Antibody Discovered To Boost HIV Vaccines

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Antibody Discovered To Boost HIV Vaccines

Posted by kdawson on Friday July 9, 2010 @05:26AM from the nowhere-to-hide dept.

An anonymous reader sends this clip from Scienceblog.com. "Scientists have discovered two potent human antibodies that can stop more than 90 percent of known global HIV strains from infecting human cells in the laboratory, and have demonstrated how one of these disease-fighting proteins accomplishes this feat. ... Research efforts to find individual antibodies that can neutralize HIV strains have been difficult because the virus continuously changes its surface proteins to evade recognition by the immune system. As a consequence of these changes, an enormous number of HIV variants exist worldwide. However, there are a few surface areas that remain nearly constant across all variants of HIV and scientists have now discovered two potent human antibodies that attach to one of these sites and can stop more than 90 percent of known global HIV strains from infecting human cells in the laboratory. ... The researchers also confirmed that VRC01 does not bind to human cells — a characteristic that might otherwise lead to its elimination during immune development, a natural mechanism the body employs to prevent autoimmune disease."

105 of 144 comments (clear)

Progress on this front is good by beschra · 2010-07-09 05:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

But I have to wonder if the region that doesn't normally morph will start morphing if it starts being targetted. HIV is a tough little bugger. Very borg-like.

--
It is unwise to ascribe motive
1. Re:Progress on this front is good by easterberry · 2010-07-09 05:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Some of it probably will eventually, but they can probably cure or prevent the spread of at least a decent percentage of people.
  
  So it's a win for the medical community and human race in general either way.
2. Re:Progress on this front is good by Gotung · 2010-07-09 05:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The region that doesn't change is the binding site. If that changes the virus will likely be much less effective at binding onto immune cells. If it can't target immune cells anymore, it becomes much less scary.
3. Re:Progress on this front is good by gumbi+west · 2010-07-09 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  From the article
  
  antibodies specific to the site where the virus binds to cells it infects.
  so it probably does morph there, but then it doesn't go anywhere (or successfully infect future cells). Their device then blocks the site so that the virus can't attack immune cells. Seems difficult to get around... but they say 10% of the existing HIV already has... so yeah, it can.
4. Re:Progress on this front is good by phantomfive · 2010-07-09 05:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Although I find what you suggest unlikely, one thing for sure, if 90% of the HIV population is eliminated, the other 10% will fill its niche. That is the nature of natural selection. Not even a creationist will deny that point.
  
  --
  Qxe4
5. Re:Progress on this front is good by Jeng · 2010-07-09 06:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  If you cure 90% of those with HIV you have also reduced the possible spread of infection by 90%.
  Eventually that 10% may swell to pre-vaccine ( if this pans out ) levels, but it would take decades for HIV to get back up to the level of infection it is at today ( if this pans out ).
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
6. Re:Progress on this front is good by Haffner · 2010-07-09 06:10 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  What that really depends on is whether multiple strains infect the same individual. If, as you suggest, each individual is infected by 1 strain, then this solution indeed would cure 90% of the population (assuming it works). However, if each individual is infected by 500 strains, this solution will cure a tiny fraction of 1% of the population.
  
  --
  "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
7. Re:Progress on this front is good by phantomfive · 2010-07-09 06:12 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Eh, as long as we're talking about infection rates and cure speeds, you should also note that they aren't going to cure 90% of those with HIV (or vaccinate everyone so those 90% of HIV strains stop spreading). The vaccination rate will be slow, not instantaneous, and it will give time for the other 10% of strains to fill the void. How many lives are saved depends on how quickly the vaccination moves out, how many people get it, and how quickly the other strains spread.
  
  Incidentally, condoms work so well at preventing HIV from spreading that if everyone used them, the propagation rate of HIV would likely be dropped below a sustainable level, and AIDS would disappear. In Nevada brothels that use condoms, HIV rates are quite low.
  
  --
  Qxe4
8. Re:Progress on this front is good by aBaldrich · 2010-07-09 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't give the chance to fill the niche (through education, campaigns, condom give aways, chastity belts and whatnot), then it would not spread that much.
  
  --
  In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
9. Re:Progress on this front is good by Lord+Ender · 2010-07-09 06:25 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  A creationist would argue that the lord sent AIDS to punish sinners.
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
10. Re:Progress on this front is good by jack2000 · 2010-07-09 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Can't the same technique "target binding site parts of virus" work for every other type of virus?
  Does this mean we're about to win the virus arms race?
11. Re:Progress on this front is good by Nadaka · 2010-07-09 06:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The thing about an antibody treatment is that it is theoretically possible to actually cure someone someone with HIV.
  If the antibodies are sufficiently effective they prevent the existing viruses from infecting new cells and eventually the body will run out of previously infected cells.
  At that point the person would be cured.
12. Re:Progress on this front is good by easterberry · 2010-07-09 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Unless we do it like we did with Smallpox where we just aggressively push the vaccination around the world to everybody. That way there's no time for the 10% to fill the gaps.
13. Re:Progress on this front is good by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2010-07-09 07:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Condoms are differentially permeable membranes.
  Think about that for a minute, or twenty, which is how often they recommend changing gloves if you work with blood.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
14. Re:Progress on this front is good by hitmark · 2010-07-09 07:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  not by a long shot.
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
15. Re:Progress on this front is good by Mister+Whirly · 2010-07-09 07:25 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  but they can probably cure or prevent the spread of at least a decent percentage of people.
  but they can probably cure or prevent the spread of at least a decent percentage of wealthy people.
  
