Slashdot Mirror


CRISPR Eliminates HIV In Live Animals (genengnews.com)

Researchers from the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University and the University of Pittsburgh show that HIV-1 infections can be eliminated from the genomes of living animals. Findings from the study have been published in the journal Molecular Therapy. Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News reports: This is the first study to demonstrate that HIV-1 replication can be completely shut down and the virus eliminated from infected cells in animals with a powerful gene-editing technology known as CRISPR/Cas9. The new work builds on a previous proof-of-concept study that the team published in 2016, in which they used transgenic rat and mouse models with HIV-1 DNA incorporated into the genome of every tissue of the animals' bodies. They demonstrated that their strategy could delete the targeted fragments of HIV-1 from the genome in most tissues in the experimental animals. In this new study, the LKSOM team genetically inactivated HIV-1 in transgenic mice, reducing the RNA expression of viral genes by roughly 60% to 95% -- confirming their earlier findings. They then tested their system in mice acutely infected with EcoHIV, the mouse equivalent of human HIV-1. In the third animal model, a latent HIV-1 infection was recapitulated in humanized mice engrafted with human immune cells, including T cells, followed by HIV-1 infection. "These animals carry latent HIV in the genomes of human T cells, where the virus can escape detection," Dr. Hu explained. Amazingly, after a single treatment with CRISPR/Cas9, viral fragments were successfully excised from latently infected human cells embedded in mouse tissues and organs.

139 comments

  1. Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by LetterRip · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because this is how you get a zombie apocalypse.

    1. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Chrontius · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's also how you get a cure for AIDS. Stop making zombie jokes, this could be the end of the epidemic.

    2. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Max Rager!

    3. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I'd rather be a spider than a snail!

    4. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yum, fresh ant guts!

    5. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I, too, have a hard-on thinking about an HIV cure.

    6. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just that, but this sounds like an approach you could adapt to any virus.

    7. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by chrpai · · Score: 1

      From what I've read, the first gene therapy drug approved in Europe costs $1.4M USD. Unless this can somehow get down to $20, this doesn't sound like an end to an epidemic to me. It looks more like a second chance for the 1% to me.

    8. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The affordable market price: now only $200k-500k per shot!

    9. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by TiggerTheCat · · Score: 2

      It's an experimental therapy being used in the lab. You won't know how much it might actually cost until they analyze what is involved in mass production. You can troll all you want but this news, this incredible wonderful news, will survive it.

    10. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think there are many people for whom it would be easier to come up with that kind of money than it would be to live with AIDS.

    11. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by kilodelta · · Score: 2

      Well that would be one epidemic down, a few others to go, or need I mention herpes.

    12. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      CRISPR kits cost around $100-$1000. If you were to mass produce therapeutic CRISPR injections in batches of a million, they'd cost pennies per dose. The extra cost is recouping research, profit, costs associated with extra care for experimental patients, etc.

    13. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by walterhpdx · · Score: 1

      If you were personally touched by the virus in some way - yourself, someone you love, etc - you'd be looking at this post with cautious optimism, and not joviality.

    14. Re: Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by walterhpdx · · Score: 2

      Yeah, because gays are the only people affected by HIV/AIDS. Right.

    15. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point being, it was the first. Bleeding-edge tech ALWAYS costs. The example of big-screen TVs is instructive. I'm in my mid-50s, and recall when any TV above a 26 inch tube was purely a rich man's toy. Price came down. Then flatscreen monitors, both TV and computer came out. Expensive and small. Now they're big and cheap, to the point you can pull a box with one off the shelf at your local Wally-world.

      The same model applies to Medical Technologies. The only difference is, EVERYONE demands the bleeding edge (pardon the phrase) in medical technology. . .

    16. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many hundreds of millions spent just so men can fuck each other up the ass with impunity?

    17. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In a few years, no-one's going to give a crap about whether these treatments are approved by some government, when they can download a file from the Internet that specifies the genetic changes and send it to their Home DNA Modification Kit.

    18. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Most viruses don't integrate into the host genome like HIV does. This system would not be useful for treating any virus that doesn't use DNA (like, say, the flu) and it would likely not even do very much against most viruses that do use DNA at some point in their replication cycle.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    19. Re: Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Funny

      But AIDS is so 1980s. Cancer is what the cool kids have these days.

      Oh wait, the word 'cool' is now retro too, having been replaced by the word "sick". So I guess the proper way to say it is "Cancer is what all the sick kids have these days."

    20. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by the+gnat · · Score: 2

      If I'm thinking of the same thing you are, the reason it is so expensive is that there are so few patients - like a few dozen. (It's not even clear to me why they pursued that in the first place, given that it seems like it would be impossible to even recoup their initial investment, much less make a profit.) There is a much larger pool of HIV patients (supposedly 1.2 million in the US alone), even if you just focus on rich nations, and they could still charge what sounds like an extortionate amount of money for it, because insurance companies and governments would love to not needing to keep paying for expensive HIV drugs every month. And whoever brings it to market could easily give it away to poor nations and still become spectacularly wealthy.

    21. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      And if they have good health insurance, it would probably be a bargain compared to what is already being spent on existing HIV medications.

    22. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Using your 3D printer.

      Of course.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    23. Re: Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      HIV used to be called gay cancer. HIV is always your chance to get the cool disease.

    24. Re: Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was called gay cancer because sufferers of Gay-Related Immune Deficiency had cancer, specifically Kaposi sarcoma.

    25. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Funny. Except that you can buy CRISPR kits specifically designed for home experiments. Right now. For $100.

    26. Re: Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      HIV is a much bigger problem in 3rd world countries. And, contrary to your "belief", it is primarily a heterosexual disease outside the US.

    27. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should mention HPV instead of herpes since all strains combined are believed to have infected 70-90% of the population. Some strains cause warts, some cause cancer (cervical, lingual, penile, and throat), while others don't seem to do much. There doesn't seem to be a consensus as to whether an infection may temporary or permanent, or if the duration varies by strain.

