Researchers Discover Gene That Blocks HIV 333
stemceller writes to tell us that a team of researchers at the University of Alberta claims to have discovered a gene capable of blocking HIV thereby preventing the onset of full blown AIDS. "Stephen Barr, a molecular virologist in the Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, says his team has identified a gene called TRIM22 that can block HIV infection in a cell culture by preventing the assembly of the virus. 'When we put this gene in cells, it prevents the assembly of the HIV virus," said Barr, a postdoctoral fellow. "This means the virus cannot get out of the cells to infect other cells, thereby blocking the spread of the virus.'"
Re:Holy crap! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Holy crap! (Score:1, Informative)
Premature Congratulations (Score:5, Informative)
Yet after literally hundreds of millions in financing, there isn't yet any real curative treatment. Why? Because HIV is a retrovirus with one of the worst polymerases known. It's just so bad at copying itself, that any treatment applied in-vivo acts only as a selective pressure.
Same is the case for HIV vaccines - even though there ARE conserved regions of the virus, they aren't very good targets, and the ones that are good targets are too antigenically fluid to be targeted.
In the end, my opinion as a virologist is that stopping the spread of HIV, and continuing to develop a larger palette of inhibitors are the proper solutions to the HIV problem. If we treat the people who have been infected, and don't infect any more... HIV will not be a problem after 2 generations.
Re:Can you say "Nobel Prize"? (Score:5, Informative)
Delta 32 gene marker is a natural immunity already (Score:5, Informative)
Read more:
wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
pbs [pbs.org]
Re:Holy crap! (Score:2, Informative)
Sure. They just use a mostly-dead other virus to permanently change your genetic code. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
it still doesn't work (Score:4, Informative)
Re:But how will it be used? (Score:5, Informative)
But that doesn't mean it would be out of the reach of the poor either. Every poor person has access to medical in the US through welfare SCHIP and several other programs. There might be a very small amount of people who don't. This leaves the not so poor who don't have insurance and there is two ways to attack that. The first is all major drug company has a medication assistance program where they provide drugs at reduced costs or ever free of charge to people having problems affording it. The draw back is that you can't buy a new boat and claim the payment makes it so you can't afford it. The other way is SSI. AIDS would be counted as a disabling disease and in most every situation you would be eligible for some coverage under SSI.
That of course is US centric, but any country other then the US has the ability to get the same deals and programs going. The berne convention has provisions for violating patents in emergencies, Canada has pulled this exemption to make generic ciprocal or whatever it was during the anthrax scare. I suppose that if any other country couldn't provide the medication for it's population and it was a problem in their country, it could be seen as an emergency. But I don't think it would be advisable to manipulate it too much.
Re:Holy crap! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Premature Congratulations (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But how will it be used? (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the last paragraph of the article (I know, "Read? this is slashdot!") they mention who actually paid for this. In the name of public education, I'll duplicate it for you: .
Your hypothesis that the current system is well financed by pharma companies may be incorrect...
Even more premature (Score:3, Informative)
It's a in-vitro study of one tiny aspect of one pathway that MAY be helpful in TRYING to create a treatment.
If a cure is a 20-layer cake, these people have created a recipe for the syrup for the cream, for one of the layers. According to you, that negates the need to buy ingredients, find out the recipes for the other layers, hire the chef, or actually make the cake!
Re:How to filter low impact science (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How to filter low impact science (Score:5, Informative)
This is not comparable to to Nature, Science or PLoS Biology but for a specialized journal it's quite high.
The good thing about the PLoS Journals is that they rank quite high _and_ the articles are open accessible by day one. This means that an ordinary slashdot user (not sitting in a rich lab or library that has spent truckloads of money to access the most important journals in its field) has the chance to _read_ the f#@*ing primary resarch article.
As said, the paper is here [plosjournals.org] although the site is down for maintenance at the moment
The odds are 1 in ~50 million (Score:2, Informative)
If you know your partner has HIV, the odds of getting HIV with a condom is 1 in 5000 sexual acts.
These are real statistics from the JAMA and widely quoted by the CDC which fields thousands of calls about OMG A CONDOM BROKE WITH MY ONE NIGHT STAND. ODDS: ~1 in 1000 for high risk groups.
And for the record: 1 time unprotected sex with an HIV+ partner is 1 in 500 odds.
Of course, more accurate risk analysis would point out that women and receptors of anal sex are more likely to contract HIV.
And finally, with consistent condom use there is a 2 percent chance of a couple getting pregnant in a year's time.
Re:a waste of the tech (Score:1, Informative)
I guess we could do that.. or.. you know.. leave the definition of I.Q. alone and let the average intelligence be a nice even 100.