Doctors Used HIV To Develop Cure For 'Bubble Boy' Disease (bbc.co.uk) 103
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: U.S. scientists say they used HIV to make a gene therapy that cured eight infants of severe combined immunodeficiency, or "bubble boy" disease. The babies, born with little to no immune protection, now have fully functional immune systems. Untreated babies with this disorder have to live in completely sterile conditions and tend to die as infants. The gene therapy involved collecting the babies' bone marrow and correcting the genetic defect in their DNA soon after their birth. The "correct" gene -- used to fix the defect -- was inserted into an altered version of one of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Researchers said most of the babies were discharged from the hospital within one month. Dr Ewilina Mamcarz of St Jude, an author of the study, said in a statement: "These patients are toddlers now, who are responding to vaccinations and have immune systems to make all immune cells they need for protection from infections as they explore the world and live normal lives. This is a first for patients with SCID-X1 (the most common type of SCID)."
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't know much about this topic, but it sounds reasonable and also very cool....using something deadly to save lives.
Congrats to the researchers!
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Interesting)
That's very similar to the story that ran a few weeks ago about using the Measles virus to cure a form of cancer in patients with no Measles antibodies (they tended to kill the Measles virus).
These are very cool developments!
Re: (Score:3)
But what about natural selection? Do we just throw that out the window now?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Natural selection *is* genetics. These babies survived due to natural selection of intelligence in the scientists that developed the fix. Survival of the fittest doesn't refer to each singular individual in a vacuum, it includes such things as social skills, capabilities of the group/clan/society in which the individual lives, etc. The selection here was related to babies being cute as fuck, thus motivating older and smart people to help them.
Re: Cool! (Score:1)
Re: Cool! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not even trolling. If you really believe that the 'law of the jungle' should apply to our species, then the only way you deserve to continue living is if you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you've never been sick a day in your life with anything that required you take antibiotics or anything else that saved you from probable death due to an infection or other medical condition that otherwise would have killed you. This includes any difficulties in childbirth your mother may have had, or for that matter any medical intervention during her pregnancy that probably would have resulted in you being spontaneously aborted or her death. If you really want to be a purist about it, you'd have to go back as many generations as possible and ensure that your entire genetic line has never needed any medical intervention of any kind to preserve the lives of your forebears on either your mother or fathers' side; any 'cheating' would mean, under your interpretetion of 'natural selection', that you do not deserve to exist. How dedicated to this concept are you, AC?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Rick Schumann had a point and attempted to move the goal post back to its original -- natural selection (or the survival of the fittest). You, on the other hand, tried to move the goal post.
When you are talking about the topic, it doesn't only mean "gene" but the whole cycle from start (birth) until one can deliver the one's genes to offspring without any intervention that is not from nature. Modern medicine is NOT nature intervention but rather our own human. We, humans, already come far away from natural
Re: (Score:3)
We humans have this weird desire to put ourselves above, or at least outside of nature.
WTF are "natural laws"? LOTS of species try to give their children a little extra help. In a large number of species, including humans, that trait has been selected for!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bull. Lots of species adapt their environments. We just take it a little further than other species. We're not as special as we like to think.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, by the way.
Re: (Score:3)
Selection means just that, selecting those most fit. Here we are saving cute but sick babies instead of investing in cute and healthy babies. This is a waste of resources that on the whole is bad for our species.
If "natural selection" requires the exclusion of intellectual and social factors, then we're clearly doing the human race a disservice by not abandoning all newborn infants in the wilderness. Those that survive to adulthood will provide the best stock for the next generation of humanity. Those that don't, well, they were inferior.
This approach would clearly be much less resource-intensive than raising children the traditional way, too!
Obviously, I'm being ridiculous. My point is that the level of sup
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution is outcome of the fitness filter.
Evolution sometimes favors traits that do not favor the individual.
Explicitly: Some of a species does not posses ("indulge") the protective trait. It will die out. Some of the species demonstrates the altruistic trait (eg using lookouts, who risk themselves) and outlives the other by doing so. It will persist. The "weaker, defective, wasteful" trait was more fit. It was naturally selected.
Evolution isn't always, "I'm number one, I've got mine fuck you".
I'm not asse
Re: (Score:2)
We shouldn't discontinue efforts to make certain selective pressures irrelevant as we are able. There may be some advantage inherent in or correlated with a perceived 'weakness' today, but would become a strength in some future circumstance. You want as genetically diverse population as is practical to maximize the species adaptability in the face of changes. You don't want a bottleneck of having the exact same traits across the population and be weak.
For example, if we now can 'fix' the immune deficienc
Re: (Score:1)
You are an absolute and utter dongle-berry. I am a biologist working with natural selection. I did not give you my opinion on the matter, I explained to you an aspect of how natural selection works.
Re: (Score:2)
Directed evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
But what about natural selection? Do we just throw that out the window now?
That's a very good question to ask, but it has a direct answer: We take responsibility for our own evolution.
There's no reason we should allow ourselves to die over a random genetic change any more than we should allow ourselves to die over a random tornado.
And for those who think that the gene is there for a reason, and may be useful in the future to combat some unforeseen environmental event: if we gain enough genetic knowledge then it won't matter. We can repair the gene in people today and reintroduce the gene (or engineer some other fix) in the future if it becomes a problem.
It's all balled up into the idea of making ourselves better, which seems to be the goal of evolution.
Re: (Score:1)
Evolution has no "goals". Evolution, at a fundamental level, is a change in gene frequency, in a given population, over time.
Whether genes stay around in the population are only dependent on whether there is selective pressure on the traits they manifest as it relates to reproduction. Genes need not have a "reason" and may be neither helpful nor injurious to reproduction. In that case, they tend to stay in the genetic line.
