Man officially cured of HIV - Page 4
Forum Index > Closed |
Swagga
Canada49 Posts
| ||
Adron
Netherlands839 Posts
That trait worked quite the same way, though of course being immune/resistant to one virus doesn't mean squat when faced with a different one ![]() | ||
ShamTao
United States419 Posts
On December 15 2010 08:50 IkeScurvy wrote: Basically, now that we know this mutation exists and we can stop it, we just need to figure out how to replicate it and put it in a vaccine. And that's relatively easy. Doesn't particularly work like that. Vaccines carry small amounts or pre-killed viruses for the body to learn to fight off. The rare mutation that was found in the bone marrow of so-and-so would have to be taken from the patient and constantly kept to grow. With the DNA, the only way to make a person immune to HIV would be to incorporate it into the human genome. This presents a few tricky problems: 1. Taking bone marrow from a patient is actually kind of illegal. Henrietta Lacks was a cancer patient who had her cancer cells 'stolen' for use in scientific research. If you ever read in a scientific paper about cells being fused with HeLa cells to make them immortal, this is what they are talking about. 2. It is viturally impossible (with our technology) to alter a person's genome. Because you're genetic data is kept in EVERY cell in your body (minus all of the bacteria living there), every embryonic cell would have to be somehow targeted and transfected (the scientific word for incorporating DNA into a eukaryotic system), with a guranteed success rate. This is a difficult thing to do even with one bit of DNA with yeast (a single-celled eukaryote). 3. Therefore, the only way to effectively mutate a human being is to take the zygote from somebody immediately after fertilization (so this would have to be done in a test tube) and somehow transformed IMMEDIATELY at this single-celled state. IF that can be done, then every cell duplicated from that point on would carry the genetic information of this specific mutation, and successful transfection is unlikely. Beginning to see the ethics of it? -Your friendly neighborhood Biochemistry major | ||
Zerokaiser
Canada885 Posts
On December 15 2010 09:05 Trizz wrote: The cure for HIV was there when it was created on purpose, good thing the cure is finally official to the media now... Things like this are the reason the United States is so skewn lately... wait, what? You're from the Netherlands? have you been on vacation? Get your head out of the clouds, AIDS was not created on purpose and there certainly wasn't a cure created at the same time. | ||
Setev
Malaysia390 Posts
On December 15 2010 08:11 brain_ wrote: Crazy. I'm no expert, but did the timeline go like this? 1) Patient infected with HIV 2) HIV virus wipes out patient's white blood cells 3) Stem cells lacking the receptor protein are given to the patient 4) Stem cells differentiate into new white blood cells (lacking receptor protein) 5) Immune system repopulates with receptorless white blood cells that HIV is unable to attack 6) Working immune system. Existent HIV molecules die out because they cannot reproduce. amirite? Yea, 3 cheers for modern medicine! Btw, HIV being a virus, never really "die" right? They simply deactivate or something.. | ||
kyzers0ze
Singapore1073 Posts
On December 15 2010 08:24 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: Whoa. This is really cool. It seems like once the stem cell transplant procedure is made more safe, and the HIV-resistant cells are replicated, this is actually a way to cure people of aids. And it makes a lot of sense. Any biology people here able to shed light on the damage this will do to your immune system? For example, when you get vaccinated, where does the information for how to fight that disease get stored? In DNA or somehow elsewhere? It wouldn't be lost hopefully. In the case of HIV, there is no vaccine due to the rapid mutation of the virus. The reason why the man was cured was due to a complete replacement of his immune system and it so happened that the new immune system was HIV resistant as the virus could not affect any of the T cells. | ||
emc
United States3088 Posts
| ||
johngalt90
United States357 Posts
...the crowd goes wild *applause* | ||
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
may be a long shot but this is huge | ||
kyzers0ze
Singapore1073 Posts
On December 15 2010 09:01 Tempest186 wrote: This^^ ... Just finishing up my research project for HIV primary prevention and secondary screening. Despite the CCR% mutation, HIV is known for having a remarkably high level of genetic drift meaning that a variant form could exist that would still be able to enter the lymphocytes with the CCR5 mutated receptor. It is likely that the patient still has virions in the bloodstream, but they are below detectable levels (which are currently 1500 viral copies/mL i believe). Of these, it is more than likely that one such virion will be able to circumvent the CCR5 mutation, enter lymphocytes and then either become latent or clonally expand. The result will be another onset of AIDS, albeit very very delayed. The point is THIS IS NOT A CURE. It is a series of highly risky events that likely reduced viral load levels to below detection. It would never be reproduced in clinical trials or the like. If HIV was that cut-and-dry the vaccination programs that have existed for nearly 10 years would have developed a working molecular vaccine by now. But the virus' intrinsic mutation rate makes this highly difficult. Also, based on my graduate research in regenerative med, hematopoietic stem cell therapies have a very low success rate despite the media hype. Oh and these are NOT the same type of stem cells that critics oppose, those are embryonic. This common misconception is really holding back the regenerative medicine field. Still, I am happy for the dude. I hope this helps clarify things...CIAO Also, this man speaks the truth. | ||
ccdnl
United States611 Posts
| ||
Beyir
Denmark33 Posts
![]() ![]() | ||
![]()
intrigue
![]()
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
| ||
| ||