  Which is already being done in the most part in most first world countries. The problem is the lower rung countries that can't afford even simple education on how the disease spreads. It is a Catch-22 of sorts - pharmaceutical companies don't want to come up with a cheap enough vaccine that will be effective in poorer countries where it is needed most becasue they won't profit enough. Unless someone can still make money off the vaccine, it will almost certainly never be done.
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
16. Re:Progress on this front is good by easterberry · 2010-07-09 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  The Gates Foundation might pick it up...
17. Re:Progress on this front is good by darkmeridian · 2010-07-09 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Viruses and germs that evolve around an antibody or antibiotic tend to be less virulent than the wild strain. Without the antibody or antibiotic, the wild strain has predominated against all other strains, including the resistant strain. The resistant strain tends to be less efficient at survival than the wild strain. If the strains of HIV that are best able to bind with human immune cells are knocked out, the ten percent left may be less able to spread than the existing strains. If you assume that the spread of a contagion has exponential (to some degree) a drop in the transmission rates may save many, many lives.
  The problem with HIV is that its effects can be mitigated if people use condoms, not be so promiscuous, and stay away from risky practices such as anal sex or dry sex. The risk of getting HIV from non-anal heterosexual intercourse is very small; studies put it at 1 in 500 if you have vaginal sex with a HIV-infected person. Using a condom makes that risk effectively 0. We need to educate everyone to avoid these practices. This would mitigate the spread of this plague.
  
  --
  A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
18. Re:Progress on this front is good by jeffmeden · 2010-07-09 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Where is the catch-22 (paradox) in that? They don't want to make a treatment that won't earn them back the money they spent on it... Sounds like standard operating procedure to me for any for-profit company. It sucks, yes; but is it a paradox? Not really.
  Joseph Heller just died a little more (he is already dead, I know.)
19. Re:Progress on this front is good by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-09 08:06 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I am impressed by your knowledge of Nevada brothels and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
20. Re:Progress on this front is good by christoofar · 2010-07-09 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  There are already drugs that inhibit CD4+T lymphocite binding in addition to drugs that stop reverse transcriptase against HIV RNA and yet STILL more drugs that inhibit the protein folding process HIV needs to change into a useful virion. Presuming this antibody does work, what then? Does at least cover HIV1 as well as HIV2?
21. Re:Progress on this front is good by Drift3r · 2010-07-09 09:13 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Incidentally, condoms work so well at preventing HIV from spreading that if everyone used them, the propagation rate of HIV would likely be dropped below a sustainable level, and AIDS would disappear. In Nevada brothels that use condoms, HIV rates are quite low.
  I would agree with this statement. If everybody used condoms, then I could say the same thing about the propagation of pregnancy rates. If everybody used them, humans would likely be dropped below a sustainable level, and would disappear!
  
  --
  "If at first you don't succeed... So much for skydiving." - Henry Youngman.
22. Re:Progress on this front is good by Jenming · 2010-07-09 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes "target active or binding sites on virus'" is a strategy that can be applied to all types of virus'.
  However this is not a new strategy and so does not signal the end.
  
  --
  Morpheus, God of Dreams.
23. Re:Progress on this front is good by turgid · 2010-07-09 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  The Gates Foundation might pick it up...
  Indeed: the more people that are alive for longer, the more Windows and Microsoft Office licenses will be bought.
  
  --
  Stick Men
24. Re:Progress on this front is good by Jenming · 2010-07-09 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  What studies?
  Is that 1 in 500 you claim the risk for the women or the man? Or perhaps an average of the two?
  I agree educating people is key, but I also think it is rather irresponsible to write a post claiming that heterosexual sex with an HIV-infected person will be ok 499 out of 500 times with posting some very solid evidence to go a long with it.
  
  --
  Morpheus, God of Dreams.
25. Re:Progress on this front is good by SpongeBob+Hitler · 2010-07-09 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  didn't phase their hate-addled brains one bit.
  You mean faze.
  No, I mean phase. As in, put into phase with reality, rather than at 90 degrees with reality. Of course, some fundie nutjob no doubt was offended and modded me down. Keep it classy. When arguments don't work, you always resort to brute force. Because, you know, that's what Jesus would have done.
  
  --
  Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?
26. Re:Progress on this front is good by dintech · 2010-07-09 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Also, this just gives more real-estate for the remaining 10% to spread. See DDT for reference. Undoubtedly DDT saved a lot of lives but it's only a dip in the upward trend.
27. Re:Progress on this front is good by davester666 · 2010-07-09 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Vaccination comes with a 1-year license to use Windows 7 Home edition! Just enter your credit card number now so your subscription will automatically continue when the year is over.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
28. Re:Progress on this front is good by Rene+S.+Hollan · 2010-07-09 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm. So you respond to the expression of an opinion with a call for violence?
  I'd rather have someone tell me I am going to hell than try to send me there.
  