Does old-age related male pattern baldness or attached vs detached earlobes have an
Re: (Score:2)
But what about natural selection? Do we just throw that out the window now?
Natural selection can be cruel to watch. We gave it up with welfare decades ago. Now people unable to pay care for kids get paid to have more. Surely you've seen how society is getting better year after year?
Re: Cool! (Score:2)
Yes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The basic idea of modifying an immunovirus to in turn modify a defective immune system into a functional state is indeed brilliant.
I question the wisdom of using HIV specifically though - the disease is so dangerous precisely because it is extremely genetically unstable, with a far higher mutation rate than all but a few other viruses. That makes it virtually impossible to develop a cure since the virii you're fighting today are all different than the ones you were fighting last year (and from each other)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, sounds like you need to send an email, at least, to the researchers. They obviously don't know this, and never considered the possibilities inherent in their "solution".
Luckily, your insight into the process will, no doubt, save many lives, and possibly even win you a Nobel....
Re: (Score:2)
An appeal for caution when dealing with a dangerous, rapidly mutating virus is totally out of line and worthy of sarcasm.
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” -- Weird rockstar-wannabe math guy from that dinosaur movie.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no question of their competence. However *wisdom* is rarely of any direct benefit in the scientific fields, and its lack is often prominently seen years or generations later.
Re: (Score:2)
The HIV virus in question is used in a culture dish on extracted immune stem cells. It's also disabled so it can't replicate.
They're not injecting HIV into children.
Re: (Score:2)
I also like the idea that this can de-stigma HIV a little bit. Some religious fanatics liked to use HIV and AIDS as excuse to be mean to people. Because "God made this virus just to kill off the sinners". Seeing this being used for good, puts a bit of a dent in this argument.
moops! (Score:2)
moops!
Re: (Score:3)
Heard the Seinfeld slap bass* riff in my head as I was reading "Bubble Boy".
* - Actually from a synthesizer played by Jonathan Wolff
This is good news.... (Score:2)
...for John Travolta!
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, my Grindr profile still says "Non GMO".
Re:My takeaway (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If only her parents had taken in account that she was obviously going to move to America after being born, raised, and going to school in Poland...
Retrovirus. (Score:5, Informative)
What they really did was modify a retrovirus [wikipedia.org], a virus that rewrites part of your DNA. Of retroviruses, HIV has been studied the most and thus it's mechanisms are best understood. Expect more DNA patches to be made for people with one shitty gene that is making them sick.
Re: (Score:2)
And then, once the technique is perfected, we'll finally have our cute anime-style catgirls!
Great in theory, terrifying in practice... like Communism.
Re: (Score:3)
Any reason you would continue to use retrovirus techniques over CRISPR once the latter is more understood?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is the delivery mechanism. Retroviruses can be very specific, and affect just the targeted cells. Whereas with CRISPR it will also modify cells unnecessarily. Seems to be a lower risk profile.
CRISPR I believe is more for editing existing genes, so if you have a "dominant" mutation causing the disease, then CRISPR is a better course of action because you need to modify that copy. But if the disease is caused by a recessive mutation (ie, usually non-functioning), then all it needs is a working copy i
Re: (Score:2)
Any reason you would continue to use retrovirus techniques over CRISPR once the latter is more understood?
A retrovirus is used to modify the DNA of an existing organism while CRISPR is only good for modifying a single strand of DNA. You would need to modify the DNA of the child before it was born.
Can they pass it on? (Score:3)
What if they donate blood or fuck someone?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah! Like you can't donate blood and fuck someone at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! Like you can't donate blood and fuck someone at the same time.
I think I have that video.
Re:Can they pass it on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It's heartless, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's heartless, but is this actually a good thing? Passing along very bad genetic disorders that are rare now but, if more people live with them and have children of their own, will cause it to become more commonplace?
I'm glad these parents' children didn't die from their disease, don't get me wrong, but a future where nobody is born with an immune system seems problematic...
Re: It's heartless, but... (Score:3)
If the gene is fixed on the germline cells the bad gene wonâ(TM)t be inherited.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what I didn't catch (maybe I missed it in the summary or article?). It just sounded like they fixed the bone marrow, not the DNA itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Come now - just think of the profits available in such a future! Why do you hate capitalism?
Seriously though - if this were a common thing I'd be concerned. However, the genetic fan-out from such a small population, who will presumably know that their children are likely to be born with an expensive deadly disease, will probably be quite low.
As the number of such treatments for various genetic diseases increases though it is certainly worth considering. There are a few obvious solutions though - first, i
Re: (Score:2)
What does that even mean? There's nothing here about evolution; just procreation. Parent A has a gene, they pass it along to their children. That child passes it along to theirs. Eventually, a nice chunk of the population could have it assuming this occurs in enough people. What does that have to do with evolution?
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh ok it sounded like they were just adding the ability of their bone marrow to create the cells, not actually fixing their DNA.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it's a good thing to do, just that passing along a very dangerous gene is worse. Some other, more helpful commenter who actually added to the conversation, pointed out that it does fix the gene so there's no issue. Thanks for all your constructive input!
Where do these genes end up? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Retroviruses don't stick their genes in at random, they have definite preferences. There are off target effects with any gene editing technology though.
Note that they didn't just inject modified HIV into a person. They extracted immune stem cells, modified them in a dish, then injected them back into the kids.
Are they immune/resistant to HIV now, too? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mandatory XKCD (Score:3)
This is for Leukaemia -- which is another blood based illness -- but the technique is the same:
https://xkcd.com/938/ [xkcd.com]
Other Therapies? (Score:2)