It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New insights into the mystery of natural HIV immunity

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I just read an article where there reason to suggest what keeps people from getting AIDS Or have a much slower development then others.


CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- When people become infected by HIV, it's usually only a matter of time, barring drug intervention, until they develop full-blown AIDS. However, a small number of people exposed to the virus progress very slowly to AIDS — and some never develop the disease at all.

In the late 1990s, researchers showed that a very high percentage of those naturally HIV-immune people, who represent about one in 200 infected individuals, carry a gene called HLA B57. Now a team of researchers from the Ragon Institute of Massachusetts General Hospital, MIT and Harvard has revealed a new effect that contributes to this gene's ability to confer immunity.


This is great news and I haven't seen it posted yet.

The human immune system makes T cells to fight of disease. So the say.


These cells can be normal but also very aggressive. The problem with the aggressive cells is that they also attack healthy cells that belong to the body itself. A little organ called the Thymus regulates this process and make sure there are not to much aggressive t-cells in the body.

People with a malfunctioningThymus have because of this, more aggressive t-cells which fight of aids effective or even prevents it to develop all together.


A different scenario unfolds in people who have the HLA B57 gene. Using their computer model, Chakraborty and colleagues showed that, because those individuals' T cells are exposed to fewer self-peptides in the thymus, T cells with receptors that mediate strong binding to viral proteins via just a few important contacts are more likely to escape the thymus. This makes these T cells more cross-reactive to targeted HIV peptide mutants, because as long as those points in the viral proteins don't mutate, the T cells are still effective. The model also showed that once those T cells are released into the bloodstream, they can effectively attack HIV proteins, even when the virus mutates.

This model also explains why people with the HLA B57 gene have autoimmune problems: Their T cells are more likely to bind strongly to human peptides not encountered in the thymus.



This could be the possibility for developing a cure.

As I understand it they can make the aggressive t-cells. Now for the next problem.
How do you prevent these cells from attacking the body it self ?


Visit this link to read the full article. New insights into the mystery of natural HIV immunity


So. Now you now.


I think it's always good to hear there are still new discoveries and possibilities on the horizon.

~ SK

[edit on 5/7/2010 by Sinter Klaas]




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
A very interesting read about these research developments.

I hope they can fully cure this one day.

Thanks for posting.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Some people already have a natural immunity for AIDS because they develop cells in their body which attacks the virus... The same cells are formed in Lupus patients.

You can extract them, cultivate them, and inject them, and it cures AIDS.
They are called abzymes:

www.scienceblog.com...

This is all old news.


And don't forget the Blushwood shrub.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by FalselyFlagged]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Not new, but you might find this interesting

www.pbs.org...

Local Eyam lore tells befuddling stories of plague survivors who had close contact with the bacterium but never caught the disease. Elizabeth Hancock buried six children and her husband in a week, but never became ill. The village gravedigger handled hundreds of plague-ravaged corpses, but survived as well. Could these people have somehow been immune to the Black Death?

Dr. Stephen O'Brien of the National Institutes of Health in Washington D.C. suggests they were. His work with HIV and the mutated form of the gene CCR5, called "delta 32," led him to Eyam. In 1996, research showed that delta 32 prevents HIV from entering human cells and infecting the body. O'Brien thought this principle could be applied to the plague bacteria, which affects the body in a similar manner. To determine whether the Eyam plague survivors may have carried delta 32, O'Brien tested the DNA of their modern-day descendents. What he found out was startling. ...



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FalselyFlagged
 


Very interesting. I've also heard about survivors from plague which were naturally immune to it are also immune AIDS.. Don't know if it's true tho.

There are lots of rumors around a cure is available for a long time I know.

[edit on 5/7/2010 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Yeah I heard the same thing.

Very strange tho.
Like lupus is related to the immune system. My knowledge comes from watching House on this so correct me if I'm wrong.