    28. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zero, that's how many.

    29. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      What do obscure, misquoted song lyrics have to do with anything?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    30. Re: Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People in Third World Countries are not going to have access to this therapy, even at $20 a does.

    31. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Jfetjunky · · Score: 1

      When zombies figure out how to break the first law of thermodynamics, then I'll be worried about a zombie apocalypse.

    32. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by iotaborg · · Score: 1

      Another difference is that people *need* medical technology. You can get by just fine without a big TV. Since your life would depend on the technology, the opportunities for price inflation are much stronger.

    33. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Nothing was misquoted, which you'd understand if you could comprehend the meaning of a quote.

      Your claim is not even self-consistent; do you think I quoted something, or do you think I said something slightly different? And did it have quotes? So it was different, and without quotes or reference? It isn't even possible to be a misquote.

      There are lots of other potential meanings you could consider that are self consistent, though.

      You remind me of some CRISPR-head who ignores the dangers merely because they didn't think of them or include them in planning.

    34. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by erapert · · Score: 1

      Yes, and people need to eat. That's why you go out and poke some seeds into the ground and work for a living. You work for your living and I'll work for mine. If you can't eat then that's your own problem. If I can't eat then that's my problem. If you can't afford a car then that's on you. Healthcare is the same.

      You have no right to make someone else pay for your stuff no matter how badly you want or even need it.
      FULL STOP.

    35. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A movie idea that someone pulled out of their ass to scare people versus actual science. Which one would an idiot choose?

    36. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by dintymoore · · Score: 2

      Glad your parents didn't apply this philosophy to you while you were growing up? Or, maybe they did, and that's why you grew up to be an @$$hole.

    37. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by erapert · · Score: 0

      1. I didn't call anyone names, but you did. That makes you the asshole.
      2. A parent-child relationship is completely different from the relationship that two unrelated citizens have. It's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
      3. My parents willingly gave me resources as I was growing up as long as I obeyed their rules. It's a kind of contract. I could have ended our relationship and left to live on my own, but that would be stupid of me to do so. It was far better to just obey, learn, and remain in my relationship with my parents. So I obeyed their rules and thus our relationship was maintained, consensual, and without animosity for the profit of all involved. I gained a very good upbringing and they gained a successful son. But you seem to want to insult me on a personal level and insinuate things about my relationship with my parents that you know absolutely nothing about: that makes you an asshole.

    38. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting that you got personal and nasty as soon as someone said that you don't have a right to make them pay for your stuff.

    39. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      I don't think so.

      HIV being a retrovirus puts its genome into the hosts genome. Basically it moves into a cell and settles in for the long haul, goes latent, then eventually sending out copies of itself at a leisurely pace. Other viruses like the cold come into cells and completely take over, pumping out copies of themselves in a mad dash, blowing up the cell in a matter of days, releasing more of the viruses. There's little time for the procedure here to take out the virus in such a situation: the cell is either uninfected or completely overrun by the time CRISPR would come along. With HIV, CRISpR can come along and take it out while it's hiding.

      Moreover, HIV targets immune system cells roaming the blood. The researchers here injected the gene-editing vector (also a virus) into the blood where the vector also targeted the same cells. Other viruses don't do that. Rabies for example spreads inside nerves which are otherwise hard to target with viral vectors. HPV lives in the outer layers of the skin, safe from the immune system and any other easily injectable treatment. Cold viruses I believe infect the respiratory tract. None of these vector viruses are near 100% effective. You might have someone inhale a fog of the treatment, but at a minimum you'd need multiple treatments. No one is going to attempt to develop such a product for the cold due to liability problems alone.

    40. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I can kick the crap out of you and take your stuff (food. money, females, etc) I assume you agree that would be YOUR problem correct? Society should not be pay for your protection costs (police), am I right?

    41. Re: Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pack up the labs, people, our cure may not be affordable to everyone needs it. If only there were literally dozens of possible ways we could provide out cure cheaper to people with less income. :(

    42. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question
      can you turn useful bacterium into nasties with that kit? or that is just not possible?
      Because if you can we may have a little problem

    43. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      WTF? What you wrote was literally one word off from the first line of El Condor Pasa by Simon and Garfunkel (and at least one person managed to misquote it the same way previously).

      More to the point, what's your goddamn problem? You're clearly some kind of idiotically furious nutjob if you're going to get that bent out of shape at the (apparently) heinous accusation that you might have been making a pop-culture reference! And if not a reference, then what the hell else was it supposed to be?! It had nothing to do with curing AIDS, zombies (as referenced by the post it was written in reply to), or any animal mentioned in the article. I admit, I'm baffled -- I can only assume you're just a comprehensively absurd dipshit who likes posting random nonsense for no good reason!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    44. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by erapert · · Score: 1

      Correct. I should pay for the police protection that I enjoy. Presumably the taxes that I pay should cover the cost if I make use of police resources (i.e. man-hours). But more to the point, I have no right to force anyone to give me protection.

    45. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and people need to eat. That's why you go out and poke some seeds into the ground and work for a living. You work for your living and I'll work for mine. If you can't eat then that's your own problem. If I can't eat then that's my problem. If you can't afford a car then that's on you. Healthcare is the same.

      You do realize that you're arguing against all forms of insurance, not just government healthcare, right? Car insurance, homeowners insurance, life insurance, etc. For that matter, you're arguing against all forms of shared infrastructure. I'm curious, where do you live? Are you mooching off the money I pay for roads, for telecoms services, for electricity, etc.? I'm going to guess that the answer is a definite yes to some or all of those, at least if you apply your definition.

    46. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You: "No, calm down, there is no zombie apocalypse. See, look at the test results: It says the same thing that I expected it to, just off by one word. Therefore, it can only be typo. CRISPR would never intentionally change just one word. If it was a design bug, everything about the result would be different."

