Gene Found In Black Death Survivors Stops HIV 477
WindozeSux writes "According to research done by Dr. Stephen O'Brien, a mutated gene known as delta 32 found in Black Death survivor descendants, stops HIV in its tracks. In order to be immune both parents have to have the delta 32 gene. From the Article: 'In 1996, research showed that delta 32 prevents HIV from entering human cells and infecting the body. O'Brien thought this principle could be applied to the plague bacteria, which affects the body in a similar manner. To determine whether the Eyam plague survivors may have carried delta 32, O'Brien tested the DNA of their modern-day descendents...'"
It also gives a mighty hankerin' for... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It also gives a mighty hankerin' for... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It also gives a mighty hankerin' for... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:OLD NEWS (Score:5, Interesting)
They tested the people whose ancestors had lived, and it turned out that you could have three situations: If you did not have this mutated gene, you would die. If you had inherited it from one parent, you would get very sick, but survive. If you had inherited it from both parents you wouldn't get the black plague at all.
They talked about how the plague spread, and the areas where it had hit most often over the past couple thousand years (there's evidence of it sweeping through Europe in the dark ages) had the highest incidence of this delta-32 gene, and so would have a higher percentage of the population immune to it. They estimated that up to 14% of Europeans had this gene and if they were right, that same number would also be completely uninfectable by HIV. They didn't speculate as to what would happen to the people who were partially immune to the plague, but we hear of people who are infected with HIV and 10-15 years later haven't developed AIDS symptoms.
I brought the documentary to the attention of the HIV researchers at my office, and they said there wasn't an easy method of introducing that gene into people affected by this. I know people who work at Genzyme, they use genetic samples to grow new skin cells for burn victims and new cartilage for knee surgeries. It's not completely out of the realm of possibility that they could figure out a way to grow some white blood cells to match the patient, but with that delta 32 gene introduced. It's unlikely that they'll work it out sooner than 10-20 years from now, though, so it's science fiction until then.
Cure for HIV. . . (Score:4, Funny)
Oh yeah, we're cookin' now!
KFG
Re:Cure for HIV. . . (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cure for HIV. . . (Score:3, Informative)
The cure isn't "RELEASE TEH PLAGUE." The interesting bit is a gene mutation regarding CCR5 that was found to stop HIV dead in its tracks, preventing it from binding to the white blood cells. The treatment that they're working on mimics this by binding to the CCR5 receptor in white blood cells, which would block HIV from binding. Tests were done on blood samples from people with this gene mutation, and
Not Quite Immunity, and Not Quite Proven... (Score:3, Informative)
What has
Re:Cure for HIV. . . (Score:4, Funny)
Bingo!
By then the gene pool would have gone way down. .
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Have you had a look at the gene pool recently? There's some scary ass shit walkin' around out there.
KFG
Re:Cure for HIV. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cure for HIV. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the AC who also replied to this saying "There is no 'above' in the evolutionary scale. There is only the dead and the living (-and reproducing)."
It might be beneficial against HIV, but what if it has side-effects?
For example, the gene that helps defend against malaria (and is prevelant amongst many of African origin) is the same gene that causes sickle-cell anaemia. The benefit probably outweighs the problem, but it shouldn't be assumed that there is "better", "worse", "above" and so on.
People tend to view these things in a very short-term manner, when evolution is a long-term game.
Re:Cure for HIV. . . (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently nothing too nasty, since the gene can be found several generations after the "Black Death" ceased to be epidemic.
For example, the gene that helps defend against malaria (and is prevelant amongst many of African origin) is the same gene that causes sickle-cell anaemia. The benefit probably outweighs the problem, but it shouldn't be assumed that there is "better", "worse", "above" and so on.
