HIV—the virus that causes AIDS and kills almost two million people worldwide every year—is a tricky virus, so medical professionals are learning to get even trickier. Earlier this week they got video gamers to help decode the virus’ genome—your boyfriend bitching you’re spending too much time on Portal 2? Tell him: “Fuck off! I’m curing AIDS!”
But most recently doctors developed yet another new weapon into medicine’s arsenal by figuring out a way to “disarm” HIV by removing a cholesterol membrane that allows it to bond with healthy human cells and replicate.
Even though the virus is rendered impotent, however, it still contains the genetic markers that allow your body’s natural immunity to destroy the offending virus.
“It’s like an army that has lost its weapons but still has flags, so another army can recognize it and attack it,” said Adriano Boasso of Imperial College London, who led the study.
The team now plans to investigate how to use this way of inactivating the virus and possibly develop it into a vaccine.
While stripping HIV of its cholesterol may sound like putting it on a diet so that your body can knock out the newer, slimmer, and lighter-weight virus, think of it more in terms of Harry Potter defeating Voldemort by magicking away his wand. Who knew the future of combating AIDS would amount to a big fat Expelliarmus! to HIV?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Images via Trygve.u, JD Hancock, and tuppus
Skeloric
There have been a lot of “strides forward” on a cure that did not pan out.
I hope that this doesn’t follow suit.
This disease has plagued the world for 30 years or so without much hope to seeing an end to it all.
DavyJones
Strides forward on a cure may still be sluggish, but certainly we have made many strides forward on living with HIV/AIDS which have had a hugely positive impact on the lives of those infected… (Provided they can get the medication and use it properly. Two things that are unfortunately still serious problems in Africa)
Adam
Nerd references FTW!
Hyhybt
I may be remembering wrongly, or I may just be a couple decades out of date… but don’t HIV tests check for immune response, not the virus itself? If so, and an effective vaccine *is* developed, how would you tell the difference between having the disease and being protected from it?
Ian Finkenbinder
You are correct, and while I don’t have specific information related to this proposed vaccine (after all, it doesn’t exist yet), I know that with current vaccinations, they can at times give one a false positive. For instance, the Army vaccinated me against Hepatitis B, and when I began HIV care they ran a preliminary test that came up reactive to it. Once they did an RNA (a much more stringent test that requires a laboratory) test, they were able to discard the original result.
Keep in mind that they could also possibly use this vaccine as a therapeutic measure. Some vaccines are called therapeutic vaccines and are used to “cure” diseases.
Ian Finkenbinder
@Hyhybt: forgot to hit reply to your question, answer is below. 🙂
AedanRoberts
@Hyhybt: Rapid tests and certain blood tests check for antibodies in your system, yes.
But then there is the Viral Scan. Not only is it accurate up to a much closer point of contact (2 weeks or so after contraction) but instead of searching for the antibodies it actually searches for the virus itself.
It is more expensive, yes- but it is also the solution to your conundrum. Get the (hopefully) future vaccine? Viral Scans will still give you an accurate reading.
Hyhybt
@AedanRoberts: The question, then, is whether that is practical for blood-screening purposes. (For all I know it may be what’s used already.)
But this is just my own mental meandering 🙂
Riker
@Hyhybt: When we go to our doctor and ask for an HIV test, or take a rapid test at a clinic, what we get is the HIV-1 Antibody test, which checks for an immune system response. Since sometimes other antibodies react in a similar way to HIV-1 antibodies, there are sometimes false positives.
Whenever a positive result comes back, the lab runs an HIV-1 Genotyping test, which uses a process known as Gel Electrophoresis to identify genetic markers of the virus itself. It is much more expensive and takes longer, so is only used as a confirmation test for positive results.
The immunoassay test would probably come back positive for the vaccine, but not the genotyping.
Shannon1981
I know for a fact that sometimes rapid tests produce false positives. I believed I had HIV for 2 months, got another two tests, turned up negative. Still fine. This was 4 years ago. Now, I am no paragon of virtue, and I have had my share of shit go down as far as STD’s go. So, I hope this is used not just for a possible vaccine, but also for better testing methods.