    47. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if the GP is richer than you (or represents a consortium who have pooled their resources because they just don't like you)? I assume that you're ok with the GP showing up at your house with 5 police officers, politely waiting while you rifle through the couch cushions for the money to hire five police officers of your own, then making a phone call and ordering himself fifteen more officers. Then, I suppose, just to rub it in the GP could just stand around waiting for the money you paid to run out, and for you to desperately call everyone you know for a loan (I don't think organized credit could exist in your world since it's a form of pooled risk sharing too) until your police officers desert you. Then the GP could basically just go ahead and pummel you mercilessly while his police officers stand around taking bets on how many teeth he's going to leave you.
      So, are you ok with that? I get the feeling that you love the idea of a world where you could do that to other people, but just can't even imagine a world where that could happen to you. I think it's basically because you're stuck in some sort of adolescent power fantasy mode. Maybe you're one of the multitudes who read _Atlas Shrugged_ and imagine yourself as one of the producers rather than one of the moochers.

    48. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're going to have to explain that one.

    49. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by dintymoore · · Score: 1

      1. I accept the title. 2. Of course parent-child is different from fellow citizen. My problem is with your unqualified "get what you pay for" mentality when it comes to healthcare. Food is a relatively predictable expense; healthcare is not. Expecting people who suffer a sudden or catastrophic illness to come up with the money to pay for their treatment all by themselves is ridiculous and cruel. Insurance. Your unqualified, Randian "go pay for your own" in this particular thread was not only unhelpful, it wasn't even germane. Own your issue; I'll deal with mine.

    50. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by erapert · · Score: 1

      But what if the GP is richer than you (or represents a consortium who have pooled their resources because they just don't like you)? I assume that you're ok with the GP showing up at your house with 5 police officers, politely waiting while you rifle through the couch cushions for the money to hire five police officers of your own, then making a phone call and ordering himself fifteen more officers. Then, I suppose, just to rub it in the GP could just stand around waiting for the money you paid to run out, and for you to desperately call everyone you know for a loan (I don't think organized credit could exist in your world since it's a form of pooled risk sharing too) until your police officers desert you. Then the GP could basically just go ahead and pummel you mercilessly while his police officers stand around taking bets on how many teeth he's going to leave you.

      The situation you just described is basically the same as what we call a "government" isn't it?
      But regardless of how unhappy I would be in such circumstances (ridiculous and hypothetical as they may be) it would still be wrong of me to force someone to give me money, protection, resources, whatever.

      So, are you ok with that? I get the feeling that you love the idea of a world where you could do that to other people, ...

      Now you're just straight up insulting my character without knowing anything about me-- and nothing I've said so far even implies that I would like to do such things as you describe to other people.

      However, you are implying that you would like such things done to me because you're trying to defend a system where a group (i.e. government) with lots of power and resources (i.e. military) would come in and take things from me (i.e. taxes) and force me to do things against my will (i.e. pay for other people's health insurance).

      ... but just can't even imagine a world where that could happen to you. I think it's basically because you're stuck in some sort of adolescent power fantasy mode. Maybe you're one of the multitudes who read _Atlas Shrugged_ and imagine yourself as one of the producers rather than one of the moochers.

      1. Use <i></i>to italicize, <b></b> to bold.
      2. Considering that I have a productive job and pay taxes without getting a tax return, and considering that I don't have anyone pay for my lifestyle, yes I do think of myself as a producer and not a moocher.
      3. See my response above about how you're making lots of nasty assumptions about my character while revealing what an asshole you are.

    51. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you check _that_ code for malware? Formatting a PC is pretty annoying to the point that people often just buy a new one, but if your DNA is hit with ransomware you don't have much of a choice but to pay up. And no, I'n not going to run McAfee Homo Sapiens edition.

    52. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget about patents.

    53. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The situation you just described is basically the same as what we call a "government" isn't it?

      Not really. Not a functional government anyway. A functional government is supposed to protect the people from abuses from itself and from other citizens. The situation I described is more typical of anarchy or feudalism. Bear in mind, I'm often sharply critical of how far government falls from the ideal, but I know that it's completely unrealistic to think that you can do without it in a modern world filled with other people.

      But regardless of how unhappy I would be in such circumstances (ridiculous and hypothetical as they may be) it would still be wrong of me to force someone to give me money, protection, resources, whatever.

      But you're the one who, in response to the other poster writing: "Society should not be pay for your protection costs (police), am I right?" wrote:

      Correct. I should pay for the police protection that I enjoy. Presumably the taxes that I pay should cover the cost if I make use of police resources (i.e. man-hours). But more to the point, I have no right to force anyone to give me protection.

      The bit about your taxes covering the cost is a little confusing. In order to be consistent with your position on health insurance the costs you would pay in your taxes would have to be very specifically the charges that you personally incurred for police protection. In other words, per-incident charges for every time you make use of the police based on man-hours used, equipment charges, travel time compensation, fuel, dispatch charges, hazard fees, service fees, regulatory compliance recovery fees (although, if they work under absolutely no regulations, I guess they couldn't rightfully charge you those fees, but, since they're not working under any regulations, they can charge you the fees anyway, so it all works out), etc. I have no idea how you would pay for your exact share of policing activities like patrolling under your scheme. How would you envision that being fairly apportioned so that you're not being forced to pay for the protection of others and so that they aren't forced to pay for yours? It seems really tricky. Maybe do it in time slices. While they're driving down the street, the police pay attention to your property for ten seconds and react if a crime is happening. While they're focusing on your house, they ignore all other crime that may be happening unless it's affecting your property and, they ignore all crime affecting your property when they move on to the next house. Sounds like that could work well for billing purposes. A bit problematic if your child is ever kidnapped. There's probably no way you could afford the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars worth of police resources that are often used when a child is kidnapped (sadly, in the real world, the economic bracket of the kidnapped child often does affect how much is spent on rescuing them). Basically, it's hard to see how your scheme, taken to its logical conclusion wouldn't lead to a situation where whoever can afford the most Pinkertons being able to do as they please (up to and including kidnapping your child, if it pleases them)

      Now you're just straight up insulting my character without knowing anything about me-- and nothing I've said so far even implies that I would like to do such things as you describe to other people.