The interesting thing about this
Re:Cure for HIV. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cure for HIV. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds me of my old biology teacher, who described that deer on an island, when they begin to overpopulate, will "develop" an immune-system disease. This will then kill off 3/4 of the deer population, allowing the survivors to continue eating and breeding. The alternative would be everyone starves and the genes all die out, so although from the individual's point of view it's horrific, it's actually beneficial to the
Re:Cure for HIV. . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cure for HIV. . . (Score:5, Funny)
What? No way! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cure for HIV. . . (Score:3, Funny)
Nothing threatening ? Are you blind ? It just tore apart a company of knights ! It bit their heads clean off ! It's a KILLER !
The real question is... (Score:3, Funny)
Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:5, Insightful)
AIDS so far is a social disease, which means certain behaviors minimize risk and certain behaviors maximize risk; unlike, say, the flu, which is both airborne, transmitted by contact, and through animals.
Re:Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:5, Funny)
Best (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Best (Score:2)
and ontop of that id say a better soloution would be to dole out a few "extra mods" to those with good karma, and say letting those with damn good karma push the moding up above 5.
the more i think about that.. the better it sounds...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Plague and religion-Social promiscuity (Score:2, Funny)
There's also the mental benifits that go with having a single partner for life. Just ask all the married guys and g
Re:Plague and religion (Score:2)
According to evolution theory, its the production of and survival of the offspring that is important. Once a person is beyond or incapable of bearing children, evolutionary they are dead.
nope (Score:3, Insightful)
- siblings and their children
- children you may already have, and their children
- nephews, nieces, aunts, uncles, etc.
They share more of your DNA than some random person, so it counts. You could babysit your brother's grandkids so that both parents can support the family better. That counts.Re:Plague and religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Plague and religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe that as society became monogamous, more STDs evolved to keep the population down...
No, they were always there... we didn't always call them that (syphillis was confused with leprosee for a long time).
Promiscuity ensures more offspring -> greater survival. Monogomamy is an evolutionary dead end (humans are the only animals that seem to practice it).
Re:Plague and religion (Score:3, Informative)
This is untrue. While it is somewhat of a rarity on the grand scale of things other species practice monogamy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy [wikipedia.org]
Re: Plague and religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that some of the oldest known religions practiced temple prostitution, I think your otherwise interesting speculation may be based on a false premise.
Re:Plague and religion (Score:5, Informative)
Not when the Vatican and religious leaders have been telling them that not only do condoms not prevent HIV infection, but are laced with HIV themselves: [guardian.co.uk]
Still think religion in Africa helps fight HIV?
Re:Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:2, Funny)
the problem with your attitude (Score:3, Insightful)
yes, i do have an attitude (Score:2)
and then they talk about COMPASSIONATE conservatism?!
it makes my blood boil
you need a complex approach to a complex situation
saying "don't have sex, and if you do, shame on you" is not morality, is not intelligence
it's ignorance at best, evil
Re:Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Curtail sexual promiscuity
2) Practice protected sex
3) Encourage long term monogamy
All three of those things will render AIDS a harmless disease for 99% of the uninfected population.
A cure is necessary, of course, for the survival of the remaining infected population.
Re:Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:5, Funny)
Why is always the cure worse than the disease?
Re:Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Sex is *not* primarily for producing children... you'll produce a sprog maybe a couple of times in your life. You'll normally have sex at least a few times more than that (well maybe your church won't let you, but most people will). Sex is *fun*. Enjoy it while you're young.
2. There are plenty of healthy well adjusted people who are the children of unmarried parents. There are plenty of screwed up dickheads that are the children of married parents. Get with the late 20th century please at least... marriage is just a contract - if you really can't stay with someone without that then maybe you've not really found the right person. Marriage does *not* guarantee a lifelong relationship - there's a 50% divorce rate... fuelled by people like you who think that a bit of paper is a free pass to lifelong bliss - two people working hard at a relationship can do, and you don't need a contract for that.
Re:Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:3, Informative)
Sex is *not* primarily for producing children... you'll produce a sprog maybe a couple of times in your life. You'll normally have sex at least a few times more than that (well maybe your church won't let you, but most people will). Sex is *fun*. Enjoy it while you're young.
