HIV Transmission Captured On Video 136
Technology Review has promising news on the AIDS front: researchers have captured HIV T cell transmission on video. The upshot could be new avenues of treatment. "The resulting images and videos show that, once an infected cell adheres to a healthy cell, the HIV proteins... migrate within minutes to the contact site. At that point, large packets of virus are simultaneously released by the infected cell and internalized by the recipient cell. This efficient mode of transfer is a distinct pathway from the cell-free infection that has been the focus of most prior HIV studies, and reveals another mechanism by which the virus evades immune responses that can neutralize free virus particles within the body."
Fascinating (Score:1)
Re:Fascinating (Score:5, Funny)
I always found biology quite fascinating. All those little buggers that can kill a human just by sheer numbers.
You should hang around statisticians then. They're a hoot!
Re:Fascinating (Score:5, Funny)
Ok I'll bite ... "HIV Transmission Captured On Video" ... I can't be the first to think, its probably been caught on videos before now!
Re:Fascinating (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been caught on video many times before - and sold.
Scary stuff, really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lara_Roxx [wikipedia.org]
http://www.adultfilmdatabase.com/video.cfm?videoid=61710 [adultfilmdatabase.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Parent isn't really that funny... someone mod him +5 insightful so that it isn't -1 insulting.
Re:Fascinating (Score:5, Informative)
> Roxx, on learning about James being HIV-positive, said, "It totally made me realize how I trusted this system that wasn't to be trusted at all, because it obviously doesn't work," and "I thought porn people were the cleanest people in the world."
"The system" in this case is inherently flawed.
After initial HIV infection, it can take up to six months for someone to start producing HIV antibodies (seroconvert). And unfortunately, most HIV tests don't check for viral load, but check for the presence of antibodies.
So basically, you have a window period of up to six months where you are contagious but will come up negative on tests.
AIDS pulling a revolutionary new trick (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the interesting part about this discovery is that aids is traveling from cell to cell without the need to release virons to float around hoping to find a cell. I don't recall hearing about any other virus that spreads by cell-to-cell contact. It appears as though the infected cell press up against an uninfected cell, form a pocket between them (that is not connected to "outside" and then release some virons into this pocket. The virons contain the necessary "key" to get into a cell, but normally their odds are not good simply because they have to float around and hope to bump into a T cell, one at a time, in just the right way.
This process has several advantages. First, it's not wasting virons by simply multiplying them inside the cell until the cell bursts, leaving the virons to float around hoping for a chance contact. Second, since the body isn't being flooded with virons, it severely delays and slows the auto immune response of the body which isn't going to react anywhere near as fast to such a low-volume threat of a handful of virons leaking out now and then vs thousands popping onto the scene continually. Third, in addition to being hand-delivered to a target cell, there's a ton of them at the contact site concentrated right on the target cell's doorstep, not just one, so infection is pretty much guaranteed.
It's sort of the difference between a country sending an "army" to their enemy, by stirring up a villagefull of people to go attack on their own individually, vs assembling a strike force and attacking at one spot on the wall all at once. Clearly the latter is more effective.
Scarry stuff. AIDS looks to have evolved a very potent new method of infection. It's too bad we don't know more about how this process works. AIDS is probably throttling its viron production so the infected cell survives to infect other cells, rather than multiplying virons as fast as possible to get the most of them released into the body as fast as possible. Interferfon iirc slows the replication of AIDS virons inside the cell, so it makes sense that throttling an already throttled process should be an effective treatment.
If a cell has been taken over and is personally going to another cell and staging an attack, this may be a very difficult problem to overcome. Small, relatively inert virons can only hope for a chance contact in just the right way with a target cell. An entire cell coming to get you is a bit more like a bacteria problem, they have a heck of a lot more resources at their disposal. It's like the enemy taking over one of your tanks, vs coming at you as a walking soldier. Difference is, when the enemy "gets you", he doesn't destroy your tank... he dumps some men INTO your tank and now he has TWO tanks.
What this all boils down to is AIDS has found a new way to use the cells it hijacks. Most other viruses use them as self-destructing viron factories, and a few as places to hide and lay dormant for later relapse. But using cells as lingering attack platforms is just plain scarry.
Re: (Score:2)
Random musing: Perhaps the regulatory mechanism for virus reproduction in the cell can be attacked. Find a way to convince the infected cell that it is already packed with new virons. It wouldn't be a cure, but might be a decent long term treatment with less side effects.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing HIV and AIDS.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't believe in Koch's Postulates, and I vote!" - bumper sticker seen on Matt Perry's car
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you'll have to explain your comment to me. I don't see how Koch's Postulates are even relevant here.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you'll have to explain your comment to me
You first. People who deny that HIV causes AIDS are making an extraordinary claim, and they need to supply extraordinary proof.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, the old "you first" defense; The shield of the coward. That's okay. I'll play along.