      Maybe it has something to do with the way you've been straight up insulting other people's characters. That and the way that you seem to be happy to let people die in ditches. Maybe the feeling I was getting about you is wrong. Of course, what you wrote below doesn't exactly bolster my good will towards you.

      However, you are implying that you would like such things done to me because you're trying to defend a system where a group (i.e. government) with lots of power and resources (i.e. military) would come in and take thi

    54. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by dintymoore · · Score: 1

      Did you follow the thread? Did you read the comment e r was supposedly replying to? The commenter's point was that when somebody is selling you something you need, there is automatically a power imbalance in the seller's favor. To call that "free trade" in the same way as for buying a TV is misleading at best. To say that you are "free" to not pay for a life-saving medication when you are on death's door is literally true but a very incomplete picture of the situation. Nobody in the thread was saying or even implying that the solution is to get someone else to pay for your medications. Injecting a Randian "go pay for your own" missed the point and -- whether you are willing to admit it or not -- betrays a bitterness and antagonism towards people in need. I'm sorry that there are people in desperate need of medical care they can't afford. I'm not at all sorry that people like you and e r have to hear about it, even though it apparently irks you that there is some implied or stated request that you help them out. I brought up e r's parents because Randians have a problem with the self-sacrifice and uncompensated giving to children traditionally required of parents, as is well-known. When someone has the nerve to parade selfishness in public and hide it behind a stupid accusation like "you just want someone else to pay for your stuff" you're damned right I'm going to get nasty and personal. I could say a lot more about the similarities in the relationships between parents and children and between fellow citizens when medical emergencies occur, but I forebear because you are not likely to follow up anyway.

    55. Re:Do you want a zombie apocalypse? by erapert · · Score: 1

      Maybe it has something to do with the way you've been straight up insulting other people's characters.

      I did not insult anyone's character. I only pointed out that the person who insulted me was a hypocrite and was projecting.

      The bit about your taxes covering the cost is a little confusing. In order to be consistent with your position on health insurance the costs you would pay in your taxes would have to be very specifically the charges that you personally incurred for police protection. In other words, per-incident charges for every time you make use of the police based on man-hours used, equipment charges, travel time compensation, fuel, dispatch charges, hazard fees, service fees, regulatory compliance recovery fees (although, if they work under absolutely no regulations, I guess they couldn't rightfully charge you those fees, but, since they're not working under any regulations, they can charge you the fees anyway, so it all works out), etc. I have no idea how you would pay for your exact share of policing activities like patrolling under your scheme. How would you envision that being fairly apportioned so that you're not being forced to pay for the protection of others and so that they aren't forced to pay for yours? It seems really tricky. Maybe do it in time slices. While they're driving down the street, the police pay attention to your property for ten seconds and react if a crime is happening. While they're focusing on your house, they ignore all other crime that may be happening unless it's affecting your property and, they ignore all crime affecting your property when they move on to the next house. Sounds like that could work well for billing purposes. A bit problematic if your child is ever kidnapped. There's probably no way you could afford the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars worth of police resources that are often used when a child is kidnapped (sadly, in the real world, the economic bracket of the kidnapped child often does affect how much is spent on rescuing them). Basically, it's hard to see how your scheme, taken to its logical conclusion wouldn't lead to a situation where whoever can afford the most Pinkertons being able to do as they please (up to and including kidnapping your child, if it pleases them)

      You're making a lot of sense, and I can see how the logical conclusion that you came to sounds reprehensible. And I agree that such a situation would be reprehensible. But...
      1. I think we're already in a situation where the rich people who can buy the most pinkertons are abusing others: just look at how the political elites flout the law-- pen and phone?! Clintons and Bushes getting off scott free? Drones murdering american citizens without a jury trial?! The IRS is abusing political enemies?! We're already there, I think, but the pinkertons are just called "police" these days.
      2. I think that it's possible to implement a system which solves the problem of paying for police protection while still maintaining consent on the part of the citizens. For example, police protection could be opt-out. That is, I should have the option to opt-out of any government services that I think I don't need. Risky, to be sure, but I should have the option to do so. In what sense is it right to force someone to accept a gift? Is it really for someone's benefit that I should force anything on them?

      No thank you. I know how to use html perfectly well. Slashdot does not have a style guide that I'm aware of, however. I can see that you want me to put book titles in italics, but I'm not sure what you want me to put in bold? In any case, the underscores work perfectly well.

      I had assumed that you were unfamiliar with HTML or did not know that /. supports certain tags. I'm sorry.

      I'm not implying I would like such things done to you. I'm simply pointing out to you that your ideas about how things should work are naiv

  2. Biotech News Blues by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but how do we eliminate the "Biotech News Blues"?

  3. Say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems the latent expression of English language was excised from the genome of targeted fragments of biotech buzzwords.

  4. HIV-1 infected animals by interestinganimals · · Score: 1

    "HIV-1 replication can be completely shut down and the virus eliminated from infected cells in animals with a powerful gene-editing technology known as CRISPR/Cas9." I'm very glad to hearing this!

    1. Re:HIV-1 infected animals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, seriously. There are lifelong virgins out there who never had sex because of the risk of AIDS. Chances are they won't be getting laid anytime soon either because this alleged cure is sure to be prohibitively expensive still.

    2. Re:HIV-1 infected animals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Yes, I'm very glad to hear I don't have to use any protection when engaging in fornication and adultery."

      No, seriously, I'm sure there are people out there who make this their take-home message of the article.

      It doesn't actually. Have you heard of PreP? It is a treatment of Antivirals (Truvada) given to an HIV negative person who is at high risk of becoming infected to act as a prophylactic. PreP is very effective against HIV infection and studies have shown it does not alter condom use. So the notion a "cure" for HIV would change sexual risk behaviors is a bit of a false flag. If someone is prone to risky behavior they tend to do it regardless of risk.