Were sex purely about producing children, then the females of the species would indictate when they were fertile like almost every other species on the planet, rather than being sexually receptive all the time. Sex is also about soci
Re:Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:5, Funny)
*adds alicenextdoor to Friends list*
Re:Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:3, Funny)
getting a man to stay (Score:3, Funny)
Let's not forget:
Re:Sex rules the world (Score:3, Interesting)
An animal which many Zoologists want to have reclassified from genus pan to hominid
They have an incredibly complex societal structure which shares a great deal of similarity with us
They as of yet have not discovered the joys of Shame (oh goody) , the chimps have mutual masturbation in the same way as we shake hands . They have sex for a great deal of reasons , of which procreation is but one.
To say humans only have sex for procreat
Re:Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:3, Informative)
I believe no one should have sex with someone they don't plan on marrying.
That's fine for you. It in no way means that someone who doesn't live that way deserves to be punished with disease.
Re:Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:2)
you are susceptible if you do nothing more than do a good deed.
try helping an infant or child who is bleeding profusely.
you don't normally carry rubber gloves with you so...
are you going to let the child bleed to death or are you going to help?
if you help...you could contract HIV because children can carry it.
but yes..if you do nothing but watch...you're safe from contracting it but then again...how alive are you really if you'll let a child bleed out?
Re:Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:2, Interesting)
As a responsible non-monogamist (particularly, I practice polyamory [wikipedia.org], which btw is neither swinging nor bigamy), I'd like to point out that what you really mean is "encourage careful consideration before adding new sexual partners". Just because someone isn't monogamous, that doesn't mean they have sex with everything that moves.
I require that my partners be honest, get frequent tests, use protection at all times, and also be careful when they add new sexual partners. Even
Unless you have this gene (Score:3, Funny)
When can I get tested!?
Probably as close as we'll get...Abstenance. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow! Guess that whole abstenance thing didn't work out. How about not sharing needles? Or screening blood donations. Maybe what we really mean is that we don't have a solution to AIDS that still allows us to engage in those destructive behaviours we all enjoy.
Re:Probably as close as we'll get... (Score:2, Insightful)
No, absolutely not! You cannot just leave hundreds of millions of Africans to die of AIDS without helping. We must not use "natural selection" (a.k.a. genocide) to solve our problems. These are human beings, just as much your own family are human beings, and we are all kin.
Maybe AIDS will never be eradicated, but it can be fought very
One man's mutation (Score:5, Informative)
This article is interesting on several levels. The fact that some people are completely immune to the disease isn't really remarkable. That's been known for quite some time. What's amazing is that this fairly basic gene (a way of bringing stuff into cells) is completely redundant. It makes me wonder how much of our cellular machinery is simply there in case another part fails.
Don't worry. I don't think there's intelligent design behind it. Just cases of plagues that have swept through populations from time to time, causing these interesting redundancies to appear.
quite interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
we'll have fun galore when that happens. a true righteous moral civil war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One man's mutation (Score:2)
Agreed, it's interesting stuff. But it's not causing the redundancies/mutations, just fixating them in a population.
Re:One man's mutation (Score:5, Informative)
Human DNA has an awful lot of redundancies in it. I sometimes wonder how many protiens are expressed that just float around not doing much. Most bacteria have trim and efficient DNA. That keeps their energy expenditures low, letting them focus on important things like reproduction. Humans, on the other hand, have a surprising amount of extra stuff collected along the way. It turns out that being extremely efficient isn't a big survival trait for humans.
Re:One man's mutation (Score:2)
At least we still focus on important things like reproduction.
Re:One man's mutation (Score:3, Insightful)
And comparison with bacteria isn't fair...we reproduce at their level all the time, constantly. Your cells that is.
Sure, there's perhaps some "waste" given for example simply the amount of nuclear material...but it gives us so much.
There are things in which bacteria aren't very effective. Sense of sight, for example
Re:One man's mutation (Score:2)
I'll use that excuse the next time my boss bitches.