The plague is considered to come from a bacteria brought to us by flees from rats.
Unless this is wrong it sounds impossible but I'm no doctor so.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I was exposed to Hep C, but one of the 15 percent that did not get it.
I carry the antibody but do not have any virus. Always wondered why.

My poor liver, I had hep A, from bad fish in Mexico before that, and drug induced hep from the drug cumadin.

I did some research and found the people who do beat the Hep C virus, have MORE of a risk of getting Aids though if exposed. It was real technical and a while back, wish I could remember the link.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
24 documented years HIV+ and going strong. Wonder why the energizer bunny is pink??

What a wicked ride. There must be some kind of DNA sequence that interferes with the progression to AIDS. I've seen people die several months after diagnosis and others living just as long as I.

Who knows really. I've been fortunate.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by brilab45
 


Well there is speculation about aids being nothing more then auto immune related illnesses which someone would have had anyway because of their lifestyle or exposure to toxins.

I don't know if you took the time to read the replies fro,.VneZonyDostupa
at the end of the AIDS is a hoax thread?
She took the time to give a a proper debunk. Anti/aids thread

You are just lucky or maybe you have a bit more of those aggressive T cells in your body. Who knows.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
You can be tested for the CCR5-Delta-32 with an autosomal DNA test. The one that I used for my genealogical research is FTDNA. They also provide CCR5 last I looked.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


What's the difference ?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Aeons
 


What's the difference ?


The difference in being tested? The type of test? The service?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


The type of test ?

If I remember correct there was a rapid test and an Elisa test. ( I'm told )
But they multiple tested because the tests were not always reliable.

Easy please I'm not really an expert.


Or c all of the above.

[edit on 5/7/2010 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Well, I'm sure there are different tests. I am not an expert either. I am merely an informed interested party.

Here's my opinion on the subject though.


There is no reason to do a rapid test. Why do you need the results quickly? No one (I hope) is having a test done to bolster their self of self-confidence in stranger sex by next week. Nor are you a researcher grinding out 50 samples for a paper.

I would not doubt that there is a higher rate of error or dubious results from a rapid result.

There really aren't that many people on the planet who have this sort testing done. That means even an expert is not really knee deep in new results every day. This leads to an effect where the "standard" that people are used to seeing isn't very deep and broad.

When I do my job, I see some things that are not usual but I know aren't wrong right in the thousands of pieces of data. I can also spot on a screen something that isn't right for sure in screens and screens of tens of thousands of data. But, when a new type of process or object in the real world changes significantly that I have in my data - it takes me a while to integrate it so that it is natural and I can do the same thing with it.

Well, imagine the pool of data you are dealing with is not very extensive. You might know your KNOWN subject matter well, but the breadth and depth of the known material is not very representative of the global population.

And an awful lot of tests that come back are not standard. A large chunk of people being tested are "novel" in some way. Which requires verification. Which leads to more testing.

Because of these two factors, I would choose a more robust test myself.

[edit on 2010/5/7 by Aeons]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
You know, I smoke, I drink and generally just bump along in life. I'm not saying I don't have issues, but I am fortunate. I'm old now and can face the coming foreverness of life everlasting. Just a knowing. I was meant for this experience. Am no longer afraid of death, just the complications. If there is nothing after this life.....then there is peace for eternity. If we survive death....well thats a whole different bag of apples. Please don't let me come back to hell on Earth.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by brilab45
 


Well... what can I say. What's the point of life if you can't live it ?

I have a possible explanation of why some people die withins weeks and other not.

Something with the power of the mind.
Some people, when they hear they have a terminal illnes simply give up.

However.
An uncle of minewas having pain in his stumach and intestons. It took a while before it was bothering him so much that turned to a doctor.
They kept him there and started a number of tests. One week... He really didn't want to die and he died sitting straight up with his eyes open. Cancer had basicly digested his organs. It's the medical equivilant of getting hit by a train right after you realized your foot is stuck.

