Search This Blog

Showing posts with label AIDS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AIDS. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Tropical disease experts report missed opportunity to transform global HIV/AIDS fight


Global HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment efforts are missing a major opportunity to significantly improve health conditions in poor countries by simply adding low-cost care for the many other chronic and disabling diseases routinely afflicting and often killing these same patients, according to a panel of disease experts who spoke at the annual meeting of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH). “People want better health; they do not understand why we silo diseases,” said Judd Walson, a global health and infectious disease expert at the University of Washington. “If you die from malaria, you don’t care that your HIV was treated. Communities want us to leverage the resources we have to treat and prevent disease as effectively as possible.”
Walson and his colleagues on the panel noted that many victims of HIV/AIDS also typically suffer from one or more of about 17 neglected, but burdensome, tropical diseases often called “diseases of poverty” because they prey on the “bottom billion”—the world’s poorest people. They include ailments such as trachoma, schistosomiasis, lymphatic filariasis, leishmaniasis, Chagas disease and onchocerciasis, all of which are either insect-borne disease, bacterial infections, or caused by parasitic worms. Continue reading below…

Friday, December 2, 2011

Caltech biologists deliver neutralizing antibodies that protect against HIV infection in mice


Over the past year, researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), and around the world, have been studying a group of potent antibodies that have the ability to neutralize HIV in the lab; their hope is that they may learn how to create a vaccine that makes antibodies with similar properties. Now, biologists at Caltech led by Nobel Laureate David Baltimore, president emeritus and Robert Andrews Millikan Professor of Biology, have taken one step closer to that goal: they have developed a way to deliver these antibodies to mice and, in so doing, have effectively protected them from HIV infection.
Caption: An illustration shows the crystal structure of the adeno-associated virus used to deliver broadly neutralizing antibodies as Vectored ImmunoProphylaxis against HIV. Credit: Alejandro Balazs / California Institute of Technology
This new approach to HIV prevention — called Vectored ImmunoProphylaxis, or VIP — is outlined in the November 30 advance online publication of the journalNature.
Traditional efforts to develop a vaccine against HIV have been centered on designing substances that provoke an effective immune response — either in the form of antibodies to block infection or T cells that attack infected cells. With VIP, protective antibodies are being provided up front.
“VIP has a similar effect to a vaccine, but without ever calling on the immune system to do any of the work,” says Alejandro Balazs, lead author of the study and a postdoctoral scholar in Baltimore’s lab. “Normally, you put an antigen or killed bacteria or something into the body, and the immune system figures out how to make an antibody against it. We’ve taken that whole part out of the equation.”
Because mice are not sensitive to HIV, the researchers used specialized mice carrying human immune cells that are able to grow HIV. They utilized an adeno-associated virus (AAV) — a small, harmless virus that has been useful in gene-therapy trials — as a carrier to deliver genes that are able to specify antibody production.
The AAV was injected into the leg muscle of mice, and the muscle cells then put broadly neutralizing antibodies into the animals’ circulatory systems. After just a single AAV injection, the mice produced high concentrations of these antibodies for the rest of their lives, as shown by intermittent sampling of their blood. Remarkably, these antibodies protected the mice from infection when the researchers exposed them to HIV intravenously.
The team points out that the leap from mice to humans is large — the fact that the approach works in mice does not necessarily mean it will be successful in humans. Still, the researchers believe that the large amounts of antibodies that the mice were able to produce — coupled with the finding that a relatively small amount of antibody has proved protective in the mice — may translate into human protection against HIV infection.
“We’re not promising that we’ve actually solved the human problem,” says Baltimore. “But the evidence for prevention in these mice is very clear.”
The paper also notes that in the mouse model, VIP worked even in the face of increased exposure to HIV. To test the efficacy of the antibody, the researchers started with a virus dose of one nanogram, which was enough to infect the majority of the mice who received it. When they saw that the mice given VIP could withstand that dose, they continued to bump it up until they were challenging them with 125 nanograms of virus.
“We expected that at some dose, the antibodies would fail to protect the mice, but it never did — even when we gave mice 100 times more HIV than would be needed to infect 7 out of 8 mice,” says Balazs. “All of the exposures in this work were significantly larger than a human being would be likely to encounter.”
He points out that this outcome likely had more to do with the properties of the antibody that was tested than the method, but adds that VIP is what enabled the large amount of this powerful antibody to circulate through the mice and fight the virus. Furthermore, VIP is a platform technique, meaning that as more potent neutralizing antibodies are isolated or developed for HIV or other infectious organisms, they can also be delivered using this method.
“If humans are like mice, then we have devised a way to protect against the transmission of HIV from person to person,” says Baltimore. “But that is a huge if, and so the next step is to try to find out whether humans behave like mice.”
He says the team is currently in the process of developing a plan to test their method in human clinical trials. The initial tests will ask whether the AAV vector can program the muscle of humans to make levels of antibody that would be expected to be protective against HIV.
“In typical vaccine studies, those inoculated usually mount an immune response — you just don’t know if it’s going to work to fight the virus,” explains Balazs. “In this case, because we already know that the antibodies work, my opinion is that if we can induce production of sufficient antibody in people, then the odds that VIP will be successful are actually pretty high.”
____________
The study, “Antibody-based Protection Against HIV Infection by Vectored ImmunoProphylaxis,” was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Caltech-UCLA Joint Center for Translational Medicine. Caltech biology researchers Joyce Chen, Christin M. Hong, and Lili Yang also contributed to the paper, as well as Dinesh Rao, a hematologist from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

