Scientists Find A 'Weak Spot' In HIV That May Pave The Way To A Vaccine (futurism.com) 111
iONiUM quotes a report from Futurism: Research conducted by a team from the National Institutes of Health reported a new vulnerable site on HIV for vaccines to target. It is based on an antibody from the blood of an HIV-infected patient that binds with the virus and also prevents it from infecting a cell. A recent press release reports that a team of scientists led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has discovered a new "weak spot" in HIV that vaccines can target. The area, called the fusion peptide, is a simple structure of eight amino acids that helps the virus fuse with a cell. According to the study, the team used a particularly powerful antibody, called VRC34.01, taken from the blood of an unnamed HIV-positive patient that caught the weak spot in the virus. It's not only capable of binding with the virus through the fusion peptide but also preventing it from infecting an entire cell.
Nice! I hope it works out (Score:5, Funny)
Sweeeeet! Now Slashdot nerds can have no sex but without a condom!
Re: (Score:1)
That's good. I've been wearing the same condom since 2003.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Wait, you're supposed to wear it on your...? Oh, never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the most scary STD is hepatitis C. Cirrhosis is a very long, drawn out death.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Some kids that overdid it with the tanning cream usually end up looking bright orange. Like this goofball [linkognito.com].
Re: (Score:2)
But me and my hand are faithful to each other!
How is the person HIV positive? (Score:3)
Can someone explain to me: If the person has an antibody that prevents HIV from binding to a cell, how are they HIV positive?
Re:How is the person HIV positive? (Score:4, Informative)
HIV positive refers to the presence of the virus in the blood, not that it has infected any cells.
Re: (Score:2)
My information may be outdated, but isn't the test for HIV actually testing for the existence of antibodies rather than the virus?
Re: (Score:2)
Did we finally find APK's registered account?
Re: (Score:2)
APK loves agreeing with himself as well, it could just be another of his ploys to achieve recognition of his "genius".
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, cause I could say the same about you as you haven't "won" a single argument with me.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it possible to talk behind your back when everything I type is available for all to see? You really are a paranoid schizophrenic aren't you? What's it like to be brain damaged APK? You should know since you have the most outwardly obvious brain damage, whereas I get people who are surprised when they find out I have mild Autism after knowing me for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep it up APK, it just shows how desperate you are. You aren't hurting my feelings, you aren't proving me wrong, you are just showing how much the petulant child you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, no. There are a number of HIV testing strategies in use that test for HIV antigen directly in addition to, or exclusively of, HIV antibodies in the patient's serum.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, that's not how most HIV oral swabs work.
Source: I administer them in my drug/alcohol therapy classes.
Didn't know that, either, did you?
Re: (Score:2)
Your sources are sorely out of date, you dipshit.
Meanwhile, those of us with actual access to the technology will continue to properly educate the public, even in spite of your ignorance and bull-headed bullshit.
Re:How is the person HIV positive? (Score:5, Informative)
HIV is a retrovirus, it inserts it's code into the cell where it stays long term until triggered to replicate somehow. Ergo, a person could have all active viral particles removed and still be infected unless you blow away all the infected cells somehow as well. This is a large part of the reason why HIV can't be cured.
That being said, if they can figure out how to train the body to produce these antibodies, it's possible that one could keep the infection rate of the viral particles low enough(the antibody isn't going to block 100% of viral particles from depositing their payload) that a person is effectively immune to the disease, because it just won't be successful enough at infecting cells. That would probably also have the benefit that even if they're exposed, there will be a prompt enough immune response to keep them from being a realistic infection vector, so no Typhoid Mary for them.
That being said, there's a high probability that a vaccinated person would test as HIV positive today, because most HIV tests look for the antibodies, not the virus. Give them a vaccine that stimulates antivirus production...
Re:How is the person HIV positive? (Score:5, Informative)
That being said, there's a high probability that a vaccinated person would test as HIV positive today, because most HIV tests look for the antibodies, not the virus. Give them a vaccine that stimulates antivirus production...