The person that I replied to [slashdot.org] was mixing up the usage of HIV and AIDS. Every time he said AIDS, he should have said HIV for his sentences to make sense. People often use the terms interchangeably but they are different things. HIV is a virus and it's that virus that infects people. AIDS is a syndrome that HIV infected people can, and usually do, develop sometime after infection. AIDS isn't transmissible any more
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, sorry about that. The original comment was a terse one, and seemed to suggest something it didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Interferon iirc slows the replication of AIDS virons inside the cell, so it makes sense that throttling an already throttled process should be an effective treatment.
...
What this all boils down to is AIDS has found a new way to use the cells it hijacks. Most other viruses use them as self-destructing viron factories, and a few as places to hide and lay dormant for later relapse. But using cells as lingering attack platforms is just plain scary.
Wait, so why does interferon seem like a good treatment? From what you say it would perhaps delay progression of the virus's spread, but not fundamentally disrupt its operation.
OTOH, perhaps going the other way would have merit. If the virus is so clever because its viron strategy is both stealthy and targeted, perhaps it's worth researching a way to speed up viron production. Then there would be greater chance of early immune response, and of premature death of infected cells. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so why does interferon seem like a good treatment? From what you say it would perhaps delay progression of the virus's spread, but not fundamentally disrupt its operation.
My musing here is that maybe it's worked out that it's more effective to spread directly by cell-to-cell over the long term than to dump out a ton of virons and explode the cell.
Now the immune system is capable of identifying infected cells, but that's a lot harder to identify than a viron. So that is probably working to its advanta
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so why does interferon seem like a good treatment? From what you say it would perhaps delay progression of the virus's spread, but not fundamentally disrupt its operation.
My musing here is that maybe it's worked out that it's more effective to spread directly by cell-to-cell over the long term than to dump out a ton of virons and explode the cell.
Now the immune system is capable of identifying infected cells, but that's a lot harder to identify than a viron. So that is probably working to its advantage also. The white blood cells probably also have an easier time identifying a cel that's not doing its job anymore and is swollen with virons
Well, so, again, why isn't it a better research goal to force the virus to speed up viron production (thus defeating the cleverness you highlight), rather than helping it to slow down viron production (which enhances the cleverness you highlight)?
Re: (Score:1)
Well, so, again, why isn't it a better research goal to force the virus to speed up viron production (thus defeating the cleverness you highlight), rather than helping it to slow down viron production (which enhances the cleverness you highlight)?
The reason this is bad:
First, quick background:
HIV is a retro virus. It reverse engineers its RNA into DNA and the DNA incorporates into the nucleic region. The viral DNA normally will lie dormant through a few mitosis cycles. At some point, an unknown chemica
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v6/n11/abs/nrmicro1972.html [nature.com]
The initial stages of animal virus infection are generally described as the binding of free virions to permissive target cells followed by entry and replication. Although this route of infection is undoubtedly important, many viruses that are pathogenic for humans, including HIV-1, herpes simplex virus and measles, can also move between cells without diffus
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. This assumption of everyone being racist/homofobic/etc. until they "prove" that they aren't by belonging to the group in question is offensive to me as a nonracist, etc..
The joke was the same regardless of who said it because the end result for us readers is the same. If it is something that can make us laugh, it is good. If not, it isn't.
And for the record, I think it was a pretty sucky joke regardless of the poster's health. -1 is appropriate
Re: (Score:2)
I try not to make fun of people who suffer from some bizarre and cruel disadvantage because I don't know what it is like to, say, have my family mauled by amok giraffes. If I make a joke about that unfortunate circumstance and someone says "My family was mauled by amok giraffes, you insensitive clod!" the humor is 1) that there is no misfortune so unlikely that
Fun-ny! (Score:2)
I've given the matter less thought than the length of this post would indicate
LOL, that cracked me up!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In all seriousness, it's really not funny to joke about this sort of thing. Do you enjoy joking about cancer patients? How about young women who contract cervical cancer via HPV from their partners? Real funny, buddy.
Re:Fascinating (Score:5, Funny)
The conclusion they came to is that excess stimulation of a sexual nature actually causes the cancer to develop. The guy with testicular cancer nodded approval, the woman with Brest cancer started to cry, The woman with throat cancer managed to cough out "not true".
The guy with Prostate Cancer ran away screaming "I am not gay. I am not gay"
There. See, people can joke about Cancer patients.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you enjoy joking about cancer patients?