How to Treat AIDS

                                           this video is an information resource to be used for educational purposes only. The information is not intended to serve as a substitute for professional medical advice and we recommend that all decisions about your treatment or products you wish to use should be discussed thoroughly and frankly with your doctor.

HIV, or the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, is a serious infection that does not have a cure. According to the World Health Organization, the virus systematically weakens the immune system by destroying T and CD4 cells, which allows opportunistic infections to cause serious health consequences. The virus manifests into full blown AIDS once specific complications such as tuberculosis are diagnosed according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Treating AIDS requires routine supervision by a medical doctor, preferably an infectious disease specialist. Your doctor may place you on a treatment plan that includes an antiretroviral therapy regimen. The National Institutes of Health says to stick to the medication schedule and obtain routine monitoring of your CD4 counts every 3 to 6 months. This monitoring is needed to ensure the effectiveness of your drug combination.

Make an active contribution to staying well by focusing on a healthy lifestyle. Base your diet on fresh vegetables, fruits, lean proteins and whole grains. The Mayo Clinic suggests eating good foods as a method of supporting your immune system and providing a higher level of energy. The Mayo Clinic also advises to avoid eating unpasteurized dairy items, raw foods or eggs and insure all meats are cooked until there are no traces of pink.

In addition to healthy food selections, the Mayo Clinic suggests incorporating an exercise regimen and making your living space as germ and virus-free as possible. Consider getting rid of any cats or reptiles you have as pets. These animals can cause infections such as salmonella or toxoplasmosis, which can be detrimental to HIV-positive or AIDS patients according to the Mayo Clinic.

The Mayo Clinic also suggests some dietary supplements that may be helpful. Coenzyme Q10 may help increase the number of CD4 cells in your system. Whey protein may help minimize diarrhea, increase CD4 counts and may help you gain weight. Fish oil supplements may help lower cholesterol counts increased due to some anti-AIDS drugs.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Preventing HIV Before Exposure