This is not true, vaccinated people would not test HIV positive. first line HIV screens look for certain kinds of antibodies, the particular antibody the article is referring is not one of those antibodies.
The initial HIV screen is a combined antibody/antigen assay, if that is positive a follow up screen, called a Western Blot, is done. The western blot looks for additional antibodies, such as: p24, gag, pol etc... If enough of these bands are positive then the person is considered HIV positive. There are cases where a western blot can return as indeterminate, in some cases (like a grp IV) the person is most likely positive but may not be. Interestingly, with the introduction of post exposure prophylaxis many people are now returning indeterminate western blots and never fully sero-convert despite being HIV positive. In these cases pro-viral DNA is used as a diagnosis.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The antibody isn't 100% effective- although perhaps effective enough for people to lead a normal life. Their T-cell count was nearly normal, meaning they are doing a great job of fighting, but there was lots of HIV RNA around, meaning they were still quite infected. I believe this patient would show little to no signs of the disease while still being highly contagious.
Who knows if it's effective enough to be a vaccine, but perhaps the bigger breakthough is that this antibody has found a chink in the armor t
Re: (Score:2)
The body makes antibodies to HIV as it would any virus. An untreated HIV person has a long period without symptoms because the body is generally able to hold the virus in check- but in most humans, this is eventually a losing battle. A person never exposed to HIV will obviously not have an HIV antibody.
If you received an experimental HIV vaccine- as was developed decades ago- then you would test positive for HIV, because you would have the antibodies. You would not in actuality be HIV positive, and you w
Re: (Score:2)
This new vaccine is hoped to help by training the body to target a different part of the virus, as best I can tell. I wouldn't get hopes up too high on this- vaccines have proven very frustrating for dealing with HIV.
They haven't even hit the vaccine part. They've only found a new antibody that *might* be more effective at fighting the virus than is normally generated. The subject where it was found has a relatively low virus load(from what I can tell) for a patient not on antivirals, but high for one that is(should be under 200 in that case). However, his T-cell count is still acceptably high.
Their hope is to create a vaccine that encourages development of that antibody.
LTNP (Score:5, Informative)
After initial infection, the virus will enter a long-dormant period, during which it will continue to mutate and wear down the immune system. In most people, this period will end after a decade or so, when the immune system "tires" and allows viral load to increase. The destruction of CD4 helper cells (most by induced apoptosis, a small percentage by infection) opens the body to oprotunistic infection, which (barring treatment) is usually the end of the story.
A small group of the infected, called "Long Term Non-Progressors," are able to create highly-effective antibodies in their B-cells. When they do this, the viral load never increases, and they remain in the latency period indefinitely.
The antibodies produced by such people have been studied with X-ray crystalography. Their B-cells can actually be used in the "monoclonal antibody" process to create antibody solutions for other people that can be injected and used in treatment.
In any case, these highly-effective antibodies are only produced after years of interaction of the virus with the immune system. They are not presented upon initial infection, and LTNP individuals don't differ from the normal immune reaction during the first six months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a person. This person likes to swim. But when he's swimming, he often likes to shit in the pool.
So one day, he jumps in a pool. He shits the pool. The pool now has APSS: Acquired Pool Shitter Syndrome.
One day, the guy jumps into another pool. This pool just happens to have a certain pool cleaning chemical that, somehow, prevents him from shitting in the pool. But he's still in the pool, and might migrate to other pools in the sports complex. This pool has PSG: Pool Shitter Guy.
So, this pool i
Give Credit Where Credit Is Due (Score:5, Insightful)
They found an HIV-patient exhibiting an effective (to what degree is unclear from TFS) immune response to the HIV virus.
Let's give credit to the patient or the patient's immune system.
Re: (Score:2)
When Patent Time Rolls Around ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Why would he? All he did was exist.
Does God get a cut for having invented physics?
Re: (Score:1)
Duh! He gets paid with souls.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. It's called "tithe". And it's been running for way longer than the duration of any patent ever since, 'bout fucking time the shit got into public domain!
