What is Digg?260 Comments
- Anrkist, on 10/11/2007, -7/+206Shame a "Cure" comes out in the news every year. Hope this one is real.
- vroom101, on 10/11/2007, -6/+184Now this is really wonderful news! Keep at it guys and don't give up until the cure is found!
- canewediggit, on 10/11/2007, -24/+153time for an orgy!!!!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+70Cures for Aids, Diabetes, and Cancer are about every three months. Don't get your hopes up. Not saying give-up, but BREAKTHROUGHS don't mean ***** until the results come to the market.
- keeling0ver, on 10/11/2007, -0/+52I just graduated college with a degree in bioinformatics so I'll give it a go...
The theory behind this method is sound because we use enzymes like these all the time when doing any sort of genetic engineering within cells to add and remove genes from the genome. All other HIV drugs currently on the market target the proteins that the virus makes and tries to render them inoperative. This helps reduce the effects of the virus to manageable levels, however the virus has already placed a copy of itself into your genome, and there is no way to get rid of it, so it just keeps pumping out its proteins and you keep getting rid of them with drugs. This method would actually cut the virus copy out of your genome and destroy it.
The main problem with this technique working on humans is how to deliver the enzyme protein to the cells in your body. Most common drugs are small molecules that can easily gain access to most cells because of their tiny size. Proteins like this enzyme are larger, and generally can't get into cells unless there is a specific mechanism for their entry. There is increasing amounts of research for using biomolecules (especially modified antibodies) as drugs, but as far as I know, getting these biomolecules into cells is still a problem. There may be methods that make it easier to get biomolecules specifically into T-cells which is where HIV likes to hang out... I'm not sure.
Even if this method ends up working as described and they find a way to get it into cells easily, it will still be vulnerable to new resistant strains of HIV cropping up just like antibiotics and bacteria. One of the things thats so hard about HIV is that among viruses it has an incredible ability to mutate and evade drugs. Generally viruses can't mutate that much because they are so small and there is very little room in their "genome" for extra mutations. - oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+39It's more encouraging than that voodoo potion from africa.
- mongrel, on 10/11/2007, -4/+40...and then Pfizer bought the cure, paid the scientists to retire, and it was never spoken of again.
- darthsabbath, on 10/11/2007, -2/+34Original article is here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=737AB56E-E7F2-99DF-382B756D1860EACA&ref=rss
I'm in no way a molecular biologist, virologist, etc., but this is a really cool idea. Any of the more knowledgeable Diggers have anything to say about this?
Regardless, any research in this area is a good thing. - keyboardduder, on 10/11/2007, -6/+38Unfortunatley, you will still have AIDS that is transmittable, it will just be "broken".
- Puppetfunk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+31Yes but with every breakthrough we make the closer we get. A journey of 1000 miles begins with one step. Soon these breakthroughs will get a better and better and soon we may have a full cure.
- oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+29Unfortunately, in North America, drug companies will be asking how much is someones life is worth.
- Radionesiac, on 10/11/2007, -9/+34so is AIDS funny yet?
- Feodoric, on 10/11/2007, -4/+26Are people who spout this kind of crap retarded? Have you ever even heard of the word "vaccine"?
Polio, smallpox, hepatitis. I mean, for ***** sake, man. - NinjaBoy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22Your not welcome to the orgy
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17 It is indeed...Too bad it will be too expensive for most people to afford.
- troglodytejb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14The thing about the various "cures" is that most of them will legitimately help; none of them, however, present a full cure. This seems like it could, because it's actively and selectively removing the virus from cells, it seems like this could be an effective cure, assuming no major side effects from use of the enzyme as a drug.
The real question is how far along the drug is usable, and if an immune system damaged by AIDS has the ability to recover to its full capacity. - ascotan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Molecular biologist here.
The big problem with AIDS is that the virus deposits it's genetic information into your cells and remains in a dormant state. The dormant state is know as HIV. At some time in the future the virus reactivates itself (potentially years in the future). The virus genome starts to create viral copies from the integrated genetic material and HIV becomes AIDS.
Treatments currently focus on attacking the protein products in the full blow AIDS disease state. The drug cocktails are very efficient. However, the AIDS virus is a horrible self-replicator. As a result, drug resistance appears very, very rapidly.
This type of therapy targets the HIV stage in the patient by attempting to remove the dormant genetic material, which would prevent the AIDS disease state. The **biggest** problem with this is that the enzyme needs to be targeted and inserted into the appropriate cells. Therefore this type of treatment will fall under 'gene therapy'.