"But, boss, I haven't been selected for efficiency! I'm versatile and redundant!"
Hmm...I can see that backfiring.
but was it designed, and why?? (Score:5, Interesting)
So is it an accident? Given that there've been only about 10^5 generations of homo sapiens, whereas bacteria do that every 2-3 years, and they've been around billions of years -- is it just that we've not evolved as far as they? Will our DNA be a lot tighter in 30,000,000 AD (assuming we survive at all)?
Or is there some reason designed in by...(audience holds breath)...no, not God for, uh, Christ's sake...but by natural selection that gives us an advantage with all this DNA swapping?
Have I not heard the thought that it might be because a bacteria's big problem is a hostile environment and his lack of ability to manipulate it other than eating it, whereas one of our big problems (before modern medicine) was fighting off viral attackers? And, if that's the case, this screwball shuffling around of the DNA, plus "hiding" the real genes amongst acres of useless, identical-looking trash are clever techniques for making us much more elusive targets for viruses.
Joe Virus successfully invades the pathetic human cell, sneaking past the killer white cells, snipping the wire and snaking under the membrane while the guard dogs howl....he makes it! Cleverly picks the lock on the super-secure citadel of the nucleus, gets out his dynamite, blows the doors off the chromatid fiber, and, chortling, inserts his DNA sequence into the host DNA.
But alas for Joe, 90% of the DNA is never used, and so Joe has a 90% chance of having inserted himself into a string of rubbish that will never be transcribed. Poor bastard, waiting and waiting...
Now to get back on topic, I've also heard that one caution people have about gene therapy (such as slipping in a gene that protects against HIV) is that if there are these ancient unexpressed viruses lying about in our DNA, what might we do if we muck around with it by slipping in some new genes? Might we accidentally "turn on" a virus dormant since the next to last Ice Age? If it's just a Neanderthal version of a head cold, big deal -- but what if it's something far worse than AIDS itself? As fatal as AIDS, say, but with a 60 day mean survival time and the ability to be spread through the air? Brrr.
Re:but was it designed, and why?? (Score:5, Informative)
While much of your post is generally on the fringes of what we know, I can say with general certainty that the answers to these questions is "No" and "No."
For the first question, one shouldn't leap to the conclusion that the number of generations equates to evolutionary success. The two aren't necessarily related. Remember, evolution is essentially about the filling of available biological niches. The niches that humans and bacteria fill are vastly different. In light of this, calling one type of successful species "more evolved" than vastly different, yet also successful, species really carries little meaning. Perhaps a better way of putting it is this: Evolution is not forward-looking. There is no beginning, middle, or end to the evolutionary path of a species. Any species present today (simply by virtue of the fact that it has survived) is just as "evolved" as any other.
For the second question, I seriously doubt our genome will (naturally) become smaller over time. Unlike bacteria, finding the extra nutrient sources to accommodate the amount of unused DNA or non-useful protein products doesn't appear to be a selective pressure. I'd suspect that this is because such an inefficiency is relatively minor for a large multi-cellular omnivore such as us and wasn't an evolutionary driving force in the past nor will be in the future.
Lastly, I'm suspicious to call the DNA whose function remains unknown "junk DNA" as others do. Who's to say that it doesn't serve a purpose simply because we lack a theory for one? To do so reeks of scientific arrogance.
-Grym
Not Quite True (Score:3, Informative)
That's not quite true. Many retroviruses and retrotransposons carry their own promoter sequences with them, so they increase the chance of transcription by the cellular machinery. It gets trickier when you have something like SINES, however, which lack promoter elements. They basically cluster near LINES, which carry promoter activity, so that the SINES get transcribed
Re:One man's mutation (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, but something encouraged the development of multiple redundant pathways. I suspect that what happened is that a second pathway randomly developed many years ago (probably before modern humans). After that, something came along that killed everyone off who only had the single pathway.
