Guest 240zJake Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 As seen on Slashdot: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,66579,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 Scientists have modified an HIV virus to attack cancerous cells....wow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandonsZ Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 I thought the problem with HIV was that it mutates too quickly to cure it. Why make something from this? There are hundreds of other stable viruses and bacteria that could be used for gene therapy. Sounds like they were searching for a cure for AIDS and had to cut their losses with this work. Although if they did make a benign form of HIV that does not mutate redily, then that could be the key to a stable supply of the missing protien that could not be attacked by body defenses. Only trouble is, if you live longer than 10 yerars your immunity goes to 0. Well at least you don't have cancer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auxilary Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 "I have some good news, and some bad news" give me the good news first, doc "you're cured from cancer!" and the bad news? "you now have aids" -- sorry, that was tasteless on my behalf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aaron Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 I heard about this at lunch. Raise your hand if you want to be in the first clinical trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Doctor: I have some bad news, good news and some really bad news. Patient: What is it? Doctor: The bad news is you have cancer. Patient: Oh no! Is it curable? Doctor: That is the good news. It is curable. Patient: Oh thank God. What does the treatment entail? Doctor: Well that is the really bad news. Turn around and bend over.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest austinlt1 Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 So it was prostate cancer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tony78_280z Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 this thread is bording on the incredibly intellectual... ...stable viruses and bacteria that could be used for gene therapy. Sounds like they were searching for a cure for AIDS and had to cut their losses with this work. Although if they did make a benign form of HIV that does not mutate redily, then that could be the key to a stable supply of the missing protien that could not be......And the completely jeuvenile......Well that is the really bad news. Turn around and bend over.......Damn I love you guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drax240z Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 HIV not AIDS... two very different animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifegrddude Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Interesting article. I just got done studying a lot about this type of treatment in my biochemistry class last semester. Contrary to common misconception in gene therapy, the HIV isn't going to give you cancer, if I read correctly, they have pulled the sequence of the genome that encodes for the "bad" part to put it in simple terms. Most likely the reverse transcriptase was altered. (enzyme that works in allowing the retrovirus to make copies of itself and what ultimately leads a person to getting full blown AIDS). Cancer arises from mutations in your DNA during normal processes, or if it damaged in other ways i.e. UV light, carcinogens, etc. It's inevitable since mutations are what progresses evolution, and that's why cancer is not something that will be magically cured forever with the technology we have today. (sorry I'm not being a pessimist, just stating a fact) They are using the virus as a vector to transplant a piece of dna that is complementary to whatever it is they are wanting to link up to. However, the setback is nothing is ever 100% efficient and sometimes the vector doesn't link up with the correct protein since some proteins have very similar sequences to one another. I don't think testing in humans should proceed until they can do it other mammals similar to us with a higher success rate since we still don't fully understand the functions of the body yet. Genomics is still in its infancy and time is what is needed. John 82ZXT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.