There are not many good vectors for moving a drug to specific cells types. Most medicines use the 'shotgun' approach. You take the drug (antibiotics are good example) and the drug is non-specifically transferred throughout the body. Because HIV targets very specific cell types (white blood cells essentially) - there needs to be a way to target this enzyme to the every diseased cell type in the body without missing any cells. Even 1 unfixed cell could re-ignite the disease. In the case of antibiotics, you simply need to reduce the bacterial concentration so your own immune system can take over and cure you. Here, we need to do all the fixing ourselves - which is why the targeted approach is needed.
Since drug delivery systems are still in their infancy, well need to wait till this type of technology becomes available as well. - weaksnyc, on 08/14/2009, -1/+14Not so much drug companies... more so the insurance companies.
- pegisys, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13funny to hear someone from Canada say that because I know plenty people how go across the border to buy their meds because they are cheaper
- jesterselv, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16pharmaceutical companies are now deliberating as to how they can disrupt this research.
"Theres no money in a cure, so how can we modify this so that people need to keep buying our pills?"-CEO of a big pharmaceutical company - oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Not necessarily Canada has free health care, we don't use voodoo cures. Britain has free health care and cheap drug plans and they don't use voodoo cures. Cheaper health care means everyone who needs treatment gets it, it doesn't mean that no one will ever improve.
- Speed, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12True, many medical breakthroughs are made in Canada (University of Alberta, and many other places).
- troglodytejb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10It works in a similar fashion to restriction enzymes, as I understand it... I'm a bio major in school right now, so I'm not a doctoral expert, but I know a bit.
Basically, restriction enzymes are one of the foundations of biotechnology. They're proteins that bind to a specific DNA sequence, and only that sequence, and cut the DNA at that location. You can sequence a strand of DNA by using a large library of restriction enzymes, and then comparing fragment sizes to "reassemble" the DNA on a computer.
This would seem to be slightly more complex, however. It seems like it's looking for a specific site, rather than a short sequence, which is a lot less common in nature than a restriction enzyme. I suppose this could work, but if it's anything like a restriction enzyme, there's a lot of potential for collateral damage... - Hayes, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11I know these happen quite frequent, but you better ***** believe every time there's even the slightest chance of it being the real deal, I'm going to do everything I can do to make sure it gets some publicity, and hopefully more funding.
- a22e, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11So we could be giving AIDS Cancer?
- rvidal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9This type of headline always brings out the BigPharma paranoia in people :)
Regarding the story, it's far more complex than the article puts it and once again (just like that last story about cancer being cured), lab results may give way to something completely different when tested on humans.
One thing are cells, another thing is a full and dynamic human being. - davin510, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9This is actually pretty exciting stuff. The article isn't describing a single cure as much a totally new approach at treating HIV. Current methods target HIV mRNA and their protein products which prevents the virus from encoding the proteins necessary to replicate and infect other cells... basically they quarantine the infection. However, where this fails is that eventually, the virus mutates and finds pathways around the treatment. A patient must both continually take medication to suppress the virus, increase dosage over time, and take multiple treatments (all with their own side effects) just to prevent the onset of AIDS.
What's exciting about this new approach is that it specifically targets the HIV insert itself. Theoretically, with this ability to target the genomic DNA, a new treatment could be devised that would permanently eliminate the virus from the patient, meaning no more relapses, no continued drug usage, and possibly no chance of infecting others. Of course, this is at least 5-10 years away, but it's a step in the right direction. - oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9That's the USA, in Canada we only have to worry about drug prices. We may have Universal Health care but not free drug plans. Our employer may cover some of the cost but some drugs are down right expensive.
- Shaman760, on 10/11/2007, -12/+21And I'm sure that insurance won't pay for it. The treatment will probably cost more money than a mere mortal can come up with.
- Ninnux, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I hate to rain on the parade, but this is only one small piece of a very large puzzle. It's also not a cure, just a technique. The name of the game is targeted therapy. Talk to any molecular biologist...they will all tell you the same thing: getting something to work in culture (in vitro) is not the same thing as it working in vivo. Site specific introduction of genes and the resultant enzymes and proteins is a MUCH harder problem
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Is this anything like the cures for diabetes and cancer that we have been hearing about for the last 15 years?
- jimmy72, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14Bush will probably veto funding that too, citing that AIDS is god's way of punishing the sinful.