    3. Re:HIV-1 infected animals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Btw I realize you were saying people will think hat regardless and you're right. I just wanted to point out to those people that we already have a treatment that had the potential to alter sexual practices by significantly reducing HIV infection rates and it was shown to not alter risky behaviors.

  5. Flabbergasted by the implications by Chrontius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This could actually move people off antiretroviarals, and into long-term remission.

    Don't expect a silver bullet - AIDS will be cured like cancer, driven into remission, and only "cured" after we're confident that it won't show up again later on.

    In spite of that? I expect it's going to be far cheaper than treating patients with long duration HAART cocktails, and treating the side effects of those drugs. Even if each patient's viral strains have to be sequenced, and a CRISPR cocktail picked based on the strains harbored, AIDS drugs are not cheap. This could be a turning point representing the beginning of the end of AIDS.

    1. Re:Flabbergasted by the implications by MayeulC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if each patient's viral strains have to be sequenced, and a CRISPR cocktail picked based on the strains harbored, AIDS drugs are not cheap. This could be a turning point representing the beginning of the end of AIDS.

      I agree. And this could also have the additional benefit of driving costs down for sequencing, and CRISPR-based therapies, which could in turn bring such a cure to more people, and enable the same to be done for other diseases.

    2. Re:Flabbergasted by the implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This goes much furthur tho far beyond aids / hiv the whole CRISPR editing is such a massive change for humanity. I don't think people quite realize yet.

    3. Re:Flabbergasted by the implications by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      So your flabbergasted that a prokaryotic immune system that protects bacteria from viral infections can be used to protect eukaryotic cells from viral infections too?

      Hijacking CRISPR/Cas9 for editing DNA is the "flabbergasting" bit, not using it for what it evolved for. Now wake me up when you can use this to cure HxNy please.

    4. Re:Flabbergasted by the implications by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Flabbergasted by the implications

      The implications of CRISPR-Cas9 overall are flabbergasting.

      It suddenly allows much, much more complex, precise and reliable gene editing than the previous transfection systems. It is ludicrously, phenomenally, powerful and the surface is just being scratched.

      There are vast implications, both positie and negative. Like any tool, it has the power to do great harm as well as amazing good. The cat's out of the bag and anyway it's just too powerful to ignore, so it's going to be an interesting ride.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Flabbergasted by the implications by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 2

      It'll almost certainly be cheaper long-term than HAART cocktails, but an effective HIV vaccine would do a lot more to end AIDS. Ideally, we'll get both a cure and a vaccine in the near future.

      IIRC, this CRISPR/Cas system shouldn't require individualized patient sequencing. HIV does have highly conserved regions of its genome, and disrupting those is enough to render the proviral genome completely non-functional.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    6. Re:Flabbergasted by the implications by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 2

      No, OP is flabbergasted that it works well enough in an actual animal to eliminate integrated HIV copies. Plenty of things work well in isolated cells or tissues that fail to translate to animal models. Efficient delivery is usually a lot harder in animals than in cells.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    7. Re:Flabbergasted by the implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wel that's why the civil world has health care insurrance

      oh wait.. ya'll voted for Trump who effectively tries to kill health care insurrance

      guess what cancer treatments cost, or life long anti viral treatments ?

      This promisses to be a permanent solution, together with PreP, this could whipe this off the face of the planet, and when i can be done en masse , costs will come down too

    8. Re:Flabbergasted by the implications by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      When you're removing things, it works about as well as you suggest. When you want to add something (changing requires removal AND adding) then it's a lot better than anything before, but it still involves a lot of random chance. You can't really use something that random therapeutically.

    9. Re:Flabbergasted by the implications by bongey · · Score: 1

      HIV/AIDS is nothing like cancer. HIV/AIDS has but a few variations of the virus, cancer has hundreds of variations. Even when you "cure" one form of cancer in an individual, the cancer often mutates into another form that previous treatment is no longer effective. This treatment might be effective if you can detect the various mutations and un-do the mutations that are causing there cancer. PBS had very good 6 part serious on current cancer research.

    10. Re:Flabbergasted by the implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cancer may have 100's of variations, but 50% of cancers include a mutation of the p53 gene. This is so common because p53 causes cells to suicide when irreparable DNA damage is detected. And we can already check for p53 mutations. If CRISPR will allow us to insert replacement p53 genes, you'd be looking at a significant drop in cancer deaths.

      The importance of this breakthrough isn't specifically that it cures HIV or cancer, but that it works in mammals. It's hard to estimate how many diseases may be affected by this. To throw in a random example: what about Down Syndrome? If we can deactivate the extra chromosome at birth, brain development after birth might not be affected. Expect many more stories like this (as well as a bunch of high-profile accidents - this is still very dangerous)

  6. Virus Cure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is great news if they can take it out of the lab! I also hope this can be applied to other viruses!

  7. Re:Harlem High School Fight Song by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're twice as stupid as you think you are.

  8. Re:Cause for Celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot virgin nerds can finally get laid.

  9. Re:if ur not gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i miss the good old days when aids was called grids

    aids is a confusing name

    grids is less confusing

  10. Subtypes of HIV by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Informative

    HIV-1 is the most common and pathogenic strain of the virus.
    HIV-2 has not been widely recognized outside of Africa.

    HIV-2 has been found to be less pathogenic than HIV-1. The mechanism of HIV-2 is not clearly defined, nor the difference from HIV-1, however the transmission rate is much lower in HIV-2 than HIV-1.

    source

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  11. Bill HIcks by waspleg · · Score: 3, Funny

    "I dunno how much AIDS scares y'all, but I got a theory: the day they come out with a cure for AIDS, a guaranteed one-shot cure, on that day there's gonna be fucking in the streets, man."

