Antibody Discovered To Boost HIV Vaccines

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."

Comments

Progress on this front is good

[beschra]

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.

Re:Progress on this front is good

[easterberry]

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.

Re:Progress on this front is good

[Gotung]

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.

Re:Progress on this front is good

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:Progress on this front is good

[phantomfive]

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.

Not the mechanism

[aepervius]

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.

Re:Techno Puzzle

[PerfectionLost]

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.

Re:Sounds good...

[exasperation]

No. You're drastically reducing the number of possible infections. 90% of exposures would be immunized against.

Re:Great...

[Bill Dimm]

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:So...

[spazdor]

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!

Re:Pshhh

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:Pshhh

[geekoid]

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

Not all it's cracked up to be

[overshoot]

An HIV researcher's take on the news.

And the news is... ?

[Mortiss]

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.

Note on reverse transcription

[johnpc831]

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.