  --
  In Liberty, Rene
29. Re:Progress on this front is good by DJRumpy · 2010-07-09 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  This could be huge. If I'm understanding this correctly, they basically set a "Venus Fly Trap" that collects specific antibodies that attach to this customized HIV Virus/molecule. Using this technology, they could basically build custom 'catchers' to collect all sorts of anti-bodies that may have been previously missed, once they identify the surface proteins that these antibodies normally key to. Hopefully someone familiar with molecular biology can clarify, but it reads as if they design a customized HIV virus, and tweak it so that attracts specific antibodies that normally key to a surface protein on a cell. The implications here are huge if that's the case. They could net all sorts of useful antibodies for a huge range of diseases.
  Is that the gist of this? (and apologies as I'm not a biologist).
  From TFA:
  
  They found the antibodies using a novel molecular device they developed that homes in on the specific cells that make antibodies against HIV. The device is an HIV protein that the scientists modified so it would react only with antibodies specific to the site where the virus binds to cells it infects.
30. Re:Progress on this front is good by budgenator · 2010-07-09 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  Since the part of the virus they are targeting is the part the virus uses to infect human cells, if it morphs the virus will not be able to infect human cells.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
31. Re:Progress on this front is good by sjames · 2010-07-09 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  Possibly, but it's harder for a virus to change functional sites enough to evade antibodies without becoming non-functional in the process.
32. Re:Progress on this front is good by sjames · 2010-07-09 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  And the remaining strains will be more homogeneous so that other attacks are easier.
33. Re:Progress on this front is good by Vash21 · 2010-07-09 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  Where is the catch-22 (paradox) in that? They don't want to make a treatment that won't earn them back the money they spent on it... Sounds like standard operating procedure to me for any for-profit company. It sucks, yes; but is it a paradox? Not really.
  Joseph Heller just died a little more (he is already dead, I know.)
  Thank you for calling out his misuse on Catch-22, an example of such a paradox in that context would be if somehow if contracting AIDS caused you to become poor, and the only way to cure it was to not be poor. Hate when people use common phrases because it "sounds like it fits", when they either don't know what it means or don't think it through before they say (type) it. P. S. I don't like being a hypocrite, so if i misused a phrase please call me out on it. (Spelling/grammatical errors do not count!)
34. Re:Progress on this front is good by sumdumass · 2010-07-10 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  We're talking about poor people in third world countries here. It's more like Windows and Microsoft Office will be pirated because people will think they need it that much more.
35. Re:Progress on this front is good by sumdumass · 2010-07-10 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Goodwill will only feed you for so long then you starve. That's a problem that people like you don't seem to understand. Sure, it would be nice if everything important not readily provided by nature was free, but the reality is that if it were, it would stop existing pretty quickly. This is because you have to have in order to give and if you give it all away, you have nothing.
36. Re:Progress on this front is good by u38cg · 2010-07-10 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  If you're implying that viruses can get through condoms, cite, please. Because you appear to be trolling.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
37. Re:Progress on this front is good by Killjoy_NL · 2010-07-12 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  ok from what I read the virus could get through the condom, the cells which are playing host for the virus however can not.
  Sorry I do not have any sources, its been a while since I looked that up (in response to the same kind of jibberjabber from some catholic nutball spouting nonsense)
  
  --
  This is the sig that says NI (again)
Techno Puzzle by hhawk · 2010-07-09 05:32 · Score: 1

Let's hope they can figure out away to create something good from this.. and yet I wonder if the guy whose body they came from will get any piece of the profits.. Let's hope he does..

--
http://www.hawknest.com/
1. Re:Techno Puzzle by MozeeToby · 2010-07-09 05:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  and yet I wonder if the guy whose body they came from will get any piece of the profits.. Let's hope he does..
  Why?
  The only logically reason why he deserves anything would be to encourage others to get tested for similar things, and I don't see too many researchers looking desperately looking for random people to come forward and have their antibodies tested.
2. Re:Techno Puzzle by PerfectionLost · 2010-07-09 05:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  He won't. You opt out as part of your agreement to lab testing. There was an article about this on NPR a couple months ago, but I can't seem to find it.
3. Re:Techno Puzzle by jack2000 · 2010-07-09 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Surely they can make an exception for people who's blood actually helps.
4. Re:Techno Puzzle by smellsofbikes · 2010-07-09 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  and yet I wonder if the guy whose body they came from will get any piece of the profits.. Let's hope he does..
  Why?
  The only logically reason why he deserves anything would be to encourage others to get tested for similar things, and I don't see too many researchers looking desperately looking for random people to come forward and have their antibodies tested.
  If a corporation finds a gold vein on property for which I own the mineral rights, because I asked them to test a sample of rock I'd found, I would expect them to pay me for the gold.
  
  --
  Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Re:Great... by elewton · 2010-07-09 05:41 · Score: 1

I like to leave that kind of risk to the early adopters.
Re:Pshhh by Tetsujin · 2010-07-09 05:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Yet another vaccine and cure that is hidden so that pharmaceutical companies get more and more money..
Well, it's actually the money, not the vaccines, that are suppressing the virus...