    1. Re:Bill HIcks by esperto · · Score: 4, Insightful
      His comment is tong in cheek, but one thing AIDS epidemic is "good" for, at least outside Africa, is to help keep in check other STDs. The AIDS scare helped a lot to make people use condoms and halted the spread of some common STDs that people took as not that bad (clamidia, herpes, etc.).

      Not having this boogie man can actually make those other diseases spike.

    2. Re:Bill HIcks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this is a quote and not your words. But I still want to say that there are more STIs than just HIV, with varying severity, transmissivity and curability (such as Hepatitis C, syphilis, HPV, clamydia, herpes, ...). With more and more bacterial infections becoming resistent to the antibiotics, many currently curable diseases are becoming incresingly difficult to treat. So it would be great if one of these could be cured or maybe even eliminated, but I sure hope people won't get crazy, since we might just replace an old problem with a bunch of new ones. HIV currently is the worst STI, but not anymore by as big margin as it used to be some 20-30 years ago.

    3. Re:Bill HIcks by gcmd · · Score: 2

      And we are already seeing that spike as the spread of HIV has been greatly diminished with the use of HAART. Already Syphilis and Gonnorhea are spiking in incidence, and more worrisome, they are resistant to the drugs that we have used to treat them. Multidrug resistance is now a real problem with the older STDs!

    4. Re:Bill HIcks by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      tong in cheek

      That sounds painful. :-)

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    5. Re:Bill HIcks by esperto · · Score: 1

      sorry, english is not first language and the autocorrect didn't caught it, but the cheek is not specified so, maybe it is still correct lol

    6. Re:Bill HIcks by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      That's already happening in the gay community with PrEP.

      That article makes the point though that STI rates in San Francisco are still way below "abstinence only" regions in the south. So it would seem that the AIDS scare isn't having an effect anyway in the areas it would matter most.

    7. Re:Bill HIcks by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      It's cool, thanks for being a good sport about it :-)

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    8. Re:Bill HIcks by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      Plenty of people who do have English as their first language can't spell "tongue". It's one of those common English words with a spelling that, for historical reasons, is bizarre even by the lax standards of English.

      Anyway, in this case there's something to be said for "tong in cheek".

  12. CRISPR/Cas9's origin by DrYak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not just that, but this sounds like an approach you could adapt to any virus.

    Well, given how/why CRISPR/cas9 evolved in prokaryote in the first place.

    Prokaryotes ended up with this systems because it helps them remove foreign DNA (phages, plasmids).
    Curing HIV is about removing its foreign DNA from the infected white blood cells.

    So CRISPR could be applied to curing viruses such as VIH.
    Hey, what a surprise !

    Yes, it could be used to eliminate tons of currently hard to cure viruses.

    (Note: I'm not belittling the accomplishment of the researcher who developed this cure candidate.
    There's surely a lot of work done to addapt to this use.

    I'm just saying is that these kind of application is what bacteria evolved CRIPR for in the nature,
    so it's not surprising that we could apply it for a similar task in eukaryote regarding viruses.

    It's the "weirdly simple gene editor" use that is unexpected)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:CRISPR/Cas9's origin by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      So doing some reading based on your comment. I had no idea the extent of viruses ending up in our DNA... since ancient times and they can be very very beneficial. Some of this article sounds so insanely weird, I almost feel like it is fake. Time to read other sources.

      https://www.wired.com/2016/03/...

      Quote: "The placenta example points to a second way for endogenous retroviruses to turn beneficial: if their viral genes are straight up reused in new way. The same gene that allowed a virus to fuse to a mammal cell now lets cells of the placenta fuse together to form the organ. Interestingly, primates and mice and rabbits and cats all got their placental genes from separate viral infections. Not only does this endogenous retrovirus-turned-good story happen, but itâ(TM)s happened multiple times."

    2. Re:CRISPR/Cas9's origin by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      I love how CRISPR makes geneticists act like a bunch of little kids who found a working go-cart someone left in a dumpster.

  13. This is researcher got it completely wrong ... by ElRabbit · · Score: 0

    ... they job is to find something that will just control the infection and sell it as an expensive cure. Actually curing the HIV with one shot is complete market non sense.
    Just hope the biotech management will put an end to such research before they damage the stock level too much

    1. Re:This is researcher got it completely wrong ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      public research vs. private research, one finds cures and other invents new pills with marginal effects on symptoms.

  14. Re: if ur not gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gay rectum infection disease syndrome?

  15. This is awesome by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gene editing, through every part of the organism reachable by the immune system, in a live mammal. HIV will ultimately be a mere footnote, because this technology is an early first step to editing your own genome as a consenting adult instead of fiddling around with the genes of a fertilized egg and hoping you haven't screwed over a future person's life in the process.

    You won't be rebuilding large structures in the body with this, but there's still so much that can be done if you can alter genes in an adult. There are a lot of deleterious genetic conditions that can be corrected, and then you move on to upgrading.

    1. Re:This is awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gene editing, through every part of the organism reachable by the immune system, in a live mammal. HIV will ultimately be a mere footnote, because this technology is an early first step to editing your own genome as a consenting adult instead of fiddling around with the genes of a fertilized egg and hoping you haven't screwed over a future person's life in the process.

      If that is possible, then so is the forcible editing of genomes upon non-consenting adults, children, and infants. Welcome to the future.

  16. Attention Baptist Preachers by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Remember when you guys were claiming AIDS was a sent by God to punish homosexuals?

    Well, it looks like maybe God wasn't as pissed off with them as you thought. Oopsie!

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Attention Baptist Preachers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Remember when you guys were claiming AIDS was a sent by God to punish homosexuals?

      Well, it looks like maybe God wasn't as pissed off with them as you thought. Oopsie!

      I hope these asshats trying to cure aids have flood insurance. /s

    2. Re:Attention Baptist Preachers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know? Maybe the list of people he was pissed off at are already dead.

