HIV Neutralizing Antibodies discovered

P

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,371
Reaction score
3
Location
Cape Town
September 3 issue of Science published research results of work done by scientists at the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) where first
new HIV neutralising antibodies were discovered and now they've been isolated from the serum of an African volunteer. The two new antibodies
are referred to as pg9 and pg16.

Science Abstract:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178746

More here about the concept:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/0903sp_vaccine.shtml

More about the implications:
http://tagbasicscienceproject.typep...9/new-neutralizing-antibodies-discovered.html

The discovery of PG9 and PG16 may be important for several reasons:

* It offers compelling validation of the Protocol G approach to seeking effective new antibodies, and suggests that many more are likely to be discovered. The work has been described as a “tour de force,” and that almost seems like an understatement.
* The results indicate that although HIV’s envelope is notoriously mutable, there are conserved regions of the trimer that are susceptible to antibody attack.
* The potency of neutralization suggests that if a vaccine could induce similar antibodies, they could be protective against HIV infection at concentrations known to be achievable with vaccination.
Click to expand...

What is meant by neutralization is that these antibodies are able to bind to portions of the virus envelope (skin) and so prevent virus entry into CD4 white cells and ultimately lead to the destruction of the virus particles by the immune system. It seems that these particular antibodies are preserved across wild virus types and the immune system can be stimulated with a vaccine sufficiently to allow adequate production of said antibodies. We may be not far off from a usable vaccine - at least against Clade A (one of the African subtypes of HIV) HIV. Thus far known antibodies against HIV were not protective i.e. non-neutralizing.

This is very exciting news in the biomed HIV research community.
 
This sounds very promising indeed...especially if these antibodies remain effective against the various mutations that the virus undergoes.
 
I can't comment too much about the content of the above linked articles but I did find that flash ad in the first link of sciencemag on the right of the page quite amusing.

Is this what natural scientists find funny???? :D
 
Picard said:
I can't comment too much about the content of the above linked articles but I did find that flash ad in the first link of sciencemag on the right of the page quite amusing.

Is this what natural scientists find funny???? :D
Click to expand...

I use an ad blocker so I can't say I saw the ad. :)
 
That's all nice but not everyone gets HIV because they were promiscuous.
HIV is one heck of a burden on the economy and an effective vaccine will not only reduce the human suffering but free tax dollars for treatment and research into other diseases.
 
HIV is far more lucrative not being cured than if a cure was found, so from time to time you will hear promising stories to get more funding.
 
killadoob said:
HIV is far more lucrative not being cured than if a cure was found, so from time to time you will hear promising stories to get more funding.
Click to expand...

That's quite a fallacy. The reality is that a lot of super intelligent minds are working on it all over the world but especially in the US and outside of the US - with mostly US money (NIH, Bill and Melinda Gates, Fogarty, USAIDS, UNAIDS, PEPFAR and others). Curiously the amount of sufferers in the US is very small, the developing world and countries like Russia benefit the most from this research. In SA HIV/AIDS is a huge health resource burden, huge tax on the economy and has major social consequences. So reducing it would do wonders for us. Even if this vaccine were to work - it would only be a preventative vaccine and it would only probably work for 40-60% of the time - you would still find some people would become infected - research would not end in terms of treating those already infected and those who would slip through or those with other Clade disease.
 
Last edited:
It is not a fallacy it makes perfect sense that the billions spent on research mean more to people than finding a cure.

You think all these super intelligent people are working on it for free?
 
killadoob said:
It is not a fallacy it makes perfect sense that the billions spent on research mean more to people than finding a cure.

You think all these super intelligent people are working on it for free?
Click to expand...

This mean either of two things.

Either people are stalling scientific discovery for the sake of a continually paid salary.
Or there are a high number of highly frustrated scientists out there who can show close to nothing for all the work they've been doing.
 
killadoob said:
You think all these super intelligent people are working on it for free?
Click to expand...

Salaries in research are pretty poor.

Secondly the way research is done now means it has to have a large degree of positive impact on communities where it's done in other words - to get a grant from NIH a researcher has to go to great lengths to prove his research will be beneficial and has to give a lot back to the communities from which he draws volunteers. Blue sky research is also done sometimes - ie theoretical research with no known benefits associated with its findings - but that often gets less funding or is funded less often than the more common type of benefit driven research.

I know things seem simple and clear cut when you don't know killadoob, but if you educated yourself you'd see how fallacious your arguments were.
 
Last edited:
Picard said:
This mean either of two things.

Either people are stalling scientific discovery for the sake of a continually paid salary.
Or there are a high number of highly frustrated scientists out there who can show close to nothing for all the work they've been doing.
Click to expand...

Well, in finding out that certain things don't work, one builds on the common knowledge base - others then reference your work in their own work and so on. Proving something doesn't work is often as beneficial as proving something else does work and because knowledge in academia is shared freely (it is published in journals and presented at conferences) it means that others can judge your methodology and yet others don't have to re-invent the wheel each time.
 
Peter some companies that maks millions pay their workers next to nothing am i correct in saying that?

Please tell me o educated one how much money a year is spent on aids research?

http://clark.pamrotella.com/

So i fail to see how companies making billions off cancer and arv's/aids research would want to find a cure. Imagine the loss they would take if they cured aids and cancer.

No peter sometimes in life you must understand people are driven by money and not morals and aids/cancer generates far more income than curing both of them.
 
Last edited:
Hi PeterCH,

Well , Its good see that the scientist have discovered such antibodies which fight against antigens and virus. This is amusing theory I have ever seen in my life.This is good resistance against AIDS.Good work and I want to know details regarding the antibodies and its functionality.

Thanks
 
Thanks PeterCH, a very informative link from you. Forgive the nuts in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X