Red Pill
Currently, more than 33 million people worldwide are living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Each year, there are nearly 3 million new infections. The growing worldwide burden of this infection, which causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), has prompted researchers to investigate novel approaches to infection control and prevention. A recent investigation published by the New England Journal of Medicine, which will likely be known as a landmark study in HIV/AIDS research, reported that a daily dose of a prophylactic pill can prevent the spread of HIV before exposure to the virus.
The study, called the iPrEX (Preexposure Prophylaxis Initiative) trial, involved 2499 men and transgender women (born men) who have sex with men. All participants tested negative for HIV at the beginning of the study, but reported engaging in behavior that put them at high risk for exposure to HIV. Half of the subjects received a daily placebo pill, while the remaining half received a combination pill of 2 antiretroviral drugs: emtricitabine and tenofovir. (This combination pill is currently marketed as Truvada and is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat HIV infection.) All study participants also received HIV education and testing, as well as condoms, during the study period. They were followed for a median of 1.2 years.
Overall, the rate of HIV infection in the treatment group was 2.88% at the end of the study — 44% lower than the 5.13% infection rate in the placebo group. Participants who were most compliant with taking the prophylaxis pills — doing so on 90% or more of days — experienced a 70% decrease in risk of HIV infection. Medication adherence was reportedly low, though it is not clear why. Study participants who want to continue taking the prophylactic antiretroviral therapy (ART) will be able to do so as part of an 18-month open-label study of preexposure prophylaxis beginning in 2011. Researchers are hoping that an open-label design will improve medication adherence and strengthen the original findings.
An interesting secondary finding in iPrEX was that individuals enrolled in the study self-reported a decrease in high-risk sexual behavior. Whether taking a daily pill served as a reminder of safer sex practices, or the same result will be seen among larger populations or in the open-label study is not clear. Potentially, once the benefit of daily prophylaxis is confirmed, individuals will not engage in safer sex practices, a phenomenon of risk compensation. The authors of iPrEX warn that preexposure prophylaxis should still be considered a back-up plan, and not first-line defense against HIV infection. Additionally, high-risk sexual practices expose individuals to countless infections and conditions other than HIV, for which ART is not effective prophylaxis.
The iPrEX trial was conducted at 11 sites across the United States, South Africa, Thailand, Peru, Ecuador, and Brazil. The United States’ National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health funded approximately two-thirds of the costs of the study. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded the remaining costs.
For the last several decades, HIV prevention efforts were basically limited to behavioral approaches: consistent use of barrier methods of protection during intercourse, a reduction in the prevalence of HIV in the blood supply, decreasing the use of dirty syringes among intravenous drug users, and awareness of HIV status. Safer sex practices with fewer partners have, thus far, proven to be the most effective prevention of the spread of HIV. Education efforts among high-risk groups, primarily men who have sex with men, must begin as early in life as possible to improve knowledge, negotiation, and communication regarding sexual practices.
Prevention of HIV infection for people exposed to the virus, after either occupational or nonoccupational exposure, involves a 28-day course of ART. In order to be effective, ART must be started within 72 hours of exposure to HIV-infected fluids, posing a significant barrier to postexposure prophylaxis.