      If you'll remember the great flood. I'm sure that was just god trying to wipe out about 100k people. That everyone else was killed was just a side effect.

    3. Re:Attention Baptist Preachers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only took 8,000,000 dead-young-men to prove that --- what an arrogant fool you are!

    4. Re:Attention Baptist Preachers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope these asshats trying to cure aids have flood insurance. /s

      Except that the rainbow was an indication of God's promise to never flood the earth again. (Genesis 9:8-17)

    5. Re:Attention Baptist Preachers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're saying that any time God brings about any punishment for any sin, that each punishment should continue indefinitely? I don't think that fits with anyone's understanding of God.

    6. Re:Attention Baptist Preachers by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      There is NO justice. If I could mod you up for that, I definitely would!

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    7. Re:Attention Baptist Preachers by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that God provided a "Get Out of Hell Free" card. I'm pretty sure there's a number of places in the bible that talk about eternal damnation.

      So yeah, I think that fits a LOT of people's understanding of God...including God's understanding of God, if you take the bible literally.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    8. Re:Attention Baptist Preachers by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      To a deity that managed to blink and miss 6 million Jews, 8,000 of your buddies is a pretty slow day at the office.

      If you want to go around calling people fools, perhaps you should start with that drooling jackoff you see every time you look in a mirror.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    9. Re:Attention Baptist Preachers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No promises about asteroids though

    10. Re:Attention Baptist Preachers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah! Jokes on YOU!!! CRISPR is the simply the upgraded version of the signature in blood once required of you heathens upon transfer the deed to your pitiful souls. Seriously you WOULD expect 'Lucifer' to be on the cutting edge of science, no?

      When you're in the 6th Circle the guy throwing Chick-Fil-A on your head is gonna be me!!!

      I have to go cling to my gun now. Get me the lube.

      THAT'S GUN OIL YOU LIBERTINE AIDSMONKEY!!!

      p.p.s my captcha is 'virulent' with the scribble containing a pentagram on it holycrap that's hilarious. Does the scribble used by /. always contain a pentagram? Someone here pls calc some probabilities. I gotta buy satan a drink. And then bang his dreamgirl. On camera. Several times. And give him the videos. Then trick him Odysseus style by trading the girl to him to fuck with his head. Need someone to beat up too... (not the girl, Asshole) If I can't find him maybe I'll just hurt his family. Screenshotting.

    11. Re:Attention Baptist Preachers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't aware that God provided a "Get Out of Hell Free" card.

      In the strictest sense this is true, but the missing detail is that someone who didn't belong there in the first place can take your spot. The rest of your post is fairly consistent with evangelical teaching.

    12. Re:Attention Baptist Preachers by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Truly ROFL!!! Thanks for that!

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  17. Re:HEY idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go away APK.

  18. And the cost.... by drew_92123 · · Score: 1

    is sure to be staggering....

    Just when you though the drug companies cared more about lives than profit... ROFL ;-)

    1. Re:And the cost.... by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      In a few years, the cost will be $10 plus a flight to Mexico.

      Or $10,000,000 if you want the treatment America.

  19. Ob. link by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 2

    Ob. link to the song CRISPR-Cas9

  20. Re: if ur not gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sort of, it's "Gay-related immune deficiency syndrome".

  21. Efficient delivery of CRISPR remains THE challenge by coldandcalculating · · Score: 3, Informative
    While it's important the continue testing the limits of CRISPR technology in preclinical studies like this, the truth is that viral vector based delivery isn't quite up to the challenge (yet!) of a total genomic clearance of HIV in all infected cells. From the news and views comment on the article:

    several issues remain to be addressed prior to clinical trials. While an AAV serotype with broad tropism is ideal for proof-of-concept studies, replication competent HIV is rare (present only in one of every 10,000 to 1,000,000 CD4+ T cells), and thus identifying delivery vectors with high specificity to the HIV reservoir remains a significant hurdle. There is currently no known viral or non-viral agent that is capable of efficiently and selectively delivering and expressing transgenes in these cells. An ideal delivery candidate should possess the ability to carry a relatively large cargo to relevant reservoir cells and facilitate pharmacologically significant enzymatic activity. It should also exhibit little to no toxicity irrespective of the duration of its presence in vivo, whether transient or long term.

    (emphasis mine)

    Still, this is a very encouraging development toward a possible HIV cure.

  22. Re:Efficient delivery of CRISPR remains THE challe by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

    So there are a couple options here. One is to actually modify an HIV genome to include the CRISPR/Cas system they used here, and use that as the delivery vector. You can also combine that with a shock and kill treatment - possibly using chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. It's not going to be cheap or easy, but this is an additional tool.

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  23. CRISPR has potential application for flu by SethJohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This system would not be useful for treating any virus that doesn't use DNA (like, say, the flu)....

    Per this article in Scientific American--

    ...But until the arrival of CRISPR, virologists lacked the tools to easily alter ferret genes. Xiaoqun Wang and his colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing have used CRISPR to tweak genes involved in ferret brain development, and they are now using it to modify the animals' susceptibility to the flu virus. He says that he will make the model available to infectious-disease researchers.

    Note the open-source mindset already beginning to surround CRISPR! Researchers are exchanging their CRISPR recipes without concern for patents and intellectual property. This can really accelerate progress with developing CRISPR-based treatments.

    1. Re:CRISPR has potential application for flu by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      CRISPR has potential applications for flu research, certainly. But it won't be useful as a flu therapeutic, which is what I said.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    2. Re:CRISPR has potential application for flu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAS, but couldn't CRISPR be used to cut vital genes out of the flu particles' DNA/RNA, effectively preventing them from being able to infect a cell? A concern off the top of my head seems to be the number of cells/particles that would need to be acted upon: flu particles vs. the white blood cells treated in the article.

    3. Re: CRISPR has potential application for flu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes except for the litigation going on right now between two of the groups that developed it. They are fighting over who has the rights to the royalties.