Ahh... how convenient. My professor asked a question very similar to the issue you're touching on in immunology class the other day. While we haven't studied CCR5 in particular, here's an overview. (Please, anyone, co
This could be fantastic news (Score:4, Interesting)
Cow pox infection survivors didn't get Small pox, so that's how the innoculation for mankind's only "eliminated" disease began to be put under control.
Re:This could be fantastic news (Score:5, Informative)
Initially few took up the practise. Interesting many clergymen dennounced the vaccine practise as sin. The clergy believed smallpox was god's design and all, even the children, who died of smallpox were decreed by god to so die. What finally turned the tide some years later was the adoption of the vaccine practise by a high ranking member of the British aristocracy. She (her name and title don't immediately come to mind) had her children vaccinated. The strong british caste system was momentum enough to swing favour toward vaccination.
Re:This could be fantastic news (Score:5, Informative)
It was the Princess of Wales (though she wasn't the first, she was the person who made it popular). See the Variolation section of this page [camlt.org] for more information. This form of vaccination had been practiced in Asia for a couple thousand years before making it to the West.
One problem (Score:5, Informative)
i.e. if you don't have the mutation, plague won't give it to you. It just won't kill you even if you don't get treated if you have the mutation.
Re:One problem (Score:2)
Re:One problem (Score:3, Informative)
So far, the art of modifying a person's genetic makeup is i
Polio? (Score:2)
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:2)
Does somebody want to refute the statement that "religious fundamentalists could provide political opposition to inserting that gene into DeadPrez's offspring?"
Re:So... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:2)
We have the technology, just noone willing to use it in the USA.
Our new genetic overlords will not be Americans.
gene hacks give you cancer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:2)
A delta-32 dating service???
Re:So... (Score:2)
Muah-ha-ha-ha! They laughed at me, but I'll show them! I'll show them all!
It's a shame that the topic has no relevance.. (Score:3, Informative)
Things like this put an interesting spin on... (Score:3, Insightful)
The things that we are doing through science for money is going to become a wall that will stop us in the future, or can. Right now, it is unknown if our vegetable and foodstuffs are actually as valuable to the human body as they are supposed to be. I'm not talking about hamburgers, but raw vegetables. Pesticides and genetic modifications of crops is changing how they are used by the body.
Its not improbable that scientists could insert the immunity genes via foodstuffs in the near future, rather like making us all part of a super race... or rather the benefactors of the genetic makeup of superhumans. This process, in the course of history, has always wiped much of the world clean of the weaker specimens, leaving those with the stronger mutations to live on. That in turn drags down the rest of the population as genetic weakness is passed on.
This is a reasonable idea, just give the good genes to everyone.... but morally, that is the wrong thing to do. It will turn out that only those with an extra $150k will get the therapy... no insurance will cover it, 3rd world citizens can't buy it, and its not so different than what some of Hitler's folks were attempting to do (at least in some respects)
So, will it be superhumans or ginormous global conglomerates that run the future earth?
enhanced humans can't reproduce (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Things like this put an interesting spin on... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention it's not a good idea to play with the gene pool on a global basis. A seemingly beneficial genetic fix might turn out to have unintended bad consequences that we don't realize until perhaps generations later. Imagine if we toyed with our genes to make the whole population AIDS-immune, and a few years later it turns out that this change made us highly susceptible to some other drastic and unpredictable issue. Imagine that the new issue quickly wiped virtually everyone who had the modificatio
Re:Things like this put an interesting spin on... (Score:5, Interesting)
You should pick another boogeyman. Birth rates are declining worldwide. Over a third of all countries now have birth rates below replacement levels. Places like Japan, Italy, Germany, and Spain are expected to have population levels 30% lower than they are now by 2050.
The big factor is cities. Over 50% of the world's population now lives in a city. On a farm, more kids meant more helping hands. In a city those helping hands aren't needed, and in fact pull down prosperity levels. As such, people choose not to have them.
As China and India become more prosperous, they too will join the club.
In short, the "Population Bomb" was a dud.