The iPrEX trial is not the first to suggest preexposure prohylaxis of HIV as a viable infection control option. Early in 2010, South African researchers evaluated the use of a vaginal gel containing tenofovir, and found it decreased the risk of HIV infection among sexually active women by 39%. But, iPrEX is the first to suggest daily pill-popping as an effective mode of HIV prophylaxis. Unfortunately, ART does pose several risks: renal insufficiency and viral resistance. Renal insufficiency was reversible on discontinuation of ART during iPrEX, but this adverse effect could prove especially problematic among individuals with other diseases or chronic conditions. Viral resistance is the most significant concern regarding preexposure prophylaxis. The widespread use of antiretroviral agents has the potential to create new viral infections — not just HIV, but hepatitis, herpes, and other viruses — that are resistant to current treatments.
The cost of preexposure prophylaxis is also a huge concern. At an annual cost of up to $14,000 for ART, the cost-effectiveness of such modalities are in question, as well as who would pay these costs in the future, if prophylaxis is proved to be effective. As HIV infection rates continue to rise, preexposure prophylaxis may be one option for preventing the spread of infection, but behavioral modifications and education should accompany any such intervention in high-risk populations; the only truly effective prevention to any sexually-transmitted disease, including HIV, is abstinence from high-risk behavior. As clinicians evaluate preexposure prophylaxis to prevent the spread of HIV, they should be prepared for the highly-charged public debate that will accompany this issue.
References
Abdool Karim Q, Abdool Karim SS, Frohlich JA, Grobler AC, Baxter C, Mansoor LE, Kharsany AB, Sibeko S, Mlisana KP, Omar Z, Gengiah TN, Maarschalk S, Arulappan N, Mlotshwa M, Morris L, Taylor D, & CAPRISA 004 Trial Group (2010). Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir gel, an antiretroviral microbicide, for the prevention of HIV infection in women. Science (New York, N.Y.), 329 (5996), 1168-74 PMID: 20643915
Golub SA, Kowalczyk W, Weinberger CL, & Parsons JT (2010). Preexposure prophylaxis and predicted condom use among high-risk men who have sex with men. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 54 (5), 548-55 PMID: 20512046
Johnson WD, Diaz RM, Flanders WD, Goodman M, Hill AN, Holtgrave D, Malow R, & McClellan WM (2008). Behavioral interventions to reduce risk for sexual transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men. Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (3) PMID: 18646068
Oster AM Md, Dorell CG Md Mph, Mena LA Md Mph, Thomas PE Phd, Toledo CA Phd, & Heffelfinger JD Md Mph (2010). HIV Risk Among Young African American Men Who Have Sex With Men: A Case-Control Study in Mississippi. American journal of public health PMID:21088266
Ramjee G, Kamali A, & McCormack S (2010). The last decade of microbicide clinical trials in Africa: from hypothesis to facts. AIDS (London, England), 24 Suppl 4 PMID: 21042052
Romanelli F, & Murphy B (2010). Systemic preexposure prophylaxis for human immunodeficiency virus infection. Pharmacotherapy, 30 (10), 1021-30 PMID: 20874040
Supervie V, García-Lerma JG, Heneine W, & Blower S (2010). HIV, transmitted drug resistance, and the paradox of preexposure prophylaxis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107 (27), 12381-6 PMID: 20616092
Weber J, Tatoud R, & Fidler S (2010). Postexposure prophylaxis, preexposure prophylaxis or universal test and treat: the strategic use of antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV acquisition and transmission. AIDS (London, England), 24 Suppl 4 PMID: 21042050
Grant, R., Lama, J., Anderson, P., McMahan, V., Liu, A., Vargas, L., Goicochea, P., Casapía, M., Guanira-Carranza, J., Ramirez-Cardich, M., Montoya-Herrera, O., Fernández, T., Veloso, V., Buchbinder, S., Chariyalertsak, S., Schechter, M., Bekker, L., Mayer, K., Kallás, E., Amico, K., Mulligan, K., Bushman, L., Hance, R., Ganoza, C., Defechereux, P., Postle, B., Wang, F., McConnell, J., Zheng, J., Lee, J., Rooney, J., Jaffe, H., Martinez, A., Burns, D., & Glidden, D. (2010). Preexposure Chemoprophylaxis for HIV Prevention in Men Who Have Sex with Men New England Journal of Medicine DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1011205