Yes, as long as it's funny. Just like Forge's post in response to the same post I'm responding to. I enjoyed Forge's joke quite a bit. :)
This isn't me singling out cancer patients, by the way. I enjoy any joke that's funny, regardless of group. Whites, Catholics, nerds, college students, socially inept people who hang out on the Internet...I'm a part of each of those groups, and I can laugh at jokes. And all the same, I can also laugh at jokes about blacks, Jews, jocks, or any number of groups of which
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that cannot be turned into a topic of humour. Humans do it with war, with disease, with famine, with
Re: (Score:2)
OMG Horribly funny :D
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
I think it's funny when people fall down. Unless they're really old.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Any tricks on containing the laughter once it occurs to you that it's not supposed to be funny?
I once witnessed a blind lady fall rather flatly upon herself due to not knowing that a wide open space was actually made up of a few, very distanced steps.
I had to awkwardly yet promptly exit because I couldn't stop myself from laughing out loud.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
It somehow reminds me of that whole "Anonymous" thing from 4chan: mindless and deadly.
Here's a statistic for you (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed] [wikimedia.org]
Re:Here's a statistic for you (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm really getting tired of the Wikipedia ethic. That is, "slap a citation tag on it and move along. Research is for chumps."
There is a way to beat the HIV virus (Score:5, Funny)
I have an idea how to stop HIV and it involves the same technology found in terminator seeds [wikipedia.org].
In a nutshell, the government sanctions the agricultural giant Monsanto to engineer a new strain of HIV virus with a limited lifespan beyond a certain generation with ability to recode the DNA as it progresses. This virus could be hostile to all the known HIV strains out in the wild and force them out. People voluntarily get infected with this new virus as means of guarding against incurable HIV infections. Since this new virus can be regulated upon demand, Monsanto can then minimize the damage for a low monthly fee by supplying you with various off switches to reduce the infection. They could set up various plans depending on your budget. Silver and Gold plans would have limited side effects to encourage you to upgrade to the Platinum plan and get better viral sterilization methods.
I think this could work.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Welcome to Monsanto-land, where nothing can possibl-y go wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I don't get the relevance of the -y can someone please explain - I'm sure it's an interesting story?
(sorry)
Re:There is a way to beat the HIV virus (Score:4, Informative)
At Itchy And Scratchy Land (pre-death-robot-rampage)
Helicopter Pilot: "Welcome to Itchy And Scratchy Land, where nothing can possibl-y go wrong"
*Family looks at each other*
Helicopter Pilot: "POSSIBLY go wrong... sorry, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong..."
Supposed to be a hint as to what will happen later in the episode.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the government sanctions the agricultural giant Monsanto to engineer a new strain of HIV virus with a limited lifespan beyond a certain generation with ability to recode the DNA as it progresses
Is that even feasible? I'm not a virologist, but adding a feature like this seems pretty complicated. Is there an easy way to do that, like adding one gene from another virus, or are you proposing we invent a whole new mechanism from scratch? Because we're really no good at that yet. Pretty much all the artificial genes that I'm familiar with are either genes we've copied from natural ones, or ones that are extremely rudimentary compared to natural ones.
And though I have no experience in either virology
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that it seems to have slipped right over your head, I can only assume that you don't know about Monsanto [wikipedia.org]
I suggest you at least watch The World According To Monsanto [google.com] (best one I could find on short notice)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Considering that it seems to have slipped right over your head, I can only assume that you don't know about Monsanto
Save me some time: where in there does it say anything about Monsanto dabbling in HIV research?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For this to work, you'd ideally want a virus which used the same antigen for cellular entry (gp120, CD40 ligand); this keeps your virus to the same cells that are susceptible to HIV, limiting
Re: (Score:2)
+1 They'll Probably Try It
Shame viruses don't have distinct generations.
Re: (Score:2)
They _might_ have already tried this. HIV could be the failed result of their first try, escaping into the wild.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And if your partner infects you, you will get sued for copyright violation.
Just as with their (eg wheat) grains. 10 years prison. Minimum.
Is it me or.. (Score:2)
Re:Is it me or.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The blurb does kind of make it sound that way, the third sentence in the actual science article cites a 1993 paper: "In vitro, infection with cell-associated HIV can be thousands fold more efficient than infection with cell-free virus."
Pool's Closed (Score:1, Insightful)
Due to AIDS.
Sure it's not an artifact? (Score:1, Interesting)
Protein dynamics can be affected by alterations to the protein itself. In this case, the gag protein had GFP inserted into it. GFP itself dimerizes weakly, and would add some size and weight to the protein. Does anyone know how they are sure what they're seeing matches normal Gag dynamics? The paper says "This virus faithfully reveals Gag localization, allowing infected cells and viral particles to be tracked with high sensitivity" citing an earlier paper by the same authors. That paper showed that it
Why... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
sqlite is public domain. If the authors don't care that Real Basic uses it, why do you?
Also [wikipedia.org], 48% of HIV cases (in the US as of 2003) were tracked to male-on-male gay sex. 47% of the US HIV-positive population is black. Any mention of that seems to result in a -1 moderation.
