Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Claim Success In Removing HIV From Living Cells (nature.com)
ffkom writes: A recent publication from German researchers claims success in removing the HI-Virus from living cells, showing a way to completely cure AIDS rather than just suppressing its symptoms (by lowering the amount of viruses) by permanent medication: "Current combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) efficiently suppress HIV-1 reproduction in humans, but the virus persists as integrated proviral reservoirs in small numbers of cells. To generate an antiviral agent capable of eradicating the provirus from infected cells, we employed 145 cycles of substrate-linked directed evolution to evolve a recombinase (Brec1) that site-specifically recognizes a 34-bp sequence present in the long terminal repeats (LTRs) of the majority of the clinically relevant HIV-1 strains and subtypes. Brec1 efficiently, precisely and safely removes the integrated provirus from infected cells and is efficacious on clinical HIV-1 isolates in vitro and in vivo, including in mice humanized with patient-derived cells. Our data suggest that Brec1 has potential for clinical application as a curative HIV-1 therapy."
Clinical trials are expected to start in Hamburg, Germany, soon.
Are like battery/solar power articles. The best battery/HIV cure is just 2 years away. Always. But it never happens.
Don't most of them start with a discovery like this. Just saying.
If this actually works it could be one of the most important advances in human medicine for decades. Hopefully it actually works and isn't the typical vaporware HIV cure.
I haven't even RTFA yet, but I was wondering if this could have applications with other viruses that become long-term residents of the body. I'm thinking of things in the herpes family like... herpes, or chickenpox / shingles. The trick with most of these is long-term, mostly-dormant viruses hiding in the cells. If you can wake them up, the immune system can clear them, but they are effectively hidden inside the cells while quiescent.
Could be, but that's not to say there's not an immense effort to find a cure. That's going to be one for the history books, a Nobel prize or two and whatnot.
-SR
Only 88% of HIV are affected by this change. So not to be Debbie Downer, but as it is now, all this would do is change which strain is the most prevalent. 88% isn't good enough; Hell, 99.99% isn't good enough, as 'Life finds a way' (as far as viruses can be considered alive).
"Insulting and acting arrogant doesn't win their minds"
What minds?
In countries with single-payer healthcare this is nowhere near as much of a problem...
Gotta disagree with you saying that 88% isn't good enough.
1) If current measures are reducing transmission of HIV to R values (new cases per existing case) of something like 1.2 or lower, this could bring it below the threshold of being able to increase in numbers and thus speed eradication.
2) If 88% of CURRENT HIV+ are completely cured, drugs and resources saved can be concentrated on the remaining 12%, thus reducing R values even further, speeding eradication.
3) 88% cure rate is a pretty massive reduction in human suffering, isn't it?
--PM
It would be interesting to see if this method might be effective for other chronic viral infections, such as rabies or hepatitis infections that were found after symptoms began showing up where it's too late for vaccination.
I'm not sure how to articulate this but I beg to differ.
I do not think we're more intelligent today than we were "back then." We have access to more information, that is true. If you think you're more intelligent, how about we take away your modern amenities, strip you naked, and put you into the woods fifty miles from civilization - and you stay there for a year. We'll even give you some flint. Hell, you can even take up to six more mature adults but for every adult you must bring .5 (rounded up) children and for every 3 mature adults you must bring one elderly person (rounded up, of course).
You're not one of those folks who are egotistical enough to think we're at the apex of understanding, correct, or at the pinnacle of morality, or are you? If so, I'd encourage you to look at history and note that we've pretty much always thought we were at that pinnacle. At some point, and for a long time, our best and brightest - our dedicated scientists, believed in the four humors or phlogiston. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're not so naive as to think we're certainly correct with our current understanding. It's a little rough on the ego but all, literally all, of history tells us that we're probably still just as incorrect as they were.
At any rate, it's difficult to articulate for me. I'm thinking the word hubris belongs in there somewhere. I've no pithy sayings, good analogies, or even a few concise terms to use as descriptors.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
1. You are incorrect about HIV transmission. In the US, yes, it _was_ largely a gay disease. It is not, and has not been, primarily about gay men for a long time now. In the places where it is most devastating (Africa), it has never been about men fucking each other in the ass.
