet_Desperation]

I thought "full service for 100 dinars" is the oldest?

Dear God.

[Savage-Rabbit]

Our calculations show that you are no longer necessary.

Sincerely

Steven Hawking

Re:Dear God.

[operagost]

Oh, really? If you're so smart, why did you misspell your own first name, Stephen?

Yours Truly,
YHWH

Re:Dear God.

[spun]

Yeah, well if YOUR so omniscient, you'd know the poor guy can't type very well. Not to mention, if you're so omnipotent and omni-benevolent, why'd you go and do that to poor Stephen in the first place, huh?

I mean really, you simply ARE. Real Godheads neither exist nor don't exist.

Sincerely,
Brahman

Pool's closed

[soupforare]

The pool will be "closed", so to speak?

Due to AIDS.

A simple answer:

[Upaut]

non-toxic even at very high concentrations
Does this stuff affect other viruses? (Is it something that evolved for this reason?) If so, why doesn't the body make more of it already? Would that be too biologically expensive, or would that have problematic effects we haven't recognized yet?

Well, it is a miracle drug that cures everything, from deadly viruses, bacterial infections, even cancers. The problem is that VIRIP, or as its know under its commercial name, Trutonin, obliterates the person's immune system... Creating a lifelong dependance on the drug.

Re:Anti-HIV virus

[digitalunity]

I hope so, my doctor is very beautiful.

But alas, she still says "roll up your sleeve"...

Re:Cure for viruses Generally

[sydney094]

No, it won't. Each virus has a very specific target that it uses to inject itself into it's host cells, so this will really only benefit HIV or other viruses that have the same attack vector.

Imagine a wall with hundreds of doors on it, each with a different type of lock. Viruses are like burglars trying to break in, but they each only know how to pick one kind of lock. This type of treatment will result in blocking only the doors that have the same type of lock that HIV uses. Hepatitis, for example, would use a very different lock (different wall actually).

Or, since this is slashdot, you could also look at it as a host's firewall. HIV may attack a specific port, and this treatment may block only that port.

This is a very simplistic way of explaining it, but for the most part, this type of treatment only has an effect on HIV's specific attack characteristics. Viruses are usually very particular about what types of cells they attack, and then it can get even more specific. I'd view this as a specific fix.

Now, where things can start to get interesting is if they can manage to generalize this approach to find the appropriate blocking peptides for other types of viruses. If the approach can be generalized, then you might be able to find treatments for other viruses, but the hope for a universal cure for viruses isn't very feasible.

Viruses hijack our own internal machinery to reproduce themselves, so you can't exactly target them the same way that you can bacteria. (There are some common points that are being used to target specific classes of viruses, but I'm not aware of any universal point of attack). You can pretty much target viruses are three points: 1) at the point of infection into the host cell, 2) replication of the virus, 3) at the point where the daughter viruses leave the host cell. The approach mentioned in the article is of type 1.

Re:Why would IMMUNE cells need help???

[Shifty Jim]

Cells of the IMMUNE system, as HIV and AIDS are diseases that attack and destroy the human immune system.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus
Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

Before you go out celebrating

[Dannon]

My fiance is a Red Cross certified HIV/AIDS instructor, so I've gotten a good earfull of what is and isn't true about AIDS "cures".

The "cocktail" that's currently used to treat HIV infection drugs to prevent HIV from entering cells, drugs to keep it from reproducing inside cells, and drugs to keep it from breaking out of infected cells. From what I read in the summary, this new treatment fits in that first category. Good thing, because HIV has this nasty tendency to mutate and become immune to any given drug after years and years of use. When that happens, the patient has no choice but to switch over to another combination of drugs, probably more expensive, and probably not as friendly to the body. If this "blood-derived" treatment adds to the list of patient-friendly treatments available, that's fantastic.

But the way I read this, it isn't the magic bullet "cure for AIDS" everyone is wishing for. It can slow down the progress of an infection, but reversing that progress is another matter altogether. Ditto for undoing damage to the immune system.

Answer lies in the abstract

[Stripsurge]

"...20-residue peptide, designated VIRUS-INHIBITORY PEPTIDE (VIRIP)corresponding to the C-proximal region of 1-antitrypsin, the most abundant circulating serine protease inhibitor."

The 1-antitrypsin protein is something there's a lot of in the blood. Its role is prevent one of the body's degrading proteins from breaking down things it shouldn't be breaking down. This 20 residue peptide is just the end bit of the larger protein. The anti-HIV functions are more like a happy side effect of the larger protein's breakdown. Now I have no idea how quickly the anti-trypsin breaks down and what the natural levels of the VIRIP are. I would speculate though that people who are immune to HIV have a mutation that either produces VIRIP (or something close to it) on its own or the antitrypsin has picked up a mutation that in some way exposes the C-proximal end or promotes it breaking off more readily.

The real cure...

[guruevi]

is abstinence. Really, don't screw around until all HIV patients are dead. Hah, it is the ultimate cure, the only problem is implementing outside a public like Slashdot.

Re:The real cure...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Abstaining from all sex for the next 50-100 years would reduce the number of cases of many other diseases.

Re:So: how long will it take HIV to evolve ...

[sorak]

I am not a scientist, but there is no guarantee that this particular strain of HIV can exist without that sugar molecule, or that evolution will occur fast enough to save the species. For example, this may be like removing oxygen from a human environment. Sure, we may one day evolve the ability to exist on another common chemical, but we could never do it in time, if a natural catastrophe should strike.

This could be an excellent argument for organizations trying to distribute AIDs drugs in third world nations (once they get their hands on this one), since the practice of curing only those who can afford it would simply allow the virus to exist long enough to evolve (if possible), whereas curing everybody could could make it go the way of polio and small-pox.

But, I reiterate. I am not a scientist, so the next person to read this may point out where I am wrong.

Re:Predators?

[pushing-robot]

"Omnivore" and "predator" aren't mutually exclusive. Dogs have always been omnivores. Some wolves are omnivores. Coyotes are omnivores. Foxes are omnivores. They're all predators, and they like sweet foods. Bears are omnivores and predators. And they like sweet foods. Ferrets, on the other hand, are obligate carnivores and predators. And they like sweet foods too. Most cats don't taste sugar. But cats have a rather unique metabolism. Claiming "predators don't taste sugar" is a ridiculous and easily disproven generalization.