Researchers Zero In On Protein That Destroys HIV 216
Julie188 writes with this excerpt from a Loyola University news release:
"Using a $225,000 microscope, researchers have identified the key components of a protein called TRIM5a that destroys HIV in rhesus monkeys. The finding could lead to new TRIM5a-based treatments that would knock out HIV in humans, said senior researcher Edward M. Campbell, PhD, of Loyola University Health System."
Not ready for humans yet (Score:5, Informative)
This is exciting but it looks like it has a ways to go before it is a viable treatment for humans.
Re:$225,000 (Score:2, Informative)
It's pretty standard for a high-end confocal microscope. Reading the actual paper:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6WXR-50HWJ1Y-1-14&_cdi=7165&_user=334567&_pii=S0042682210003971&_orig=browse&_coverDate=09/15/2010&_sk=995949998&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkzk&md5=19c683b5d36819b1870a7b57e48bc6a5&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
there is nothing about a unique microscope setup. University press releases are never a good source of information.
Re:$225,000 (Score:4, Informative)
Resolution can be improved by things like deconvolution as used in TFS, but that's still relatively low. You can easily start flirting with 7 digit figures when you use confocal microscopy and variations of laser excitation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confocal_microscopy
Re:yea. (Score:4, Informative)
And yet, no insurer offers contraceptive-failure insurance (presumably for those who have been surgically sterilized: 1/600-1/2000 failure rate for men, and 1/300 for women), nor is a contract to abort in the event of contraceptive failure legally enforceable.
Further, a man can be assessed child support for a child provably not his, and jailed if he does not pay. (Google "legal father" sometime, and the lack of proper service of process to allow disputing paternity within statutory limits). I suppose this is unconstitutional, but mounting a constitutional challenge is likely beyond the financial means of many caught in this trap.
Finally, there is the case [thefreelibrary.com] of a minor in Florida, seduced by an adult woman, who subsequently became pregnant. Florida law forbids a minor being ordered to pay child support to an adult, but as soon as he turned 18, he was hit with a a $50,000 arrears tab, and ordered to pay or go to jail.
Abstinence, and the general avoiding of women of unknown character, is the only defense a man has if he does not want to father a child or be required to financially support one.
Re:So which drug company is going to buy the (Score:4, Informative)
Even if you can kill the HIV virus, you still wouldn't have a cure.
HIV is a retrovirus. It becomes part of the infected cell's genome. Any agent that kills the virus can suppress symptoms/disease but not cure people who are already infected.
P.S. Please take off your tin-foil hat. The glare is quite annoying.
Re:So the FDA can sit on it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:yea. (Score:3, Informative)
Not really, because "child support" includes statutory support requirements based on "earning ability" AS WELL AS discretionary expenses for the child's "special" needs, often determined by a "best interests" standard applied by the court to include state-provided psychologists, psychiatrists, and any number of professionals you now have to pay. In other words, the "child support" ordered can be unbounded, and exceed any ability you have to pay, resulting in your incarceration for not paying it.
So, if you can put up a credible fight, you should, particularly if you are not the biological or adoptive parent of the child.
If you are, of course, you should support your progeny to a reasonable degree. Often the amount of support ordered is unreasonable, and reflects the greatest income ever earned, rather than modern economic realities.
Re:get ready for the resurgence of other STDs (Score:4, Informative)
Why be scared of only one life-threatening illness? Hepatitis still kills you. Syphilis will still kill you, if you don't get the antibiotics. Chlamydia and gonorrhea suck, even if they don't kill you. HPV might kill you, if you're female.
To make things more interesting, consider that people didn't start banging everything in sight once penicillin gave us the ability to cure syphilis.
Your hypothesis would only be true if people had tunnel-vision and were under the impression that HIV is the only high-risk disease that is transmitted sexually. I postulate that those who are scared of the life-threatening consequences of HIV will continue to be scared of the life-threatening consequences from other infections. Those who might have more sex once they knew they are now safe from HIV would probably have the same amount of sex in the absence of any cure for HIV.
The only caveat may be the gay male community. They are somewhat more HIV conscious than your average hetero folks. But most straight folks I know are terrified of all STDs, even the ones that can be cured.
Re:Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (Score:4, Informative)
You weren't around in the early '80s, before AIDS became well known, were you? Herpes was the scourge of the sexual revolution.
Then AIDS came along.
That's why I said, Herpes was the original stab, but AIDS twisted it to kill.
Re:yea. (Score:4, Informative)
In other words, caring for someone, no matter how briefly, has its consequences. Nothing new there.
No, the specific instances are a woman gets pregnant, has a child, and seeks welfare. She names a man who has never met the child or supported the woman or ever had sex with her as the father, as required by many states to get welfare, so the state can go after the father for child support to reimburse the welfare provided. She provides an address for this man. A letter is sent there giving him a limited time to disprove paternity. Problem is, it's not his address. The usual service of process is not followed, and he is clueless as to the claim until the statute of limitations expires to contest it. He finds out when his wages start to be garnished by the state. Then, it is too late.
Google "paternity fraid".
In one instance, a man was ordered to pay child support for a child that didn't even exist.
Re:$225,000 (Score:3, Informative)
A widefield deconvolution system doesn't really need a laser. Probably a lamp coupled by a liquid light guide is the better option for such a system. The excitation is not monochromatic but the illumination of the field is excellent.
Prices for this class of laboratory equipment are rarely put on paper, because you are expected to haggle. There usually is considerable margin for negotiation. Sometimes you can beat them down by as much as a third of the list price, although 10 to 20% is more common.
Why do you want to buy a Tsunami? It's a good laser system, but unless you have a specialization in optics or physics and are willing to spend a lot of time on tuning the system, it is better to spend your money on a laser with automatic tuning. (A Mai Tai, in Newport's case.) Performance is a bit less than a well-tuned Tsunami, but certainly good enough for most purposes, and the single box is more convenient than a Tsunami plus an external pump laser.
Anyway, femtosecond pulsed laser systems are somewhere in the quarter-million range, but the small solid-state lasers in most confocal microscopes can be had for an order of magnitude less.