Doesn't YouPorn show this every day? (Score:2, Redundant)
Just kidding.
If only HIV killed instantly.. (Score:1)
Sell tomorrow to enjoy today.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Google the term "bugchasing."
There's a subset of the gay community whose philosophy is basically that since we're all going to die anyway, they might as well get HIV so they can stop worrying about getting HIV.
Then if you really want your mind fucked with, Google "giftgiving."
Re: (Score:1)
Finding out that people are stupid and/or mentally ill really isn't that much of a mind fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If only HIV killed instantly.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, if it killed instantly then people wouldn't need to be careful not to get it because it would be extremely rare (unless it had a very common transmission vector which it didn't kill).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Or unless necrophilia is a lot more common than we currently suppose...
Re: (Score:2)
The "funny" thing about HIV is that, if it killed instantly (days or weeks) people would be MUCH more apt to be careful and NOT GET IT it because it's completely preventable aside from rape, unknowingly getting it through blood transfusions (rare) etc.
If it killed within days or weeks, it wouldn't matter what people do, because an outbreak would be pretty much self-terminating.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, if it killed instantly, most that have it would die off pretty quick, leaving no way for anyone else to get the virus. A virus that kills too quickly dooms itself.
Heh.. (Score:1)
Obligatory South Park: (Score:1)
Re:Is HIV dangerous? It's a "consensus" anyway... (Score:5, Informative)
Causality between a microorganism and disease is commonly established through the demonstration of Koch's Postulates [wikipedia.org]. These are not hard-fast rules; some of Koch's Postulates are difficult to prove through ethical experiments. However, in the case of HIV, all of Koch's Postulates have been fulfilled:
Anti-retroviral therapy - while itself is quite dangerous and filled with side effects - has nevertheless been shown in numerous studies to reduce morbidity and mortality in HIV+ patients. Anti-retroviral therapy has also been compared to placebo, and its effects have been found to be beneficial over placebo. Other studies, mostly performed in Africa, have examined the "natural history" (i.e. the untreated progression) of HIV infection; such studies have shown that the natural history of HIV infection leads to the severe immunocompromise characteristic of the AIDS syndrome, followed by death.
Yes, there is plenty of money flowing into AIDS research and drugs. However, that fact fails to prove anything related to this discussion, one way or another. There was a point in time when the HIV-AIDS connection was, indeed, a hypothesis; many people cite evidence from that period of time in making the claim that HIV->AIDS is still a widely disputed theory. However, a careful examination of the current scientific evidence will reveal an overwhelming body of evidence supporting a causal relationship between HIV and AIDS.
consesus consmenshus (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They way you say it would preclude carriers though.
Re: (Score:1)
For example, you can have Hepatitis B virus floating around in your blood, but have n
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't (1) include something like "and never found in abundance in organisms not suffering from the disease"
Absolutely not.
It's always possible, and in fact quite likely, that there will be portions of the population who can carry the infection without developing symptoms. Carriers of HIV+ who do not develop symptoms of AIDS are not unheard of, but then again carriers of flu viruses who do not develop the flu are fairly common.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is how the industry defines AIDS. It is defined as having immune deficiency and HIV (except in Africa, where a whole host of diseases are called "AIDS" due to lack of HIV testing). It begs the question, and invalidates postultes 1 and 4. #3 is mostly based on, as you put it, non-experimental evidence, which isn't bad in itself except there aren't any statistical controls, either, making it unscientific as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"having immune deficiency" is too general. There are a specific set of diseases which are symptomatic of the way HIV+ attacks the immune system (specifically the reduction of CD4+ T cells.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Blog postings from an anonymous nobody with no medical or biological education and training whatsoever. Yeah. That sounds credible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then put your money where your mouth is - infect yourself willingly with HIV and don't take any treatments for it.
Surely if it's harmless as cretins like Hogan say, then there's no reason for you not to do it and thus prove to the world that the HIV/AIDS connection is completely false. You would certainly win fame, prestige, riches beyond your wildest dreams for exposing it, right?
Re: (Score:2)
NullReferenceException (Score:2)
Object "Humor" apparently has no reference.
Re: (Score:2)
Who gets to decide? (Score:2)
Many Muslims think jokes about Mohammed are worth cutting your head off.
Nothing is off limits in humor, or there is no humor.
And while it is possible to get HIV by other means, the main explosion of the disease in this country started with gays. Take that, all those who said gays never contributed anything to society!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, I must have offended some of the gays here (Score:2)
The Pink PC Police are gonna get me now! They'll make me watch Will and Grace reruns for 24 hours straight as punishment. But wouldn't that be considered torture?
Even my gay friends can laugh at gay jokes better than you can. Actually, they told me most of the ones I know.
Time to send your sacred cow to the slaughterhouse.