Dr. Gibson is a practicing clinical pharmacist and freelance medical writer and editor with experience in researching and preparing scientific publications, developing public relations materials, creating educational resources and presentations, and editing technical manuscripts. She is the owner of Excalibur Scientific, LLC.

Criminalization of HIV Exposure



Behind bars
Approximately 1.2 million people in the United States are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Roughly 20% of these don’t even know they are infected. What is more startling is that nearly 100% of the people infected with HIV don’t know they might be criminals.
Preventing sexually transmitted diseases is a difficult public health challenge, and HIV prevention is no exception. The use of criminal laws to address issues of HIV transmission and exposure are examined in a recent overview of international legal issues related to HIV, published in Future Virology. The authors of the article assert that the laws are misguided public health policy and should be repealed or reformed.
As of 2010, 53 countries had HIV-specific laws that criminalized virus exposure or transmission. Many other countries use existing non-HIV-specific laws related to sexual assault to criminalize virus exposure. The laws have been used to impose harsh penalties on those who have spread the virus, but still leave many question unanswered. What is the degree of responsibility necessary to cause criminal prosecution? Is non-disclosure of HIV status really equivalent to rape, sexual assault, or the intent to cause harm? Do safe sex practices mitigate criminal sanctions?
In the US, 36 states and 5 territories have laws criminalizing HIV transmission exposure through sexual contact or intercourse. Through 2010, 36 HIV-specific laws in the US resulted in more than 350 prosecutions for HIV exposure and transmission; a high percentage of these resulted in imprisonment of the offender.
The authors of the article acknowledge that sex brings out the worst in policy-makers, and many of these laws are the result of moral judgments rather than sound scientific evidence. Criminalization of any vice, be it food, drink, or sex, rarely leads to less of it, and criminalization of HIV exposure has never been shown to prevent the spread of infection. Interestingly, HIV is not nearly as contagious as many other viruses, even sexually-transmitted ones, but in the public’s mind, the virus’s roots in homosexuality, promiscuity, drug use, and sex work earned it regulation based on fear and stigma.
There are surely cases of people infected with HIV who have malicious intent to cause harm to others, but these cases are rare. Most people living with HIV do not intend to knowingly, cruelly inflict harm on others. Human rights advocates, as represented by the authors of the current article, do not support the use of criminal laws to address HIV exposure if there is no significant risk of transmission or when reasonable measures have been taken to reduce the risk of transmission; additionally, after full disclosure of HIV status, if all parties involved consent to sexual contact, criminal intent is not supported.
The authors also claim that criminal HIV statutes undermine public health responses to HIV, making people less likely to accept HIV testing or care, since that would make them culpable in “knowingly” transmitting the virus. Ignorance is a defense in this case, it seems. Additionally, punishing or imprisoning a person infected with HIV does not prevent them from spreading the virus. Situations and living conditions in prisons actually facilitate virus transmission owing to uncontrolled and unsafe sex practices, unsafe tattooing equipment, and drug use.
The authors assert that the criminal justice system should be reserved for administering justice for the most heinous and serious of crimes against society, not improving public health. Criminalization of HIV exposure does not incapacitate criminals, rehabilitate offenders, or prevent future virus transmission. Moral judgments are getting in the way of evidenced-based policy decisions. All of the achievements in removing the stigma associated with HIV over the last 2 or 3 decades are negated by the criminalization of virus exposure. Shared responsibility for safe sex practices and improved prevention education among the most at-risk groups are needed to prevent HIV exposure, not more laws.
The CDC estimates that approximately 50,000 people are newly-infected with HIV each year in the US. What would the criminal justice system look like if each of these people could prosecute the person that infected them? Would society be safer or healthier as a result?
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2011). HIV surveillance–United States, 1981-2008. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 60 (21), 689-93 PMID:21637182
Csete, J., & Elliott, R. (2011). Criminalization of HIV transmission and exposure: in search of rights-based public health alternatives to criminal law Future Virology, 6 (8), 941-950 DOI:10.2217/fvl.11.74
Dodds C, Bourne A, & Weait M (2009). Responses to criminal prosecutions for HIV transmission among gay men with HIV in England and Wales. Reproductive health matters, 17 (34), 135-45 PMID: 19962647
Dodds C, Hammond G, Weatherburn P, Hickson F, Keogh P, Reid D, Henderson L, & Jessup K (2008). Homosexually active men’s views on criminal prosecutions for HIV transmission are related to HIV prevention need. AIDS care, 20 (5), 509-14 PMID:18484317
Dodds C, & Keogh P (2006). Criminal prosecutions for HIV transmission: people living with HIV respond. International journal of STD & AIDS, 17 (5), 315-8 PMID: 16643681
Mears A (2007). The criminalization of HIV transmission in England and Wales: a brief review of the issues arising. Current opinion in infectious diseases, 20 (1), 47-53 PMID:17197881
Prejean J, Song R, Hernandez A, Ziebell R, Green T, Walker F, Lin LS, An Q, Mermin J, Lansky A, Hall HI, & HIV Incidence Surveillance Group (2011). Estimated HIV incidence in the United States, 2006-2009. PloS one, 6 (8) PMID: 21826193
Image via Dan Bannister / Shutterstock.

