Killing HIV With Stem Cells: A Demonstration
How many days until competing researches shoot this one down as bunk? “Researchers from the UCLA AIDS Institute and colleagues have for the first time demonstrated that human blood stem cells can be engineered into cells that can target and kill HIV-infected cells — a process that potentially could be used against a range of chronic viral diseases. The study, published Dec. 7 in the-peer reviewed online journal PLoS ONE, provides proof-of-principle — that is, a demonstration of feasibility — that human stem cells can be engineered into the equivalent of a genetic vaccine.” [InSciences]
Hope it doesn’t get shot down. People still die of AIDS; I’ve seen it. I hope this works.
Before assuming it can be shot down in a few days as “bunk”, you might want to read the actual paper, which is available at
http://www.plosone.org/article.....ne.0008208 . The researchers did not claim to have a cure, but rather showed the feasibility of developing genetically engineered cells in order to attack HIV. Whether it works well enough to eliminate an HIV infection is still an open question (the experiment used human tissue implanted in mice). It seems people infected with HIV have such cells but not in sufficient quantity to stop the infection, so the researchers were trying to see if they could increase the number of such cells.
Given the type of experiment, the idea that it could be shot down in a few days, even if it is wrong, is absurd – it would take far longer than that merely to reproduce what they did.
Very exciting science!
This is what I want my hard earned tax dollars spent on, not expanding the American empire in Afghanistan.
Got that President Obama?
This is the same type of work I read about in a Newsweek article last week. And it’s an interesting avenue of research.
The scientist featured in Newsweek’s article claims the human body already produces the cells required to destroy HIV, but that HIV sabotages the production sites of these cells before an adequate response can be generated. His idea is to prime the system not with a new, never-before-seen antibody, but with the ability to mass-produce the existing antibody (albeit ideally with modified characteristics to make it more robust) before infection takes place. It’s an idea that sounds ingenious on paper and I hope this guys gets the money needed to proceed with monkey trials (mouse trials have shown a lot of promise). The Newsweek piece went on to explain that the scientist at the head of this is trying something so revolutionary that many in the vaccine community turn a blind eye to him and his efforts.
But it appears the UCLA scientists are trying to do essentially the same thing but through a slightly different avenue. I’m glad to see this development, because while a pioneer needs no one to confirm their genius, progress is built by consensus. And if the UCLA work in any way mirrors the other groundbreaking work being done in this field, it lends a lot of credence to an area of research that is deserving of a lot more attention.
The point was that it seems like every time there is hope of a vaccine or what ever it gets shot down/fails/overpromises and it’s getting harder and harder to have hope and not be skeptical, not that the research is not promising or doomed to failure.
As a non-science shmoe I say call me when they have the cure in their hot little hands ready to go. Otherwise im starting to feel jerked around.
In No. 5, Brandon wrote, “As a non-science shmoe I say call me when they have the cure in their hot little hands ready to go. Otherwise im starting to feel jerked around.”
You need to distinguish what reporters write from what the people doing the actual research write. If you look at the paper, they do not claim to have a cure. Rather, they claimed to have found something worth investigating further because it increases the number of T cells that can destroy cells infected with HIV. That would presumably make things better for a patient even if it turns out to be insufficient for a cure.
Here’s the abstract from their paper, which I cited above:
“There is a desperate need for effective therapies to fight chronic viral infections. The immune response is normally fastidious at controlling the majority of viral infections and a therapeutic strategy aimed at reestablishing immune control represents a potentially powerful approach towards treating persistent viral infections. We examined the potential of genetically programming human hematopoietic stem cells to generate mature CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes that express a molecularly cloned, “transgenic” human anti-HIV T cell receptor (TCR). Anti-HIV TCR transduction of human hematopoietic stem cells directed the maturation of a large population of polyfunctional, HIV-specific CD8+ cells capable of recognizing and killing viral antigen-presenting cells. Thus, through this proof-of-concept we propose that genetic engineering of human hematopoietic stem cells will allow the tailoring of effector T cell responses to fight HIV infection or other diseases that are characterized by the loss of immune control.”
It is not jerking anyone around. Rather, the intent is to provide useful data for other researchers.
B, Could there be another reason why stem cell research is always targeted? If a cure was found for cancer and HIV, drug companies would lose out on billions of dollars. I’d sure be out of a job! Exciting stuff.
As an active bathhouse bottom slut starting in the late 1970′s, and having a low/reduced T-cell count my first count test in 1987, I believe I have been positive for 30 years. (Tested positive in 1986 when the first test became available, by then though, I saw several fuck buddies already succumb to the disease.)
Obviously each person’s body handles the HIV virus differently. In my case and the case of many of us longterm survivors, T-cell activity is able to slow down the more typical progress of the disease.
Other therapies have mostly focused on killing the virus, disabling the reproduction of the virus, and poisoning the virus. This strategy is different and quite exciting, from a scientific point-of-view. Engineering the HIV antibodies, which fail to kill off the virus, into effective antibodies that will kill off the virus; well certainly that is an avenue of research that needs expansion.
And as previous HIV therapies have proven be have limited effectiveness, and that those therapies have, in turn, yield new approaches to fighting HIV and other viral diseases and cancers, this approach, whether fully successful in killing HIV, there will be other important benefits resulting from this research. I congratulate these scientists for looking for novel ways to continue the fight.