--
Bow-ties are cool.
Not the mechanism by aepervius · 2010-07-09 05:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

It won#t start suddenly morphing. What will happen, is that the strain which DO morph will be selected for, as they will more easily spread, than the one stopped by this antibody. But I would not put my hope too high. "In laboratory" means in-vitro. A lot of stuff works in vitro, but never pan out.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
1. Re:Not the mechanism by cpricejones · 2010-07-09 06:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The in vitro / in vivo gap is definitely a worry. The next stages of trials will give an answer with regards to that. The current issue of Science has several articles about the spread of HIV, including a good review about why it is difficult to eradicate HIV in an infected individual. ( for those with access, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/current/ or http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/329/5988/174.pdf ) There are many great broadly neutralizing antibodies coming out right now, and even though HIV has an astonishing ability to escape our immune systems, there is hope that these will be successful for vaccines. ( http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-immunol-030409-101256 )
Sounds good... by mea37 · 2010-07-09 05:43 · Score: 2, Informative

...at least in the short term. But while my understanding is limited, one question seems glaring to me:
If you cook up a medicine that treats 90% of HIV strains, in the long run are you doing anything more than ensuring that the remaining 10% become the entire body of the disease?
1. Re:Sounds good... by exasperation · 2010-07-09 05:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No. You're drastically reducing the number of possible infections. 90% of exposures would be immunized against.
2. Re:Sounds good... by easterberry · 2010-07-09 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  You're helping 90% of the worlds HIV epidemic. If they can do this smallpox immunity style they can reduce the "HIV Epidemic" to "The HIV problem that we are in the midst of eradicating"
3. Re:Sounds good... by Hatta · 2010-07-09 06:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Vaccines and antibiotics have never been more than a temporary measure against disease. Resistant HIV strains will become more common, just as resistant strains of Staph have. But if we can save millions of lives in the mean time, that's a good thing.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
4. Re:Sounds good... by Flea+of+Pain · 2010-07-09 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  You may get lucky enough to cause a bottleneck in the population, so that the majority of those left have the same weakness. Then wash rince and repeat.
  
  --
  Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
5. Re:Sounds good... by mea37 · 2010-07-09 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Again, that's the short term. 90% of the infections you would encounter today would be immunized against (assuming even distribution of strains, and assuming that every infection source only hosts a single strain; if those assumptions don't hold then you could be immunizing against anywhere from 0% to 100% of actual infections).
  Now, what happens to a strain of infection that can't find a host? It stops replicating and dies out. Eventually all of the HIV virus that's still alive is from the 10% you weren't able to treat, and at that point you're immunizing against 0% of new infections. In exchange you may have a much smaller infected population... until the disease starts spreading again.
6. Re:Sounds good... by mea37 · 2010-07-09 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're playing fast and loose with that 90% figure.
  "90% of known straims" does not mean the same thing as "all strains present in 90% of infected persons".
  More to the point, in the long view you're only "in the midst of eradicating" the problem if you have a way to address the remaining strains.
7. Re:Sounds good... by Mutatis+Mutandis · 2010-07-09 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  In the long term, certainly yes, variants of disease that are are not recognized by the immune system or resistant to existing treatments will spread again, even from a small core, perhaps one created by accidental mutations. Influenza, of course, manages to do so every year, demonstrating how efficient viruses can be at playing this game. Experience with bacteria and parasites (malaria) is also rather discouraging.
  However, how fast that occurs depends on quite a number of factors, including the ability of those mutant viruses to replicate, infect, and cause disease; and of course their geographical spread. Characteristic for many treatment-resistant mutants of HIV is that they are less virulent, because their optimal functioning as a virus has been compromised. Resistance mutations are known to all existing antiviral drugs, and it is only a matter of time before these resistant viruses will become more frequent, but meanwhile the drugs do increase the life expectancy of most patients by about thirty years. In reality, partial solutions are worth the effort. Imagine for a moment that you would have a vaccine that would largely eliminate HIV-1 subtype C, which accounts for over half the infections in the worlds poorest countries. That might be worth having, even if it is only a "short-term" solution and the virus will reconquer the lost terrain.
  Unfortunately, in this case it is not clear from the information that I can access, what the practical implications of those 10% of viruses that escape the potential treatment are. The summary mentions 90% of HIV-1 strains, but actually the abstract in Science claims 90% of isolates. I can't access the article from here, but probably the authors identified the sequence of the binding site for their antibody, and then looked how frequently this occurs in a database of known HIV sequences, probably the Los Alamos database. That number doesn't tell you much about the viruses in which is does not occur.
8. Re:Sounds good... by easterberry · 2010-07-09 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  But we can more easily contain, control and prevent it now than we could when the epidemic started. Basically, to use a video game metaphor, it's like loading up the old save with new knowledge of how the fight goes.
  