Dr. Gibson is a practicing clinical pharmacist and freelance medical writer and editor with experience in researching and preparing scientific publications, developing public relations materials, creating educational resources and presentations, and editing technical manuscripts. She is the owner of Excalibur Scientific, LLC.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Building Better HIV Antibodies: Biologists Create Neutralizing Antibody That Shows Increased Potency


The increased potency of a new HIV antibody (green and blue) is explained by an insertion (pink) that contacts the inner domain of the HIV gp120 spike protein (yellow). 
Science Daily  — Using highly potent antibodies isolated from HIV-positive people, researchers have recently begun to identify ways to broadly neutralize the many possible subtypes of HIV. Now, a team led by biologists at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has built upon one of these naturally occurring antibodies to create a more potent version they believe is a better candidate for clinical applications.









"NIH45-46 was already one of the broadest and most potent of the known anti-HIV antibodies," says Pamela Bjorkman, Max Delbrück Professor of Biology at Caltech and senior author on the study. "Our new antibody is now arguably the best currently available, broadly neutralizing anti-HIV antibodies."
Current advances in isolating antibodies from HIV-infected individuals have allowed for the discovery of many new, broadly neutralizing anti-HIV antibodies directed against the host receptor (CD4) binding site -- a functional site on the virus's surface that allows for cell entry and infection. Using a technique known as structure-based rational design, the team modified one already-known and particularly potent antibody -- NIH45-46 -- to target the binding site differently and more powerfully. A study outlining their process was published in the Oct. 27 issue of Science Express.
By conducting structural studies, the researchers could identify how NIH45-46 interacted with gp120 -- a protein on the surface of the virus required for the triumphant entry of HIV into cells -- to neutralize the virus. Using this information, they created a new antibody (dubbed NIH45-46G54W) that is better able to grab onto and interfere with gp120. This improves the antibody's breadth -- or the extent to which it effectively targets many subtypes of HIV -- and potency by order of magnitude, according to Ron Diskin, a postdoctoral scholar in Bjorkman's lab at Caltech and the paper's lead author.
"Not only did we design an improved version of NIH45-46, our structural data are calling into question previous assumptions about how to make a vaccine to elicit such antibodies," says Diskin. "We hope these observations will help guide and improve future immunogen design."
By improving the efficacy of antibodies that can neutralize HIV, the researchers point to the possibility of clinical testing for NIH45-46G54W and other antibodies as therapeutic agents. Understanding effective neutralization by potent antibodies may be helpful in vaccine development.
"The results uncover the structural underpinnings of anti-HIV antibody breadth and potency, offer a new view of neutralization by CD4-binding site anti-HIV antibodies, and establish principles that may enable the creation of a new group of HIV therapeutics," says Bjorkman, who is also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator.
Other Caltech authors on the study, "Increasing the Potency and Breadth of an HIV Antibody by Using Structure-Based Rational Design," include Paola M. Marcovecchio, Anthony P. West, Jr., Han Gao, and Priyanthi N.P. Gnanapragasm. Johannes Scheid, Florian Klein, Alexander Abadir, Michel Nussenweig from Rockefeller University, and Michael Seaman from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston also contributed to the paper. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the German Research Foundation funded the research.