      I wish we could have nice things

    4. Re:CRISPR has potential application for flu by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      You had some good thoughts - but influenza uses RNA as its genome. While there are probably Cas versions that cut RNA, I don't think anybody has isolated or characterized them yet. Flu also replicates pretty fast, and I think any CRISPR system that could keep up would have a lot of off-target effects. You're right that getting into cells is another major challenge - you'd need to have this in a lot of cells that could become infected.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  24. Re:Efficient delivery of CRISPR remains THE challe by coldandcalculating · · Score: 1

    Yes! These de-clawed HIV vectors are known more broadly as therapeutic lentivirus. The problem is still efficiency - you have to not only hit every infected cell, but CRISPR editing has to go off without a hitch in those cells. Then there's the issue of turning off the transgene you've just delivered before "off target" cuts can induce chromosomal aberrations that can lead to cancer.

    This isn't the first time researchers have used gene editing to tackle HIV infection. There is a clinical trial involving adenovirus delivery of zinc finger nucleases (a prior generation gene editing technology) to patient-derived blood stem cells to inactivate CCR5, an essential HIV receptor, on the surface of immune cells. Importantly, these cells are removed from patients, edited in the lab and returned to the body. This ensures that all NEW blood cells will be HIV resistant, but is also not a total genomic clearance of latent provirus.

    I agree that a combination of approaches will probably be required to inactivate latent provirus as well as slow disease transmission. Public health approaches like needle exchanges and safe sex education are probably just as important for eliminating this disease.

  25. Re:Efficient delivery of CRISPR remains THE challe by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

    Yep, I'm aware (also in the field) - that's why I suggested doing it in combination with a shock and kill approach where you pharmacologically reactivate the latent HIV reservoir, introduce CAR T cells to kill infected cells, and use lenti delivering the CRIPSR system - either to knock out HIV genomes or CCR5 (or both - luckily gRNAs are pretty small!). Off-target effects can be somewhat mitigated with the newer versions of Cas9 - Keith Joung is doing some particularly interesting work there.

    Yeah, there's definitely more work to be done on the public health side. A vaccine that actually works would help a lot.

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  26. HIV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HIV turns into an unstoppable force

  27. Car metaphor by DrYak · · Score: 1

    I love how CRISPR makes geneticists act like a bunch of little kids who found a working go-cart someone left in a dumpster.

    Except this time round, metaphorically they actually use it to really do go-cart laps on a nearby track (though necessarily the same track as the guy who threw it in the dumpster).
    Unlike all the other times when they decide to re-purpose it for something completely different, like using it as a delivery vehicle with optional autonomous navigation (which actually works more or less),
    or trying to conquer the world with it and at least managing to build a self-driving tank out of it (by strapping a bazooka on the precedent autonomous delivery vehicle).

    This post was brought to you by the Slashdot's "Car Analogy Service(tm)".

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  28. bregeit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I FEEL LIKE CRYING TODAY SHARING THIS WONDERFUL
    TESTIMONY ON HOW DR igechi. CURED MY HERPES
    VIRUS LAST WEEK, MY NAME IS (happy ) FROM nigeria . IS
    A LONG STORY BUT I WILL CUT IT SHORT BECAUSE AM
    SHORT OF WORDS. SOME YEARS AGO MY MUM WAS VERY
    SICK AND NEEDED BLOOD, SO THE DR TOLD ME TO
    DONATE BLOOD TO MY MUM. BEFORE THE DONATION WE
    DID A LOT OF TEXT AND I DISCOVER THAT I HAVE HERPES
    VIRUS, AND THE DOCTOR TOLD ME THAT THERE IS NO
    CURE TO IT, BUT HE PRESCRIBE DRUGS FOR ME WHICH I
    HAVE BEEN DRINKING FOR LONG AND THE HERPES STILL
    DEVELOP TO HERPES VIRUS 2, AT THIS POINT THERE
    WHERE MANY PUS IN MY BODY PRIVATE PART, MOUTH,
    TO THE EXTENT I WAS SACK FROM WORK BECAUSE THEY
    WHERE SCARED OF IT IN MY WORKING PLACE. I WAS
    VERY CONFUSE BECAUSE MY HUSBAND LEFT ME SOME
    YEARS AGO WHEN HE DISCOVER THAT I HAVE THIS VIRUS
    BUT HIS OWN WAS NEGATIVE. TO CUT THE STORY SHORT
    I SAW MANY PEOPLE THAT CLAM THEY HAVE CURE TO
    THIS VIRUS IN THE INTERNET AND AT THE END I WASTED
    A LOT OF MONEY. LAST TWO WEEKS A FRIEND OF MINE
    SHARE HIS TESTIMONY TO ME HOW DR igechi CURED
    HIS HERPES VIRUS AND SHE GAVE ME HIS CONTACT
    WHICH I CONTACTED HIM. THE ONLY THING DR igechi
    TOLD ME IS THAT HE WILL SEND THE HERBS TO ME AND
    IN THREE DAYS TIME I WILL RECEIVE IT IN nigeria , AND DRINK
    IT FOR JUST FOR DAYS, AND REALLY I RECEIVE THE
    HERBS IN JUST THREE DAYS, THEN STARTED DRINKING
    IT, AFTER THE FOURTH DAY I WENT FOR A MEDICAL
    CHECKUP AND DISCOVER THAT I AM NOW HERPES VIRUS
    NEGATIVE. AM A LIVING TESTIMONY HE CAN ALSO CURE
    BREAST CANCER THAT IS KILLING PEOPLE IN US TODAY,
    AND SOME OTHER DISEASES. CONTACT HIM or chats with him on whatsapp on +2348169002409 /or call +2347086751839. ONLY YOU
    NEED HIS HELP BECAUSE HE IS ALWAYS BUSY BUT
    GENEROUS. THIS IS DR igechi EMAIL ADDRESS
    (igechispellhome@gmail.com ) thanks you my lovely dr