Ancient Genetic Defenses Against AIDS Virus Reactivated

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/ancient-genetic-defenses-against-aids-virus-reactivated.html

by rizzn • 17 years ago

48 19 17 years ago

dailygalaxy.com

WilliamLP2• 17 years ago

Is this science or "science"?

mattyb• 17 years ago

See for yourself: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal....

WilliamLP2• 17 years ago

> Given that the endogenous production of retrocyclins could also be restored in human cervicovaginal tissues, we propose that aminoglycoside-based topical microbicides might be useful in preventing sexual transmission of HIV-1.

That's a long long way from the sensationalist tone of the terrible linked article. We already have the above. (Condoms.)

falsestprophet2• 17 years ago

It technically science, but probably not a cure.

The ability to reawaken retrocyclin genes from their 7 million years of slumber using aminoglycosides could provide a novel way to secure enhanced resistance to HIV-1 infection.

After 7 million years of no selective pressure, these genes have certainly accumulated mutations. I would put my money on the "resurrected" protein being completely useless.

mbreese4• 17 years ago

The genome is full of random crap left over from the evolutionary process (including some things thought to have been captured from viruses). Who knows what kinds of selective pressure this section of the genome has been exposed to? It has obviously accumulated some amount of mutations, hence the premature stop codon.

It is important to note that the retrocyclin is correctly produced in old world monkeys, and the mRNA is created in humans (as a pseudo gene). So, the lack of selective pressure is a pretty recent event (evolutionarily).

So, this _is_ science, no 'technically' about it. PLoS is a top tier journal, and this looks very promising. So while this may not be a 'cure' for those with HIV, it could very well help people avoid an initial infection.

zitterbewegung• 17 years ago

Looks like a really bad article on a possibly promising treatment...

kljensen• 17 years ago

This is the former.

mbreese4• 17 years ago

It's not that bad... it is very hard to translate the contents of a technical article like this one into a story that the lay-public can understand.

It's like trying to describe why a particular compiler optimization doesn't work in an edge case to your mother[1].

---

Based upon the actual article @ PLoS Biology: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal....

The take home message is that we at one point had a gene that can block HIV infection. Somewhere along the way it got a mutation that produced a truncated protein. These guys found it, fixed the glitch, and showed that the resulting protein is effective at blocking HIV infection. They then took the next step of figuring out a way to "fix the glitch" in humans without using some complicated gene therapy approach. All in all, this is very impressive.

---

[1] I'm assuming your mother isn't a committer to GCC :)

biohacker42• 17 years ago

It is pretty bad, there's only a theoretical cream that may be in use some day, many years from now and it may reduce infection rates.

If you take the article at face value, we just cured HIV. And IMHO articles like that are VERY bad because over the years they have built a consensus of science is wrong and confusing and disappointing into the general public.

Anything that's repeatedly over hyped will end up like that.

graphene• 17 years ago

fascinating story.. kind of a blemish that the article contains an error:

a virus which can't get into cells is just a scrap of amino acids waiting to be destroyed.

To the best of my knowledge, viruses do have DNA, if very little. That is in fact the reason they need to enter the host's cells - they need access to the DNA reproduction machinery inside to make copies of themselves.

sp332• 17 years ago

edit: this is wrong. See timr's comment below.

DNA is made of amino acids. If the DNA can't get into a cell, it's useless as DNA and is only good for digestion into amino acid building blocks for some other protein.

timr• 17 years ago

"DNA is made of amino acids. If the DNA can't get into a cell, it's useless as DNA and is only good for digestion into amino acid building blocks for some other protein."

No, just totally, absolutely 100% wrong. If you voted this comment up, please smack yourself for voting up things that merely sound authoritative. Thank you.

Proteins are made of amino acids. DNA is made of deoxyribonucleotides. They're nothing alike. Proteins are translated from the information in RNA, which is a minor variation of the information in DNA. Think of proteins as molecular machines that are made from the instructions in DNA, and you're closer to the truth.

Agathos• 17 years ago

HIV, a retrovirus, contains RNA, not DNA.

Ancient Genetic Defenses Against AIDS Virus Reactivated

Related Stories