  Yes you are technically in the exact same position you were last time but you have a much better chance of winning this time.
9. Re:Sounds good... by easterberry · 2010-07-09 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  More to the point, in the long view you're only "in the midst of eradicating" the problem if you have a way to address the remaining strains.
  containment, quarantine, education, getting the god damn catholic church out of Africa. (nothing against religion but, really, they're telling people in the middle of an AIDS epidemic that condoms are evil is not helping).
  Besides, Even if only helps 50% of the people given it due to mutation and multiple strains and whatnot. It'll at least slow down the rate of infection as less people will be transmitting it.
10. Re:Sounds good... by mcgrew · 2010-07-09 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  The same logic applies. Antibiotics kill all but the most resistant strains of the bacteria, making those resistant strains the entire body of the disease. It's the same thing.
  What a sad little world you must live in.
  What's sad is someone who has to personally attack someone for pointing out a logical fallacy.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
11. Re:Sounds good... by Dragonslicer · 2010-07-09 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  in the long run are you doing anything more than ensuring that the remaining 10% become the entire body of the disease?
  The implication of that statement is that this treatment isn't doing anything besides ensuring that the surviving population of the virus is immune to the treatment. However, it's also saving a lot of lives in the meantime. You may not have meant it that way (and I don't think you did), but the way you worded it, I can see how someone might think you did. I think it was just slightly poor phrasing on your part.
12. Re:Sounds good... by mea37 · 2010-07-09 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps, except by selectively quoting only that statement you've removed the entire logical structure of my actual comment.
  "The implication of that statement is that this treatment isn't doing anything besides ensuring that the surviving population of the virus is immune to the treatment" in the long term. "However, it's also saving a lot of lives in the meantime" (i.e. in the short term).
  What I actually said (not your selective quoting from it) is exactly what I meant; I'm sorry if you find the phrasing poor, but I do not.
13. Re:Sounds good... by linhares · 2010-07-09 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's a _very broad_ antibody, so here's another analogy: if you can only eat carrots, will *you* still be *you* in the long run? The major thing I see in these papers is that there's a new method for finding out the one-in-a-million antibody that gets to a seemingly "stable" (hard to mutate) part of the virus envelope. So I think that not only can these two newfound antibodies, *in principle*, hold out 90%+ of the strains, but a) they just might be putting the other strains on such "a miserable carrot diet", and b) this is a *new method* which I suppose hundreds or perhaps thousands of researchers are RIGHT NOW going crazy over and over studying it, trying to replicate it, looking at it from other angles, ad nauseam. If lots of ambitious people are seeing this as their possible ticket to the nobel, expect to see more news in time for christmas.
14. Re:Sounds good... by Khyber · 2010-07-09 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  You can't get smallpox because most of us have contracted chickenpox.
  Back then, smallpox immunization was common. Nowdays, we just get chickenpox and that's it.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
15. Re:Sounds good... by orangesquid · 2010-07-09 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Based on a few papers I found and a few quick, back-of-the-envelope calculations, it should help at least 10.3% of the infected population and at best will help 96%. The huge amount of variability comes from not knowing much about superinfection in HIV. I'd also like to know what strains VRC01 and VRC02 specifically /don't/ target; if the researchers are referring to HIV-1M, O, and N and HIV-2, then "over 90%" means 23/25 is covered, so I'm betting HIV-1N [see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HIV-SIV-phylogenetic-tree.svg ]---but, who knows.
  Anyway---for every 100 person-years, there will be a few HIV reinfections in HIV-positive individuals, sometimes by viruses of the same exact subtype, sometimes by viruses of differing subtypes. Sometimes the viruses are more virulent than the original infecting strain of HIV. The time elapsed since the original HIV infection does not seem to make an impact on the distribution of times of second HIV infections. (Yes, I know that sentence could use re-wording, but exactly how is eluding me atm.)
  http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/10/1177 suggests 5.0 reinfections per 100 person-years (population size 78) in SoCal, http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.0030177 suggests 3.7% reinfections (population size 36) per 100 person-years in Kenya, and http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/79/16/10701?ijkey=30fccead91569e63031af4357a242da634620d52#SEC3 suggests 10.3 reinfections per 100 person-years (population size 20). A weighted average of these numbers, where the weights are the population sizes (not the best approach, but given the sparse amount of data found in the literature about this particular topic in general, it's better than no weighting, perhaps), comes out to 5.0 reinfections [reinfection or superinfection is very hard to define for HIV---see the methodology in the second article for more information about this] per 100 person-years. So if we look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HIV_time.png a timeline...
  If we assume the number of reinfections a year is simply the reinfection rate (5.0/100 to get per-year) multiplied by the HIV-positive population that year, and guess that none of the population in 1980 (where the timeline starts) was superinfected, we get 22.7 million in 2008. If the population in 1980 had all been superinfected, we get 30.0 million in 2008.
  On the other hand, if we assume that only the increment in HIV-positive population is eligible for reinfection (a lousy assumption, but with how little is known, it's as good as any---actually, I'm partly going off of the notes in the introduction of the second article about the known information about reinfection rates), and just multiple the difference from year-to-year in the HIV-positive population by the reinfection rate, we get 1.31 million. (It would not make sense to include the 1980 population here, based on the assumption made.)
  We don't really know enough to guess, but we can probably assume there would be at least an easily noticeable impact. A 10% drop in HIV population would be very obvious---that's a few million people.
  
  --
  --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
16. Re:Sounds good... by IshmaelDS · 2010-07-09 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Incorrect. Putting words in anothers' mouth is extremely rude behavior, so unless you can point to some place where I said this treatment shouldn't be pursued I await your appology. First I just want to say this shouldn't be off-topic, we are discussing his reaction to the topic and was answering a question I asked of him. Anyway.
  I wasn't putting words in your mouth I was asking a question, sorry if it came across that way. I got the impression that's what you were saying was going to happen. Especially from your second paragraph above
  
  "Now, what happens to a strain of infection that can't find a host? It stops replicating and dies out. Eventually all of the HIV virus that's still alive is from the 10% you weren't able to treat, and at that point you're immunizing against 0% of new infections. In exchange you may have a much smaller infected population... until the disease starts spreading again."
  It just seemed like a fairly obvious point and the only reason to bring it up would be that you weren't in favor of it.
  