2. The time / money spent on a disease depends on many factors, and it's a limited pool so, yes, spending money on HIV means less for others. But:
A. the effect of HIV worldwide has been huge, even compared to other diseases.
B. What we learn about HIV can be applied to many other communicable diseases.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
do yourself a favor and stay away from Nurses and or Doctors.
Hint some folks get AIDS by way of needle sticks while they are trying to help folks.
Remind yourself of that when your unfaithful spouse contracts you with HIV. Or when your kid gets it from a needle when he's going through his rebel years.
If you don't want to live in a civilized society that takes care of everyone, maybe you should try moving over to Somalia. I heard they don't pay much taxes there and it's every man for himself.
-SR
Don't forget drugs.
I would rather the funds go into solving cancer (immunotherapy is closing in) or a common world wide problem like malaria or systemd
Sorry I was unclear: Yes, you are correct about the US. Most HIV positive people are males homosexuals, and that has not changed.
Looking at the world, it is not and has not been about gay men. Look at: https://www.avert.org/professi... . Most are in sub-Saharan Africa. Almost 5% of the population there is a carrier.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
If only 1% punch me in the nose for being an ass, does it still hurt?
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
I'm really tired of having the term 'hubris' wheeled out for every advance in engineering, in this case the engineering of the human body. A new technique like this is hardly something we're just blundering into without thought. Based on our knowledge today, which is vastly greater than it was in your cited golden age, we take whatever precautions we reasonably can as a part of making the next bold step.
Call it hubris if you want, but adventure is part of human nature, and I'll gladly spend some of my karma ridiculing those who prefer primitivism to a better civilization.
Well, in my defense, look at how it was used... I'm not really sure how to articulate it more clearly. It's also important that you note what it is in response to. Taken out of context (which it seems to have been) really changes the tone. I don't know if you read at >0 or not but there's an AC post that it is in response to.
Unless, of course, you think we're at the apex of knowledge, correct, and the epitome of morality? In which case, I'd suggest an ego check. Every single person in the past has felt the same as you do. There's every reason to believe that, in 200 years, we'll look back at today's science and think about how our current scientists have stood on the shoulders of giants and how silly and wrong we were back then.
If that's not what you believe then I'm not sure what to tell you? I think it will be great and that they'll be standing on those shoulders and doing great things. All evidence points to my being correct in my presumptions. Go back just 200 years and look at the state of science at that time. Now imagine 200 years in the future. Do you really think we're that much more intelligent today? No, I don't mean have access to more information - or more work already completed for us. Do you really think we're that much more intelligent?
I do not believe we are. I've even heard a reasonable argument that we're less intelligent now than we've ever been. We might be better at passing tests, that's true. What we do have, however, is greater availability of information. We've got vast bodies of work to use and build on. But I don't think we're more intelligent. Not in any significant manner. I'm not so egotistical as to believe that I'm the evolutionary end, the epitome of intellect, nor the pillar of morality. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that I'm no such thing and that in 200 years my beliefs will be scoffed at, my intelligence mocked, and my accomplishments rendered trivial. I'm actually okay with that.
The AC seems to think we're at some transition. I disagree. I think we're steadily trending upward while our amassed work increases on a logarithmic scale. I'm certainly not somehow against this sort of advance in engineering. I'm not even sure how that one could be against it? I'm actually kind of confused as to why you might think I am against bio-engineering? I'm wondering if I didn't articulate it clearly or if you're reading into it more than what I said? I am many things, but against bio-engineering is not one of those things.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I am a Hemophilia A Severe Factor8 Deficiency, which my body has a defective Gene that causes my blood cells that come together to form clots and platelets to not have the hair like structures instructions to utilize or make clotting factor 8 and without a blood transfusion or the blood clotting medicine I will bleed to death, and In the 80s I was given infected clotting factor 8 that my doctor thinks I was infected by at the age of 5 and im 36 now, My immune system is Strong Virus Undetectable and its because I have a great Doctor, great pharmacy and the fact I am able to understand science on many level, I study. Biology,chemisty,physics,computer science and engineering, and I Am able to tell my doctors exactly how I feel and what medicine I need when I cant get to her office, due to the injuries I suffered at age 13 when I fell on my knees and it left my legs stuck in the sitting position and I am wheel chair bound. So to those who want to say people deserve it, I didnt do anything to get this infection. Think about what you say before making acusations.
Dustin J F