Re:Things like this put an interesting spin on... (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that "overpopulation" will not be a problem in the future. However, the above strikes me as a little too rational and informed. I'd attribute people's choices more to selfishness than anything else: there are simply so many more choices and opportunities available today than there were in the past, so people are more reluctant to
Re:Things like this put an interesting spin on... (Score:3, Interesting)
There are two ways to eliminate poverty and allow all members of a society to function cooperatively as a whole. You can either drastically alter human nature to the point where no one desires personal gain through another's loss (unless the overall gain for the society is positive, in which case it is justified). The second option is to remove all possibility for any individual to harm another
Jeez... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Jeez... [Mod me flamebait already] (Score:3, Funny)
This is the Zonk Effect in action. A mutation that Zonk has allows hime to think old news is news. So he forwards this. Another mutation causes Zonk to pass off press releases as news -- see today's "Microsoft as Vigilante" story.
Folks like you happen to have the "Google" mutation, which means that you are immune to mistaking old information for "new". When you see something interesting, you Google it, and immeditately discover that you've been "Zo
Don't think of it as a a deadly epidemic.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Gene links (Score:5, Interesting)
UCSC Genome browser [ucsc.edu] - has the whole gene, but you can zoom in on segments if you want.
NIH [nih.gov] - this has links or links to links of everything you'd want to know.
And thus we change our race (Score:2)
So in a few decades, do we all look alike? Do we all become equally vulnerable to a new strain?
May I be the first... (Score:3)
Re:May I be the first... (Score:5, Insightful)
Idiots.
I feel like beating the editors with repeatedly with a cluebat. All the birds have *bird* flu. Not human flu. Humans are not birds. We do not have feathers, and cannot fly. Neither are we parrots. Which are also birds. Even dead parrots.
If/When the virus:
(a) jumps the species gap (which there's evidence it has done already a few times),
and (here's the kicker...) (b) the mutation can not only survive, but transfer to other human hosts (this hasn't happened yet) then there will be an issue.
Then it won't be bird flu any more. It'll be human flu.
Caveat to (b) - it may lose virulence in the tranfer, and end up just like all the other flu outbreaks that the press don't like to talk about because they're not scary enough, like 1967.
Oh, and (c) we know *just* a little bit more more about disease prevention than we did in 1918...
I think what's more interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
is how this mutation got into the general population in the first place.
The current operating theory [nih.gov], as I understand it, is that it originated (uhhh ... mutated?) somewhere in southern Finland [plosjournals.org], made it's way across the Baltic Sea to Sweden, and from there fanned out across Europe and West Asia during the period of Viking expansion -- from about the 8th-10th centuries.
The mutation is found in native populations as far away as Cyprus and North Africa; but the closer you get to Scandinavia, the more prevalent it becomes. So, really, the Vikings were doing the rest of Europe a public service while they were casually burning it into the ground.
Plunder. The gift that keeps on giving
This is news? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Uh, not news? (Score:2)
Re:Old news (Score:3, Interesting)
It's also reminiscent of how (no one knows exactly why) the gene for sickle cell anemia provides resistance to malaria, thus has yet to be expunged from the human gene pool.
Re:Old news (Score:5, Informative)
The August 7, 1998, German daily, Die Welt, contained an article by Susanne Horst
"Zehn Prozent der Europaeer sind vor Aids geschuetzt", summarizing the genetic findings of the national cancer center in Chicago as presented by molecular biologist Stephen J. O'Brien.
Human Gene Mutation CCR-5-delta-32
There is apparently a human gene mutation, "Mutation CCR-5-delta-32", which makes its holders nearly immune to AIDS, since this gene has no receptor for AIDS-similar viruses.
Whoever has inherited this gene from BOTH parents is fairly immune to AIDS. Whoever has inherited this gene from only ONE parent also has a good deal of immunity. (The immunity is not perfect in either case, since rare strains of AIDS can use the receptor CXCR 4).
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)