Possible AIDS cure?

[Trevorus]

http://news.wired.com/dynamic/storie...11-12-15-18-49

[Valerus]

that would be pretty awesome. i hope to see this story develop.

[StanFan]

I thought it had something to do with Magic Johnson and money.

I better read the article then.

[Stigs]

That would be amazing if they figure out a way to cure it, and if its not the real cure then that man is extremely lucky.

[Ericman197]

It still isn't the best kind of cure, because it will obviously be very difficult to find donors for everyone with HIV, let alone HIV resistant donors. However I've heard about this, and it's probably one of the most promising advances we've had in recent history. Even if this only cures a few people with AIDS, that's a step forwards. If it actually works, AIDS research might even shift gears towards stem cell research. Since the cells can be derived from adults, no one can complain about it either.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Hmm, a number of things could be going on here. From having a bone marrow transplant it will pretty much throw all your immune responses out of whack for a wee while (Id imagine at least), so maybe his body isnt producing an Ab response to any infection.

Also, not sure that there will ever be a way to make resistance to HIV/AIDS, the main problem is the virus changes so often, really need to find some targetable weakness which stays constant in all HIV/AIDS particles.

If it has worked, then it is pretty amazing, and yeah, a good step forward, the problem is when you have such a wide spread disease that a bone marrow transplant isnt really the best way to approach the situation, but granted, may be a case of taking what we can get.

Will be keeping an eye out for further developments.

[Eilif]

It's a very interesting development, but since the treatment that is required to initialy eradicate the existing immune system is 20-30% fatal, this is really only a possible treatment/cure for those who already have leukemia. A four chamber russian roulette pistol vs a nearly assured 35 years of life -for most of those who take thier drug regimen regularly- is not a difficult choice for most health providers.

Still, any development that gets scientists looking down new avenues of research is a good one.

[Tsal]

Originally Posted by Ericman197

It still isn't the best kind of cure, because it will obviously be very difficult to find donors for everyone with HIV, let alone HIV resistant donors.

They're already talking about using gene therapy (ie. infecting the live cells with a engineered virus that alters a specific part of the DNA) to engineer the patient's own bone marrow cells immune to the virus. This way they wouldn't need a donor, and their body wouldn't reject the cells either.

Of course it doesn't work on all the virus types, but I've understood that the particular type it works on is fairly common.

[ahkiatt]

I'll believe it when the news appears on my newspaper.

[DudeistMonk]

I think the only real solution to combating a virus is a vaccine...and they had one or where close to one...what ever happened to that?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Easier said than done when it mutates and changes as much as the HIV virus does.

There will probably be a way, and there will be thousands of people researching on producing one. We'll just have to wait and see I guess.

[Eilif]

Originally Posted by DudeistMonk

I think the only real solution to combating a virus is a vaccine...and they had one or where close to one...what ever happened to that?

In terms of protecting a persons immune system, that is pretty much the only solution. The article is basically talking about completely wiping out someone's immune system and replacing it with one that is already resistant to HIV. Sounds good, but the reality is that the initial wiping out of the immune system is fatal 20-30 percent of the time.

As for a vaccine, "mohawk" pretty well summed it up.

[Ericman197]

For those wondering WHY it is that some people are immune to HIV:

HIV needs to get into our T cells in order to do it's dirty work. A number of signal molecules are involved whenever anything big goes in or out of a cell (small things go through channels or right through the membrane). The guy in the article received marrow from someone who is homozygous for a CCR5 deletion. In other words, both the chromosome from the donor's mom, and his dad, BOTH code for a defective receptor. Without CCR5, HIV can't get into the cell.

So what happened is the recipient began producing these mutant T cells, which HIV couldn't attack. Natural selection then takes over: the mutant T cells proliferate (and go on to fight the infection). If HIV ever resurfaces (which it is known to do, it's particularly nasty in that it can lie dormant in little hiding places), it will once again attack the normal T cells, but the mutant T cells will be immune and will help destroy the infection.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I knew it relied on specific surface signal molecules to gain entry, but are those not also required for functional use of the immune system?

I may be wrong, because I havent covered anything with CCR5 receptors, but I was under the impression that it was a receptor which was involved with APC binding which was used by HIV to gain entry, thus, if that gene was disrupted it would mess your immune system up (as antigens wouldnt be presented to the immune system as efficiently). Granted, im probably completelly wrong here

[GeneralElectric]

Originally Posted by StanFan

I thought it had something to do with Magic Johnson and money.

I better read the article then.

+1