  --
  letting an idiot know they are an idiot is not a game... it's a responsibility. - by Kristopeit, M. D. (1892582)
17. Re:Sounds good... by mortonda · 2010-07-09 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, it's hopeless, lets pack up and go home.
18. Re:Sounds good... by mea37 · 2010-07-09 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  "I wasn't putting words in your mouth I was asking a question"
  Fair enough, though it did read to me as a leading question. My reading may have been colored by the fact that others were very aggressively attributing their interpretations to me, but even so I would suggest that a question of the form "So you want to...?" is not often read as an honest question.
  "It just seemed like a fairly obvious point and the only reason to bring it up would be that you weren't in favor of it."
  You might find the point obvious; others obviously don't. For example, the paragraph you quoted above was from a reply to someone who denied the validity of the point. I'm not sure disease adaptation and resistance is as universally understood as you might think it is.
  As to why bring it up, I can think of several pretty good reasons. I certainly don't think the only reason to discuss the negatives or limitations of a course of action is to oppose that course of action. In this case:
  You might note that my original comment was phrased as a question; this was not rhetorical. What I was looking for (and got, amidst all the noise) was at least one detailed reply that laid out the degree to which my postulate was correct and what other factors might mitigate it.
19. Re:Sounds good... by mea37 · 2010-07-09 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, discussing the limitations of a proposed treatment is useless, lets just discuss only the most rosy picture we can imagine of how this will work out (and then pretend we're surprised when it doesn't happen as we'd hoped).
20. Re:Sounds good... by General+Wesc · 2010-07-11 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  No, I can't get it because we used the smallpox vaccines to fully eradicate it. You've confused cowpox (A member of the Poxviridae family and which which provides a no-longer-needed immunity to smallpox) with chickenpox (which a member of the Herpesviridae and I'm pretty sure doesn't help with smallpox). We don't give out the smallpox vaccine anymore not because chickenpox or cowpox is common, but because the worldwide infenction rate for smallpox since 1978 has been 0. (And the single case in 1978 was a lab accident. The last natural case was 1977.)
  The eradication of smallpox is one of science's biggest victories. Spread the good word.
21. Re:Sounds good... by Khyber · 2010-07-12 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  The disease of chickenpox and the disease of smallpox and the disease of cowpox use the same attack vector and binding site, IIRC. Getting chickenpox and forming antibodies for that causes immunity to the other two.
  I've been around many people with cowpox, I've worked on ranches. I've only had chickenpox and I've never contracted cowpox.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:Great... by Gotung · 2010-07-09 05:44 · Score: 1, Funny

Oh, so THAT's why you haven't been fucking.

Come on, this is slashdot ...
So... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-09 05:45 · Score: 1, Interesting

I understand this is a great achievement in preventing the spread of the disease, but won't the long-term effect just be that the 10% of the virus that's unaffected becomes 100% of what's spreading?
1. Re:So... by butterflysrage · 2010-07-09 05:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  yes, at 1/10th the rate... that is a good thing
  
  --
  the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
2. Re:So... by spazdor · 2010-07-09 05:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That's a great outcome. Remember, the people who have a strain of HIV from the other 90%, aren't going to get re-infected with one from the 10%. They will just be rendered effectively uncontagious.
  It's a one-time thing, to be sure; the resistant strain will spread at the same rate of growth - but it will do so from a severely stunted starting point.
  Assuming this works, it means a one-time epidemiological "rewind" - suddenly we'll have the much lower HIV rates we had 30 or 40 years ago, but we'll have the knowledge and preparedness of today. Imagine if we could use 2010's pharmaceuticals to nip the epidemic in the bud back then!
  
  --
  DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
3. Re:So... by cybernanga · 2010-07-09 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  One can be infected by multiple strains of HIV, which is why HIV positive couples are advised to use condoms if they have different strains from each other. (assuming of course that they both were infected from different sources)
  
  --
  www.Buy-Proxy.com - A "buyer-driven" global marketplace.
Prevents CD4 binding by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-09 05:46 · Score: 1, Informative

Which is the mechanism that HIV uses to do the borg-like stuff. If the borg had no ability to assimilate, nobody would be scared of them.
HIV off the radar? by Geeky · 2010-07-09 05:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

I grew up in the 80s when HIV was big news and - here in the UK - TV ads warning of the dangers of unsafe sex were aired. A whole generation seemed to have grown up paranoid (perhaps rightly) about unprotected sex.
That seems to have faded and it's now seen as largely a third world problem. It seems that teenagers and twenty somethings have drifted back into behaviour that predated the advent of AIDS - and more. It's like they've worked out that it's still unlikely to affect them as it hasn't really got a grip in their demographic.
Sadly that's led to a massive increase in other, albeit treatable, STDs.

