Integrated HIV Successfully Cut Out of Human Genome 185
Chris writes "German scientists have succeeded in snipping HIV out of human cells after it has integrated itself into a patient's DNA. The procedure is a breakthrough in bio-technology and fuels hope of a cure for AIDS. The group is only cautiously optimistic, though, as treating a full-on infection would be substantially different than succeeding in a controlled lab environment. 'Researchers ... began with the bacterial enzyme Cre recombinase, which exchanges any two pieces of DNA flanked on either end by a certain pattern of nucleotides (DNA subunits) known as loxP. HIV does not naturally contain loxP sites, so the team created a hybrid of the two DNA molecules, which they used to select a series of mutated Cre enzymes that were increasingly able to recognize the combined DNA. The final enzyme, Tre, removed all traces of HIV from cultured human cervical cells after about three months, the researchers report online today in Science.'"
Different Strains? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems like cheating (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Translation, please. (Score:2, Insightful)
"I want more life. Fucker!" (Score:3, Insightful)
Bleh, TFS sounded like the virus/mutation conversation from Bladerunner to me.
Re:Proof of concept (Score:3, Insightful)
No. That's not how a virus works. A virus, outside of a living cell is a inert bunch of proteins, nucleic acids and sometimes lipids. A "genetically-engineered" virus could only work if it would infect the same cell as the HIV. If two different viruses infect the same cell, a process called interference can occur. This can screw both of the virus types, but the cell is screwed as well. And to kill all of the HIV infected cells, we would need the engineered virus to be more infective as HIV. So essentialy we would end up killing HIV with some kind of uber-HIV. No good.
"Cautious" is right (Score:3, Insightful)
They probably haven't developed anything which they could conceivably be administered to a living organism yet - let alone tried administering it to one. Then you've got a battery of tests to make sure it's safe and effective - there's probably at least another 10 years before this could really be a treatment.
The great majority of potential treatments never make it through that development/testing process.
Re:Slight Clarification (Score:1, Insightful)
This says it's a logical problem not a technology problem. Most 3rd world countries are 3rd world countries because of their ass governmental design.
Re: Different Strains? (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, they played that "You have 5 steps to change NET to PAWN changing/adding/removing one letter each time: NET NEW SEW SAW PAW PAWN" game with an enzyme.
Re:Slight Clarification (Score:3, Insightful)
IMO, this would be less of a problem if the United States had socialized medical care like the rest of the modern world. However, since this isn't the case the wealthier people in the US accidentally promote R&D into non live saving medicine because it suits them more, and they're willing to pay. If medical care were socialized, there'd be less of a lure to develop so many "useless" medicines, and more of a lure to develop live saving medicine.
This work is wonderful, and if it can be developed into a cure - or a catalyst for a cure WONDERFUL! The next step will be to develop a way to produce the cure cheaply, and that is where I think the philanthropic organization come into play. Too bad patents will probably prevent the medicine from seeing wide spread distribution in the poorer areas of the world that are most infected with HIV, like Africa.
I know people on
Re:Slight Clarification (Score:2, Insightful)
Some of us were born with it...
But very few are born with aids, most catch it from unprotected sex. Which is why as politically incorrect as it sounds, I dont really care if a cure is found or not. There are many other diseases that need to be cured first which arent preventable, such as cancer (yes i know smoking etc make it worse but some people get cancer having never smoked in their lives)
Why struggle to remove the whole thing? Sabotage? (Score:3, Insightful)
One would assume that there are a few critical sequences in the virus, without which it would not function or evolve around. Could the structure of its protein shell be corrupted to cause it to immediately fall apart, a la penicillin? Could changes be made to ensure that it would remain forever dormant?
It would seem that, with this technique, a little sabotage might get nearly the same benefit as cleaning it all out, for much less effort and risk.
Re:Slight Clarification (Score:2, Insightful)
Socialised medicine also effectively kills incentive to develop new medicine in general, because the payout for doing such work is not worth the cost and risk.
Why do you think the vast majority of pharma's operate in the US, and ALL OF THEM consider the US an absolutely critical market. I work in the industry, fyi.
I'm by no means an advocate for the US system of medicine, but it does provide one hell of an incentive for drug companies to innovate...but only for those who are paying.
Re:Slight Clarification (Score:3, Insightful)
So if the money pot dries up, who is going to pay for the R&D? Governments who already are struggling to pay for universal coverage? When I lived in Germany, it was starting to become a problem. There just isn't enough in the younger generation to pay for the rest and with 0 population growth....
And then where is Governments going to spend the money?
Currently in the United States there is 72 Million people living with high blood pressure. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?ident ifier=4621 [americanheart.org] The cause of which is unknown in 90 - 95% of the cases. Probably a combination of diet, excercise, and stress. But how much does each factor cause we still don't know. That is vs. 1 - 2 million with HIV/AIDS. If I am looking at the over all picture, where am I going to allocate the resources. Probably where the money will effect the lives of the most people. After all, that is how socialism works: the greatest good for the greatest number right? I mean all that changes is that people get shafted by the government instead of the HMO.
And not all forms of Diabetes is lifestyle either. My mother, and that entire side of the family, are all diabetics. None are obese and my mother had it since childhood and my uncle developed it later in life. That and we know there is a genetic link. Now being overweight increases the risk, but lifestyle is not the sole factor.
To paraphrase George Carlin, "Hmmm, if I'm planet Earth and have too many humans on it, how am I going to fight back. I dunno, maybe create a virus that is spread sexually and destroys the immune system." Yes, it's crual and mean and all that to say, but if AIDS is just that: mother nature's own defense system against us? Something to ponder at least as every attempt by man to do something about it has worked in prolonging life for a while.
Lastly there is another dirty secret: cure the desiease and guess what, the funding dries up. Same with Cancer. Find a cure and the well's gone. What would the American Cancer Society and other chairty groups do then? Close their doors? Well anyone remember what the March of Dimes was founded to do? Well? The March of Dimes was a charity that supported those with Polio and hoped to one day find a cure. Guess what...they did. And March of Dimes had to find a new cause, birth defects. A nice and general topic that likely will never had an end in terms of need for money.