Friday, October 21, 2011

The history of AIDS


Heroes and villains

The story of AIDS involves many larger-than-life characters, good and bad


ANNIVERSARIES are times for reflection, and this one should be no exception, for the 30-year history of AIDS is a mirror in which humanity can examine itself. From questionable scientists to philanthropic billionaires, people’s actions against AIDS, and reactions to it, have shown up the best and worst that humans have to offer.
Such dualism was there from the beginning, in the question of who discovered the AIDS-causing virus. There were two claimants. One, Robert Gallo, is American. The other,Luc Montagnier, is French. Dr Gallo called his discovery HTLV-3. Dr Montagnier called his LAV. They were in fact the same thing. It turned out, however, that Dr Gallo’s virus had come from Dr Montagnier’s laboratory. It was never conclusively proved how, though a contaminated sample may have been to blame. And Dr Gallo was exonerated of any wrongdoing by an official investigation and is universally recognised to have done important work on AIDS. But only Dr Montagnier won the Nobel prize—eloquent testimony to some people’s opinion of the whole affair.
Another source of conflict was whether HIV, as the virus eventually came to be known, was truly the cause of AIDS. At the beginning of the epidemic, that might have been debatable. Perhaps HIV was merely a passenger that took advantage of an immune system weakened by another cause? One once-respected scientist, Peter Duesberg, who did early research on viral causes of cancer, would not drop the idea. He insisted—and still insists—that the weakening of the immune system characteristic of AIDS is caused by drug-taking (he blames both recreational drugs and AZT, one of the early anti-AIDS drugs), and that HIV is, indeed, a passenger.

Among the heroes, Bill Gates looms large. The foundation into which he poured much of his Microsoft fortune took AIDS seriously from the beginning, forming a particularly fruitful partnership with the government of Botswana, one of the worst-affected countries. And Nelson Mandela, the heroes’ hero, also cleaved eventually to the path of righteousness, even while admitting he had not done enough to combat AIDS during his own presidency of South Africa.
This theory would not have mattered much except thatThabo Mbeki, a former president of South Africa, latched on to it. Since South Africa has the world’s largest number of AIDS cases, and one of its highest infection rates, this was bad news, as was Mr Mbeki’s health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who was appointed mainly because she agreed with him, and recommended beetroot and garlic as treatment for the disease. Only with the election of Jacob Zuma, who has himself been publicly tested for HIV (he did not have it), did South Africa return to sensible anti-AIDS policies.
Mr Gates and Mr Mandela are easy to admire. One hero that many AIDS activists have difficulty accepting, though, is George Bush junior. Activists do not much like born-again Christians, who take a dim view of the sort of sex lives that help to spread HIV. But Mr Bush was responsible for setting up the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and for making sure it had plenty of money. PEPFAR is one of the two main organisations, along with the Global Fund, that dish out the cash that rich countries give poor ones to combat AIDS. Last year, it spent almost $7 billion on AIDS and the tuberculosis that often accompanies it, and it is responsible for helping half of the 6.6m people now on anti-retroviral drugs. Many activists may be reluctant to give Mr Bush credit. But handsome is as handsome does.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Scientists Reveal Surprising Picture of How Powerful Antibody Neutralizes HIV


This is the PGT 128 antibody in action. (Credit: Image courtesy of the Wilson lab, The Scripps Research Institute)
Science Daily  — Researchers at The Scripps Research Institute have uncovered the surprising details of how a powerful anti-HIV antibody grabs hold of the virus. The findings, published inScience Express on October 13, 2011, highlight a major vulnerability of HIV and suggest a new target for vaccine development.