--
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
1. Re:HIV off the radar? by NiteShaed · 2010-07-09 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Make pregnancy out of "wedlock", with a legal definition of "wedlock" altered to focus on support of progeny, rather than present interpretations of "marriage", punishable by death, and it would be a good start.
  ......and that's because there are absolutely no single people who are more capable of raising a kid than a many couples are? Awesome idea, 'cause we all know that Minnie Driver's kid will be doomed to a life of poverty and suffering, as opposed to the lavish childhood that will be rained upon the children of Cleefus and Jolene at the Happy-Garden trailer park.
  
  --
  Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
2. Re:HIV off the radar? by smellsofbikes · 2010-07-09 07:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The rise in the use of methamphetamines seems to have driven a lot of this behavioral change: people don't do a great job of thinking long-term under those circumstances. Dan Savage of Savage Love fame has written and talked about this extensively, because meth is such a large factor in the rave/dance scene, particularly the gay dance scene.
  What I think is more depressing is a sense of the inevitability of AIDS, coupled with a sense that AIDS is at least manageable (IF you have good medical insurance) that leads a lot of young gay men to pretty much shrug and decide they'll deal with AIDS when they get it. My girlfriend's best friend is a wonderful guy and not particularly stupid, but he was all twitterpated over this boy in California who was HIV positive, and was ready to go out there and move in with the guy, and when we were like "WHY??!?" he shrugged and said "love's worth AIDS." Which makes me question my characterization of him as not particularly stupid, but I think twenty-three-year-olds sometimes have issues actually comprehending what 50 years of an expensive daily drug regimen would be like.
  
  --
  Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
3. Re:HIV off the radar? by randall_burns · 2010-07-09 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  The US has areas that have a higher rate of _heterosexual_ HIV than African countries. The thing is, that in African, parasites and malaria are major factors in making AIDS spread more rapidly. In the US IV drug use is a major factor. In both countries treatable STD's like Chlamydia and gonorrhea are major factors. However, non-treatable STI's like HSV2 and HPV are also major factors.
  Aids deaths are declining in developed countries due to improved drug treatments. However,the number of folks living with HIV is still rising(though the rate of rise has slowed in some countries). That is in part the consequence of folks living longer after becoming HIV+. HIV is much less a factor in areas that have good public health-just containing treatable STD's has reduced HIV infection rate by 40% in some countries. However, the only country that has really claimed to have reduced its level of HIV infection for any period of time was Cuba--which had a program of mandatory universal testing and Florentine.
4. Re:HIV off the radar? by linhares · 2010-07-09 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  but I think twenty-three-year-olds sometimes have issues actually comprehending what 50 years of an expensive daily drug regimen would be like.
  incredibly insightful remark. Here's more food for thought. http://web.mit.edu/ariely/www/MIT/Papers/Heat_of_Moment.pdf
5. Re:HIV off the radar? by smellsofbikes · 2010-07-09 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  I hadn't read that, and it was interesting. I'm going to send it to our friend. I have read a fair bit about people having long-term planning issues before age 25, with a general conclusion that people aren't really adult until then (whatever 'adult' means: people still make dumb decisions when they're 80, if the expected payout is high enough.) And I'm glad you thought it was insightful: someone modded me flamebait, when I'd put actual thought into composing that rather than my usual offhand blathering.
  
  --
  Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
6. Re:HIV off the radar? by dogod · 2010-07-09 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  And why is HPV untreatable? It's a virus and with time they will figure out a way to slow it's reproduction through the population. Some warts are caused by HPV, they can and do clear up after a time.
7. Re:HIV off the radar? by NiteShaed · 2010-07-12 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  I specifically suggested defining "wedlock" as (a) having the means to, and (b) the commitment to, raising a child and not as traditional marriage. Call it "childlock" if you prefer: making kids while not able to support them or not committing to support them (this can include adoption out if approved by a court), should be a crime punishable by death.
  And for your next trick will you redefine chocolate as "tastes like liver" or soft as "consistency of concrete"? "Wedlock", regardless of the goal, still implies multiple people. Are you suggesting that Minnie Driver, going back to my example, would have to "enter into wedlock" with herself?
  As for the rest of your batshit insanity, this is why you don't get to make the rules. The rest of us, you know; the not-crazy people, don't think any of your reasons for killing people make any sense.
  Oh, since I'm here anyway, "deadbeat dads" are not single parents in the traditional sense. The custodial parent, the one that the "deadbeat" owes the child-support to, is the single parent. We also don't typically lock them up. If you owe child support, and suddenly find, through no fault of your own, that you can no longer afford that amount, you return to court and renegotiate it. The people who get locked up are [supposed to be] the ones who *refuse* to pay their child-support, not the ones who can't because they lost their job.
  
  --
  Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
Re:Great... by Bill+Dimm · 2010-07-09 05:52 · Score: 5, Funny

So now we can all start fucking again?
If you want to pretend that HIV was the reason people on Slashdot weren't fucking, you go right ahead.
Re:Pshhh by phantomfive · 2010-07-09 06:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm pretty ok with people getting money for doing something valuable. I was happy when Linus became a millionaire, I'll be happy if the people who invent an AIDS vaccine become millionaires. Other people having money doesn't reduce my happiness one bit, and when they get it for doing something awesome, it increases my happiness.

--
Qxe4
Re:Pshhh by geekoid · 2010-07-09 06:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yes, that explains why AIDS treatments have been getting better and cheaper.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Not all it's cracked up to be by overshoot · 2010-07-09 06:05 · Score: 5, Informative

An HIV researcher's take on the news.