- Walker2323, on 10/11/2007, -18/+25We never "cure"anything. Things don't get cured and the reason they don't is $$$. If a drug company gives an HIV+ person a shot one time and cures them, they get a comparatively small chunk of dough, but if they sell them expensive medication that merely treats the symptoms and extends their life, then they reap massive monetary gains.
Call me cynical, but I have no hope that we'll see an AIDS cure anytime soon. - EnderMB, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12I found this on Newsvine a good while ago. Seems that a lot of people generally see this as a bit of a 'hoax' story. Personally, I'll be waiting until someone is actually treated until I believe any news stories on the subject. Don't get me wrong, the work these guys and girls have done is great, but the media typically over-hypes these stories. Let's not let it get in the way of progress.
- Radionesiac, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8it attacks the DNA of the virus, not the DNA of the human cell.
- Minkii, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9That's really great to hear! Man, if they do find a cure, millions of lives will be saved. Keep it up!
- catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8If it is a cure, it would be immediately subsidized for anyone to have since it in the interest of public health.
- catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9HIV research is published in scientific journals for all the world to see. Your conspiracy theory is only effective on the uneducated and uninformed.
- ju66l3r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7These researchers used an enzyme (protein) that identifies a specific DNA sequence and cuts the DNA at that position. A second copy of the enzyme also finds the same sequence again nearby in the DNA and cuts there as well and the two enzymes coordinate to join the cut ends together with the insert removed and the remaining DNA intact. It turns out that there is a somewhat similar (50% identical) sequence to the "LoxP" sequence that this enzyme recognizes within the ends of the HIV sequence created when it is inserted into a cell's DNA.
By making a library of different LoxP changes that slowly make it more and more similar to the HIV sequence (changing 1 or 2 DNA letters at a time), they also changed the enzyme and looked to see if the changed enzyme recognized the next change they also made in LoxP. By changing the DNA sequence AND the enzyme and asking if it was a complementary change in the enzyme to again re-recognize the new DNA sequence, they slowly shifted the original enzyme to a new target DNA sequence, which just happened to be one that could cut and remove the HIV sequence. This new enzyme was tested on cells that had been given a copy of HIV and found that it would remove it. Eureka!
Imagine if the original enzyme could locate the word "DOOR" (LoxP), but not the word "BOAT" (HIV ends). So you make the words "DOOM", "BOOM", and "BOOT" and mutate the enzyme 100 different ways and ask if any 1 of the 100 can read the word DOOM, then modify that 1 by 100-fold and ask if any of those can read BOOM...and so on until 1 of the 100 that read BOOT can read BOAT. Then, finally, you use the one you made in the last step that can read BOAT and apply it to real HIV in a real cell and it worked! - anonatron, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11Without AIDS, how will god punish the infidels?
- AriaStar, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8They've known for at least a decade that the virus binds itself to the T-cells using an enzyme called CKR-5. In individuals without this enzyme, the virus is harmless. Suppress it and the individual won't develop AIDS. Then figure out a way to rid the body of the now-harmless virus so that the individual no longer needs medication to suppress the enzyme. Far better than removing the virus after it's already attached to the T-cell.
- Farticus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7This enzyme technique is also applicable to any retrovirus, not just HIV.
i.e. This discovery is much bigger than you may at first realize! - JonnyTrombone, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8The public backlash that would result if a drug company knowingly withheld a real, viable cure for a major (or even minor!) illness is sufficient to negate your crazy fears. Besides, drug companies are in competition- if one drug company doesn't release a cure on purpose, another will- and then they'll make a huge fuss about their competitors withholding the drug. I won't call you 'cynical', but I will call you 'stupid'.
- keyboardduder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6god, you know what i mean
- DSGalvin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7only on digg....
- Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Some of them may be idiots, but they're definitely not *****.
- tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6And that's bad? Breakthroughs are very important. There is ongoing research and the more breakthroughs the discover, the closer we are to drugs for diabetes, cancer, and AIDS.
- Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Tell that to for example kids born with it, from inheritance of their mother. That's probably the most sad victims of this. :-(
- dinorama1234, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5God has all sorts of *****-up ***** in the works for his favorite creation. Just think of anything people generally enjoy, and then the most hideous and perverse way it could be turned into an affliction. Like sex? Well here's AIDS! Like eating? Well here's e-coli, botulism, and parasites! Like walking? Arthritis! Like sleeping? Sleeping sickness! I know, the last one was a stretch, but it just sounded so good!
- Continuum, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Yeah, that baby with AIDS sure shouldn't have... wait, what mistake did it make again?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 260 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is