Re: (Score:1)
The subject wasn't on antiretroviral therapy, yet -PCP
There, I fixed that for you. It's rather unlikely that the subject wouldn't need some kind of treatment later on.
Re: (Score:1)
For further information see: Madec Y et al. Early control of HIV-1 infection in long-term nonprogressors followed since diagnosis in the ANRS SEROCO/HEMOCO cohort. J AIDS 50: 19-26, 2009.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
He is probably receiving state of the art treatment now. If he ends up completely cured, that's a nice compensation.
Re:When Patent Time Rolls Around ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
What, no big pharma conspiracy posts? (Score:3)
Still think Brec1 is much more exciting (Score:2)
but GOD (Score:1)
sent HIV as punishment for homosexuality. Why do these doctors hate Jesus?
A cure? (Score:2)
Re:Billions in Research (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They're born with HIV. And they die of HIV. Before they're even old enough to think about fucking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They chose the wrong parents. That's the same reason that all children of a religion different to your parent's religion will burn in the hell of your parent's religion - they too chose the wrong parents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it's not your ass, how's that your business?
Re:Vaccines don't work. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're an idiot.
Vaccines do not cause learning disabilities. Asthma has increased in correlation but it's not causative - working in schools I can assure you that asthma and allergies are on the rise because of LACK OF EXPOSURE to things like grass, pollen, nuts, etc. No asthma in unvaccinated? Bollocks. Healthier? Bollocks. Disease resistance? Bollocks. Safety studies, stop making up criteria that they don't meet because that's BOLLOCKS.
The Dr you quote thought that Vitamin C cured lots of things that it doesn't. The guy published only in the 70's and 80's, things have moved on.
Though I'm not in the "YOU MUST HAVE YOUR CHILDREN VACCINATED OR YOU'RE EVIL AND KILLING THE WHOLE WORLD" camp, I disagree with almost everything you quoted here even more.
Vaccination, like ANY MEDICAL PROCEDURE, it not without statistical outliers, mistakes, and risks. Nothing medical is risk-free. 99.9999% of all medicine is working out if what you take and might end up with is better than what you already have. Drug interactions are difficult and people work differently.
Like the HIV story at the moment - a patient, of their own accord, formed an antibody that stopped HIV. Now scientists are taking that antibody and hopefully forming a vaccine or kinds. But HIV is different in every person and evolution relies on something, completely by chance, working differently in one animal to every other animal of the same species. That's how it works, and that's why vaccines cannot be "safe".
But, as a mathematician, the overwhelming, massively tested, calculated, verified and best odds are that vaccination will help an individual, and a population, more than they will harm it. Nobody can guarantee that for any individual, because we're playing biology roulette. But we're making sure we're playing on a table with only one tiny "you die" against a myriad "you never get the disease, or die from it" slots.
Stop being an idiot, Dr. M.D. PhD means nothing. Ask my geneticist girlfriend who's qualified to tell half of London if they have cancer, or if their unborn child is likely to have a crippling genetic disease or not and works with lots of wackos, or my multiple-Dr PhD father-in-law who has PhD's in everything from chemistry to physics to sports science. One wacko Dr doesn't make everything he said 30 years ago true just because he has letters on his name.
The overwhelming, peer-reviewed, best-guess of established science nowadays is that people should be vaccinated. And, in fact, one British doctor with a similar amount of letters was SO WRONG in his autism/vaccination link that he went to jail for it. Not just a slap on a wrist. Not just "Oh, his science is poor". But "Your assessment and scaremongering was so damn incorrect, and you knew it, and you faked results and made up numbers, and you went so public and scared so many people incorrectly, that it was criminal."
I can find a wacko PhD in any field, from astrophysics to maths (so many claimed to have proven Fermat's Last Theorem etc. and ALL of them were wrong until the 1990's and that took nearly 10 years to prove right even though it actually LOOKED right for a change), biology to environmental studies. A sound-bite from a wacko is not science.