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
1. Re:Not all it's cracked up to be by Applekid · 2010-07-09 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  And? It's a blog, not a dissertation. I can write technical manuals with proper grammar and still speak in idioms and slang in casual conversation.
  
  --
  More Twoson than Cupertino
2. Re:Not all it's cracked up to be by SteeldrivingJon · 2010-07-09 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  She. And it's a blog, not a dissertation defense.
  
  --
  September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
3. Re:Not all it's cracked up to be by u38cg · 2010-07-10 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Pepsi would cure him?
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
90 percent isn't good enough by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-09 06:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

The 10 percent that that are immune to the antibodies will take over and become the new 90 percent.
We're home free! by MJMullinII · 2010-07-09 06:41 · Score: 1

Andromeda has mutated to a noninfectious form!

--
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
Re:Pshhh by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2010-07-09 06:59 · Score: 1

Don't shower with money shot, since that would probably have the opposite effect.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
And the news is... ? by Mortiss · 2010-07-09 07:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

I fail to see the hype. There are plenty of great anti-HIV antibodies which are well described. These have a great cross-reactivity to many HIV strains and are directed against very conserved regions of envelope proteins. The trouble lies that no one so far has been able to find a way to produce them in a patient's body in large amounts. In addition, it is well known that Ab response is not really the way to go. Current HIV vaccines designs are moving towards inducing a innate immunity responses and also focus on T-cell not B-cell mediated immunity.
Re:Pshhh by poetmatt · 2010-07-09 07:21 · Score: 1

money shot shampoo. creamy and 100% aids free!
Note on reverse transcription by johnpc831 · 2010-07-09 07:31 · Score: 4, Informative

If my memory of microbiology serves me correctly, the variance in HIV has more to do with the super error-prone reverse transcription process than it does with the virus actually trying to evade destruction. Transcribing DNA from RNA also requires elements of the host cell, which can vary from person to person, and there is no error checking done at all.
1. Re:Note on reverse transcription by the_one(2) · 2010-07-09 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  the variance in HIV has more to do with the super error-prone reverse transcription process than it does with the virus actually trying to evade destruction
  There is no intent in evolution. Error-prone copying is just a means to be able to evade destruction.
Intelligent Design by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2010-07-09 07:33 · Score: 3, Funny

have been difficult because the virus continuously changes its surface proteins to evade recognition by the immune system.
Yeah, almost like it was intelligently designed to be as difficult to kill as possible.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
1. Re:Intelligent Design by linhares · 2010-07-09 09:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  then your intelligent designer decided to bring to this world lots and lots of innocent infected babies
Re:Great... by Kilrah_il · 2010-07-09 10:08 · Score: 1

Well, you still have HCV, chlamydia, Syphillis, Gonorrhea, HPV, HSV-2, Chancroid, Candidia, Tinea Cruris, Trichonomas and a few others to worry about, but go ahead, man!

--
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Re:WTF dude by Rene+S.+Hollan · 2010-07-09 10:09 · Score: 1, Troll

Look. Either kill the brats that people produce and can't afford, or punish the people that produce the brats. But, certainly stop forcing other people to pay for the bastards.
Otherwise, with HIV treatments and possible cures improving, you will have more people blase about unprotected sex and unwanted kids demanding that the rest of us support them. Their kids will grow up to do the same, and their sheer numbers in a democratic society will result in enslavement of the responsible to support the lifestyle of the irresponsible.
Producing children you can't support should be one of the most heinous crimes there is, and punished accordingly.
What's with the Hitler reference, anyway? In my call to punish sexual irresponsibility with death, I do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, or national origin.
If this is somehow unfair, because it has become so expensive to actually raise children, perhaps resources have been spread too thin, and the human species needs some serious culling to return to sustainable numbers for a larger fraction of the population. This achieves that too.

--
In Liberty, Rene
Re:WTF dude by linhares · 2010-07-09 10:22 · Score: 2, Funny

son, one day, with luck, you may be a troll of legendary proportions. for now, you're just trying too hard
Re:Pshhh by PAH2 · 2010-07-09 20:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm pretty ok with people getting money for doing something valuable. I was happy when Linus became a millionaire, I'll be happy if the people who invent an AIDS vaccine become millionaires. Other people having money doesn't reduce my happiness one bit, and when they get it for doing something awesome, it increases my happiness.
That would be great if it were that simple. However, we are flush with companies that will do anything to suppress the 'cure' research while working full out on the 'maintenance' research. The old "take this for the rest of your life" is a cash cow forever. A 'cure' will not be found in the good ole USA. We are capitalists and if there is no big money involved, it won't happen. A cure stops the profit.
Re:Pshhh by phantomfive · 2010-07-10 05:01 · Score: 2, Informative

That's pretty much on par with conspiracy, there man. It's like saying Haliburton caused the BP well leak because they knew they would be called in to help clean it up, except worse.

Either pull out your evidence that all companies are avoiding researching on promising AIDS cures, or put away the tin-foil hat.

--
Qxe4
Another Factor by MintOreo · 2010-07-10 16:30 · Score: 1

The less ubiquitous the disease the lower the rate of mutation. If this plays out optimally you're not just rewinding the state of the disease, you're also potentially preventing more strains to deal with.