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.'"
Holy crap! (Score:5, Insightful)
But how will it be used? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Holy crap! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. They just use a mostly-dead other virus to permanently change your genetic code. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Re:But how will it be used? (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is expensive. Large-scale high-throughput biomedical science is even more expensive. Clinical trials are EVEN MORE expensive. Where do you expect that the money for all of that comes from.
It seems that on Slashdot, the prevalent opinion is that we should all get whatever we want, whenever we want, for free (or nearly free). That's not how the real world works. Many scientists are working on important biological pathways... but it is largely with the financing of the pharmaceutical companies, that they are able to translate their discoveries into drugs.
Could we improve the system? Of course.
Should we ban consumer-targeting pharmaceutical advertisement? Absolutely.
Should we heavily regulate drug companies? Certainly.
But one thing we should be careful about doing, is assuming that all biomedical science will be miraculously well-financed if drug companies disappear.
Re:Holy crap! (Score:5, Insightful)
Always Remember: AIDS is Deadly. It is not a "chronic condition." It is a death sentence, maybe it'll take 5, even 10 years to kill some small group of victims, for many it is as few as 6-24 months. Way, way to many young people somehow manage to remain ignorant of this.
Re:Holy crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
Very true. Unfortunately, the mechanisms of full-blown AIDS run too deep, so that even expelling AIDS would still leave the body in a likely incurable state. Still, that would certainly prolong the lives of those diagnosed with AIDS, so it's still a worthy cause.
Re:Holy crap! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Holy crap! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why ?
Because a cure will "save" the 0.6% of the population AND leave the remaining 99.4% of the population with the peace of mind of knowing that in the unfortunate event that they do contract HIV they are not completely fsck'd.
Of course the best scenario would be both a vaccine and a cure.
Re:Holy crap! (Score:1, Insightful)
Unless something is discovered that turns everything we know now on its head, which is always a possibility, but currently...i wouldn't even expect that in my great grandchildrens time.
Just finished Jurassic Park (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Holy crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But how will it be used? (Score:2, Insightful)
So, yeah, we have to take into account the costs of research, production and so on. But don't call someone greedy when all they want is the chance to live a healthy life.
Re:Holy crap! (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't Celebrate Just Yet (Score:2, Insightful)
Until the Virus Mutates (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Premature Congratulations (Score:3, Insightful)
Even with US & UN aids money they can't afford to provide, to everyone, the generics made by countries that have broken US pharma patents.
How to filter low impact science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is healthcare a right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is healthcare a right? (Score:5, Insightful)
If healthcare resources are so scarce that we are unable to effectively treat all members of society, then society must decide how to distribute those resources. As I stated above, it's not justice to award those scarce resources to only one class of people. In the original position, one would likely decide to allocate them either based on an attribute other than wealth, or more likely, allocate them in a random distribution (i.e., if there are two people with terminal cancer, and society can only afford to cure one of them, there's a coin flip).
I also wonder whether you've considered how much of that scarcity is based on scarcity of physical goods, labor, etc., and how much is artificial scarcity that could be changed by changing societal structure. For instance, if a pharmaceutical company can be compensated so that there is incentive to research new life-saving drugs, while amortizing the cost of said drugs over the whole population, rather than just on a small number of sufferers, it may no longer be the case that the sufferers are forced to compete for access to their medication.
Re:How to filter low impact science (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Holy crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How to filter low impact science (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to have a misguided interpretation of the role and purpose of Slashdot...
Re:Holy crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, a complete cure doesn't just help that 0.6%...it also helps that 99.4% to the extent that they are at risk of getting the disease.
Re:Holy crap! (Score:1, Insightful)
More seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
So one possibility would be to :
- get some progenitor cells from the marrow
- do the recombination under laboratory controlled conditions using whatever methodology seems to be the best (not forced to use viruses that can still replicate other methods could be acceptable)
- select those progenitor cells where the recombination happened in the most optimal way (the new gene did got indeed inserted, and got inserted at a correct place where it won't cause cancer or otherwise disturb the function of gene that were present before the recombination)
- inject those modified cells into the patient bloodstream and let them go back to the bone marrow
- those celles produce a new generation of HIV-resistant lymphocytes.
As we are not forced to use virus inside a patient but can do the transformation under controlled conditions, and as we have a lot more knowledge about human genome, we might manage to diminish the risk of the transposons continuing to jump around and damage important genes (compared for example to what was found with Monsanto's GM corn).
Risks of rejection may be lowered compared to what happens with Cystic-fibrosis gene therapy, because :
- no virus inside the patient body and less foreign material : less likely to trigger a immune response.
- cells are only modified using the new gene, no other virus-cycle replicating proteins : less likely to be recognized as 'foreign'
- patient with an active AIDS are immuno-compromised anyway so the risk of immunological reject are lowered anyway.
Also, unlike other gene therapies, the effect of that one are very likely to be permanent because we have access to the progenitor cells that produce the lymphocytes. Whereas with CF gene therapy, the virus is inhaled and affects cells on the surface of the respiratory tract : mostly differentiated cells that won't divide anymore, once they are dead a new exposition to the virus is necessary to produce a new crop of modified cells, hence the risk of rejection increase with each exposition. In CF, the progenitor cells aren't easily available.
Re:Holy crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Holy crap! (Score:5, Insightful)
btw, Bill Gates is the devil.
Re:Holy crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
Last package I checked actually required keeping the condoms refrigerated until use and double-wrapping to actually hit their (already less than stellar) prevention rate
That's what's wrong with them -- they suck at what they're supposed to do.
Re:Holy crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Holy crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
"lifealwaysfindsaway" (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see anything here that even remotely sounds like this was a well-thought-out fix. These sorts of discoveries are usually by chance, try this, try that, and observe results. If it only takes one very minor change in the viruse's DNA (RNA?) to get around this, it won't take any time to work it out.
The more well-thought-out methods are more likely to succeed or at least to hold up longer. Now while Jurassic Park did find a way around it, the concept of stopping reproduction by making the entire population female, in theory is a very well thought out measure and is not trivial to bypass. You'd put a lot more stock in that than if they had say, injected the dinos with something that sterilized them. This looks more like a random attack with results that are not even remotely understood.
Re:Holy crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I can nearly 100% prevent AIDS (Score:3, Insightful)
...
5) Don't ever get in an accident and need a blood transfusion, because the blood might be infected- especially in poorer nations.
6) Don't have a mother who had HIV while carrying you. That's a bad choice to make- don't inflict this kind of injury on yourself.
7) Don't be a woman and get raped by a man who has HIV. That's a bad choice to make- don't inflict this kind of injury on yourself.
Re:Holy crap! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not everything is a choice.
Re:Holy crap! (Score:3, Insightful)