Study: HIV Becoming Less Deadly, Less Infectious

An anonymous reader writes: A new study (abstract) from Oxford University shows HIV is weakening as it evolves in response to our immune system. When the virus encounters somebody with a particularly strong immune system, it sacrifices efficiency in replication to gradually overcome those defenses. This causes it to take more time for the infection to cause AIDS. Professor Philip Goulder said, "It is quite striking. You can see the ability to replicate is 10% lower in Botswana than South Africa and that's quite exciting. We are observing evolution happening in front of us and it is surprising how quickly the process is happening. The virus is slowing down in its ability to cause disease and that will help contribute to elimination." Goulder added that the average time from infection to the onset of AIDS has increased by 25% over the past 10 years.

Comments

Then again, maybe it _is_ good news.

[AltGrendel]

From TFA: "Some virologists suggest the virus may eventually become "almost harmless" as it continues to evolve." Yes, I realize the the article says "Some" and "almost" but still I'd rather it be like dealing with a common cold than a full shutdown of my immune system.

Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

But, if that happens, surely God will find some other way to punish fags? Because he hates fags, right? Right?

That's figs, God hates figs...

Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news.

[VitrosChemistryAnaly]

What we'd have then is a situation like SIV in which the virus doesn't cause disease in "natural" host organisms (such as chimpanzees) because the host can control virus replication. These people actually already exist and they're called "elite controllers". They are infected with HIV (for many, many years), but their immune system keeps the virus to almost undetectable levels. For them, HIV is harmless.

I work in immunology and the coevolution of host and virus to the point where it is harmless would be a Good Thing (TM).

Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news.

[MightyMartian]

All I know is that evolution is a lie. Have you ever soon an HIV virus turn into a fish or a dog? Well, HAVE YOU???

Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news.

[dimko]

No, but we have seen a plenty of examples of tape worms and amoebas evolving into politicians!

HIV, now friendlier than ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast is really excited. If HIV can get some positive press, they may have some hope, too.

Re:HIV, now friendlier than ever!

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

* After initial promo period, regular deadliness applies.

Re:HIV, now friendlier than ever!

[hey!]

Dunno. Seems to me like HIV has a built-in advantage. It's usually more fun to get than Comcast is.

Contribute to Elimination?

[tomxor]

"The virus is slowing down in its ability to cause disease and that will help contribute to elimination."

Not sure if this is incorrectly phrased or i'm incorrect in my understanding of viral evolution... The virus has evolved to slow down the process of causing disease, surely this is because it is advantageous to the continuation of this virus, if the host dies too quickly they are less likely to pass on the virus. So how does this contribute to eliminating the virus? is it not the opposite? Longer infected lifespan == Greater chance of transmission.

Re:Contribute to Elimination?

[Registered Coward v2]

"The virus is slowing down in its ability to cause disease and that will help contribute to elimination."

Not sure if this is incorrectly phrased or i'm incorrect in my understanding of viral evolution... The virus has evolved to slow down the process of causing disease, surely this is because it is advantageous to the continuation of this virus, if the host dies too quickly they are less likely to pass on the virus. So how does this contribute to eliminating the virus? is it not the opposite? Longer infected lifespan == Greater chance of transmission.

What the article says is the virus, as it adapts to a strong immune system weakens it's ability to replicate; thus slowing down the onset of the disease in the host. If another person is infected by this weaker virus, the new infection results in an even weaker virus as it tries to adapt to the host. In essence, each successive infection results in a virus less able to replicate and thus result in a slower and slower onset of AIDs. Over time, the virus may lose it's ability to replicate fast enough to cause AIDs and merely be another infection for the body to deal with.

How is this good?

[MobyDisk]

One of the most nasty things a disease can do is to slowly replicate without causing symptoms. These long incubation periods are why Ebola, Tuberculosis, and Rabies are so dangerous. It makes them hard to detect and gives the host time to travel and potentially infect others without either party knowing. By the time the symptoms manifest it is often too late. By contrast, a disease that produces symptoms immediately is easily detectable and the host seeks treatment. If it is really really fast, they die before they can pass it on, and such diseases quickly eradicate themselves.

I don't look forward to a world where AIDS only manifests after 30 years, but everyone has it.

All parasites aspire to be symbiotic

[jd.schmidt]

Strange but true, at the end of the day all parasites are better off when they become symbiotic. There is no advantage to killing off your free meal, in fact your are better off lending a hand.

Re:Raining on the parade

[CrankyFool]

Over the long term, you're going to die anyway.

If HIV becomes the sort of virus that basically will take decades and decades to kill you (with lots of medicine, it pretty much is already that, except that in a lot of countries you don't get "lots of medicine"), then its relevance to your lifespan decreases.

There's a form of prostate cancer that develops so slowly that if you're old enough when you get it, it's considered quite reasonable to not even treat it, but rather monitor it to make sure it continues to develop slowly.

disease progression has a genetic component

[madbrain]

I'm somewhat skeptical here. From my very small n=2 study, my husband and myself, infected the same year in 2006 (we both had HIV negative and positive tests that same year) with the same virus, as evidenced by genotype mutations test, I can tell you that my husband progressed from HIV to AIDS in less than a year, and had to go on antiretrovirals right away, whereas I didn't need medication for years and chose to remain without them for 4 years. I was in HIV controller studies. There was no change to my immune system on paper. But I was very tired, and I later chose to go on meds anyway. I had to drop out of the studies for this reason. I don't know what came of them. We are of different ethnicity - I am of caucasian and middle eastern descent; while my husband is asian; so our genetic are probably quite different.

It seems to me that this difference in disease progression between countries may have less to do with the virus itself evolving than it does with people's immune systems and genome evolving and becoming better able to deal with the virus.