HIV Transmission Captured On Video

Technology Review has promising news on the AIDS front: researchers have captured HIV T cell transmission on video. The upshot could be new avenues of treatment. "The resulting images and videos show that, once an infected cell adheres to a healthy cell, the HIV proteins... migrate within minutes to the contact site. At that point, large packets of virus are simultaneously released by the infected cell and internalized by the recipient cell. This efficient mode of transfer is a distinct pathway from the cell-free infection that has been the focus of most prior HIV studies, and reveals another mechanism by which the virus evades immune responses that can neutralize free virus particles within the body."

Re:There is a way to beat the HIV virus

[interkin3tic]

the government sanctions the agricultural giant Monsanto to engineer a new strain of HIV virus with a limited lifespan beyond a certain generation with ability to recode the DNA as it progresses

Is that even feasible? I'm not a virologist, but adding a feature like this seems pretty complicated. Is there an easy way to do that, like adding one gene from another virus, or are you proposing we invent a whole new mechanism from scratch? Because we're really no good at that yet. Pretty much all the artificial genes that I'm familiar with are either genes we've copied from natural ones, or ones that are extremely rudimentary compared to natural ones.

And though I have no experience in either virology or terminator seeds, I'd guess that terminator seed technology in no way can be applied to HIV. Plants and viruses don't reproduce the same obviously. Notably, the plants you're talking about seem to be sterile hybrids, the first generation is all you get. You're talking about some delayed fuse thing that would have a dominant negative effect after several replications. And of course, viruses don't mate to make the next generation. So the technology to my knowledge doesn't exist at all.

Not saying it's impossible, just that I think we'd have better luck with other approaches. And of course, if you know of something specific to retroviruses that does what you're talking about, that's a different story. I'm not quite clear what "a limited lifespan beyond a certain generation with ability to recode the DNA as it progresses" but it seems like there would be simpler ways to create a dominant-negative acting virus than that. Expressing a truncated form of some viral coat protein might interfere with virus production for example.

But the biggest problem is definitely the "People voluntarily get infected with this new virus" part. They won't wear a condom but they'll be willing to get infected with HIV before they get it?

If you were trolling, good job, I really couldn't tell and wasted a lot of time.

Here's a statistic for you

[w1cked5mile]

You'll just love this then. Humans have ten times more bacteria that human cells.

Re:Here's a statistic for you

[w1cked5mile]

American Society for Microbiology (2008, June 5). Humans Have Ten Times More Bacteria Than Human Cells: How Do Microbial Communities Affect Human Health?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2008/06/080603085914.htm

Re:There is a way to beat the HIV virus

[FusionFox]

The Simpsons:
At Itchy And Scratchy Land (pre-death-robot-rampage)

Helicopter Pilot: "Welcome to Itchy And Scratchy Land, where nothing can possibl-y go wrong"
*Family looks at each other*
Helicopter Pilot: "POSSIBLY go wrong... sorry, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong..."

Supposed to be a hint as to what will happen later in the episode.

Re:Why...

[Chlorine Trifluoride]

No, because of the title. "HIV Transmission Captured On Video"

Re:Fascinating

[Jeian]

> Roxx, on learning about James being HIV-positive, said, "It totally made me realize how I trusted this system that wasn't to be trusted at all, because it obviously doesn't work," and "I thought porn people were the cleanest people in the world."

"The system" in this case is inherently flawed.

After initial HIV infection, it can take up to six months for someone to start producing HIV antibodies (seroconvert). And unfortunately, most HIV tests don't check for viral load, but check for the presence of antibodies.

So basically, you have a window period of up to six months where you are contagious but will come up negative on tests.

Re:Is HIV dangerous? It's a "consensus" anyway...

[shrimppesto]

HIV causing AIDS? It's a consensus that has an overwhelming amount of evidence to back it up. I won't even begin to try to summarize it all, but I will describe the gist of it.

Causality between a microorganism and disease is commonly established through the demonstration of Koch's Postulates [wikipedia.org]. These are not hard-fast rules; some of Koch's Postulates are difficult to prove through ethical experiments. However, in the case of HIV, all of Koch's Postulates have been fulfilled:

1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease. The virus has been isolated from every patient with AIDS. On top of that, people have sequenced its genome, elucidated its structure, and taken a picture of it.
2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture. The virus has been isolated from patients with AIDS, and grown in culture. Critics cite the fact that this is very difficult to do, and requires special conditions. Most scientists believe that such special conditions are necessary when you are trying to culture something like a retrovirus. Special requirements for growth are not unique to HIV; for example, no one has ever successfully cultured a pathogenic strain of Treponema pallidum (syphilis) in vitro, but anyone who has ever had syphilis will tell you it is a VERY real disease.
3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism. When introduced into a healthy individual, the HIV virus has been found to cause disease. It should be noted that this has only happened a few times in monitored environments, through needle-stick exposures; however, it would not be ethical to experimentally inoculate a healthy person with HIV. There is an overwhelming body of non-experimental evidence to support bloodborne and sexual transmission of the HIV virus, and the evidence shows that everyone who contracts HIV eventually gets AIDS - with OR without therapy.
4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent. This has been demonstrated in the cases of needle-stick exposures.

Anti-retroviral therapy - while itself is quite dangerous and filled with side effects - has nevertheless been shown in numerous studies to reduce morbidity and mortality in HIV+ patients. Anti-retroviral therapy has also been compared to placebo, and its effects have been found to be beneficial over placebo. Other studies, mostly performed in Africa, have examined the "natural history" (i.e. the untreated progression) of HIV infection; such studies have shown that the natural history of HIV infection leads to the severe immunocompromise characteristic of the AIDS syndrome, followed by death.

Yes, there is plenty of money flowing into AIDS research and drugs. However, that fact fails to prove anything related to this discussion, one way or another. There was a point in time when the HIV-AIDS connection was, indeed, a hypothesis; many people cite evidence from that period of time in making the claim that HIV->AIDS is still a widely disputed theory. However, a careful examination of the current scientific evidence will reveal an overwhelming body of evidence supporting a causal relationship between HIV and AIDS.

Re:There is a way to beat the HIV virus

[mauthbaux]

I'm not a virologist either, but I have taken classes in the subject (some time ago, so don't take what I say as doctrine or anything). The idea of a competing virus does have some merit. IIRC, research was done on the topic with ex vivo models, but I don't think it ever made its way to animal subject or human trials.

For this to work, you'd ideally want a virus which used the same antigen for cellular entry (gp120, CD40 ligand); this keeps your virus to the same cells that are susceptible to HIV, limiting your spread within the organism. As for an anti-HIV payload, you'd probably want to try siRNA transcripts targeted against HIV's Reverse Transcriptase or coat proteins. It would be fairly trivial to engineer your own virus to avoid the siRNAs. Select your upstream promoters very carefully and you can control the spread of your engineered virus to some extent.

What you end up getting is a way to regulate how much HIV spreads within the organism. This *would not* prevent infection with HIV, but it theoretically *could* prevent AIDS. Making it work really depends on the specificity of the siRNAs and the choice of promoters/regulatory elements in your virus' design (antibody-activated promoters are a good idea).

But like I said, it's been a while since my virology and recombinant DNA tech classes, so I'm sure there's plenty of necessary details that I'm leaving out.