"We can now start to think about constructing mimics of these viral structures to use in candidate vaccines," said co-senior author Ian Wilson, who is Hansen Professor of Structural Biology and member of the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology at Scripps Research.
"What's unexpected and unique about this antibody is that it not only attaches to the sugar coating of the virus but also reaches through to grab part of the virus's envelope protein," said the report's co-senior author Dennis Burton, a professor at The Scripps Research Institute and scientific director of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative's (IAVI) Neutralizing Antibody Center, based on the Scripps Research La Jolla campus.
Other institutions in the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, and the Netherlands contributed to the research as part of an ongoing global HIV vaccine development effort.
Getting a Better Grip on HIV
Researchers from the current team recently isolated the new antibody and 16 others from the blood of HIV-infected volunteers, in work they reported online in the journal Nature on August 17, 2011. Since the 1990s, Burton, Wilson, and other researchers have been searching for such "broadly neutralizing" antibodies against HIV -- antibodies that work against many of the various strains of the fast-mutating virus -- and by now have found more than a dozen. PGT 128, the antibody described in the new report, can neutralize about 70 percent of globally circulating HIV strains by blocking their ability to infect cells. It also can do so much more potently -- in other words, in smaller concentrations of antibody molecules -- than any previously reported broadly neutralizing anti-HIV antibody.
The new report illuminates why PGT 128 is so effective at neutralizing HIV. Using the Wilson lab's expertise in X-ray crystallography, Robert Pejchal, a research associate in the Wilson lab, determined the structure of PGT 128 joined to its binding site on molecular mockups of the virus, designed in part by Robyn Stanfield and Pejchal in the Wilson group and Bill Schief, now an IAVI principal scientist and associate professor at Scripps Research, and his group. With these structural data, and by experimentally mutating and altering the viral target site, they could see that PGT 128 works in part by binding to glycans on the viral surface.
Thickets of these sugars normally surround HIV's envelope protein, gp120, largely shielding it from attack by the immune system. Nevertheless, PGT 128 manages to bind to two closely spaced glycans, and at the same time reaches through the rest of the "glycan shield" to take hold of a small part of structure on gp120 known as the V3 loop. This penetration of the glycan shield by PGT 128 was also visualized by electron microscopy with a trimeric form of the gp120/gp41 envelope protein of HIV-1 by Reza Kayat and Andrew Ward of Scripps Research; this revealed that the PGT 128 epitope appears to be readily accessible on the virus.
"Both of these glycans appear in most HIV strains, which helps explain why PGT 128 is so broadly neutralizing," said Katie J. Doores, a research associate in the Burton lab who was one of the report's lead authors. PGT 128 also engages V3 by its backbone structure, which doesn't vary as much as other parts of the virus because it is required for infection.
PGT 128's extreme potency is harder to explain. The antibody binds to gp120 in a way that presumably disrupts its ability to lock onto human cells and infect them. Yet it doesn't bind to gp120 many times more tightly than other anti-HIV antibodies. The team's analysis hints that PGT 128 may be extraordinarily potent because it also binds two separate gp120 molecules, thus tying up not one but two cell-infecting structures. Other mechanisms may also be at work.
Toward an AIDS Vaccine
Researchers hope to use the knowledge of these antibodies' binding sites on HIV to develop vaccines that stimulate a long-term -- perhaps lifetime -- protective antibody response against those same vulnerable sites.
"We'll probably need multiple targets on the virus for a successful vaccine, but certainly PGT 128 shows us a very good target," said Burton.
Intriguingly, the basic motif of PGT 128's target may mark a general vulnerability for HIV. "Other research is also starting to suggest that you can grab onto two glycans and a beta strand and get very potent and broad neutralizing antibodies against HIV," Wilson said.
In addition to Pejchal, Doores, and Khayat, Laura M. Walker of Scripps Research and Po-Ssu Huang of University of Washington at Seattle were co-first authors of the study, "A potent and broad neutralizing antibody recognizes and penetrates the HIV glycan shield." Along with Wilson, Burton, and Ward, additional contributors were Sheng-Kai Wang, Chi-Huey Wong, Robyn L. Stanfield, Jean-Philippe Julien, Alejandra Ramos, Ryan McBride, and James C. Paulson of Scripps Research, and Pascal Poignard, and William R. Schief of Scripps Research, IAVI and University of Washington at Seattle; Max Crispin and Christopher N. Scanlan of the University of Oxford; Rafael Depetris and John P. Moore of Weill Medical College of Cornell University; Umesh Katpally, Andre Marozsan, Albert Cupo, and William C. Olson of Progenics Pharmaceuticals; Sebastien Maloveste of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health; Yan Liu and Ten Feizi of Imperial College, London; Yukishige Ito of the RIKEN Advanced Science Institute in Japan; and Cassandra Ogohara of University of Washington at Seattle.
The research was supported by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the UK Research Councils, the Ragon Institute, and other organizations.