I'm all for enjoying life. It could be over in a heartbeat.


By the way.
HIVis a big problem because it mutates so fast isn't ?
Couldn't it mutate in a less severe form ?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


I would rather prevent the need for a test all together.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


In the early days of HIV, there was only AZT, which I could not tolerate. Did not take anything for ten years. However, I was dangerously losing CD4's.

Then came along HAART therapy and POOF! I got a new immune system.

Early on, I found the ones that ate perfect, worked out everyday and took every known supplement seemed to die earlier. So yes, I agree there is a certain psychololgy involved. Sorry about your Uncle.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Absolutely wonderful to see any new developments in understanding and treting HIV/AIDS. It breaks my heart anytime I see a patient who is newly diagnosed, and I would love if there were a day when seeing that diagnosis is no different than seeing any other viral infection.

Now, to clear a few things up just to make the topic a bit clearer:

(1) Yes, your body makes T cells to combat HIV. There are two "branches" of your immune system, the innate and adaptive branches. Within the adaptive branch, there are another two branches, the B cells and T cells. B cells are used primarily to combat extracellular pathogens (bacteria, some parasites, non-living contaminants), while T cells are used to combat intracellular pathogens (all viruses, some bacteria, some parasites). The problem with HIV, though, is that the cell preferentially infects is a T cell itself, the C4+ "Helper" T cell. This cell is responsible for "traffic control" in the adaptive immune system, so obviously if these cells are out of commission, you'll have a weak and misdirected immune response.

(2) The thymus is the center of T cell maturation. The immature T cells go through two levels of selection, positive and negative. These two stages insure that the new T cells can both express the proteins necessary to do their job, but that they don't express self-reactive protein, that is, that they don't trigger an immune resposne on your own cells. One of the issues of aging, however, is that the thymus shrinks and calcifies with age, eventually becoming barely (if at all) functional in the senior years. This obviously decreases your ability to fight off viral infections, hence the vulnerability of the elderly to various viral infections, such as the flu.

(3) What the article in the OP is stating (and it is VERY exciting, in my opinion, so thanks for posting it, Sinter) is that researchers have found some individuals with a variant of the normal HLA/MHC protein in CD8 killer T cells. The HLA/MHC molecule is what binds to infected cells that are presenting a viral protein on their surface, a sort of "red flag" that nearly every cell in your body (apart from neurons and a few other tissues in places like the eye) can do. HIV glycoproteins are normally very hard for our CD8 T cells to bind to, due to their chemical nature. The individuals in this article, however, have been found to evade this issue, making it easier for them to combat the virus, though not completely cure it. What this article points to, however, is a way to keep a patient in the HIV range without progressing to AIDS status, hopefully. By giving HIV patients (or even people who are at risk for HIV infection) a dose of these T cells, we might be able to stem the tide of infection, or even use it as a prophylaxis in the case of needle sticks or accidental exposure.

All in all, wonderful post, Sinter! Good news for the HIV/AIDS community, absolutely!



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   



There is no reason to do a rapid test. Why do you need the results quickly? No one (I hope) is having a test done to bolster their self of self-confidence in stranger sex by next week. Nor are you a researcher grinding out 50 samples for a paper.

I would not doubt that there is a higher rate of error or dubious results from a rapid result.


While I agree that rapid tests are less accurate (though only to a small degree), there are a number of benefits and safeguards built into HIV testing. First, rapid testing was introduced as a means to catch infection in patients who are reluctant to test or don't have access (or time to wait) to hospitals. Obviously, if you're in a clinic or hospital, you're less likely to receive a rapid test.

Also, all state and federal guidelines require a multi-tiered system for HIV testing. One positive result is REQUIRED to be followed with an additional test using an alternate method. For example, an RT-PCR test that results in a positive must be followed by an antibody test to confirm. Most places use a three-test panel, making the chance of a false diagnosis nearly impossible.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join