New strategy to halt HIV growth: block its sugar and nutrient pipeline. HIV has a voracious sweet tooth, which turns out to be its Achilles' heel, reports a new study from Northwestern Medicine and Vanderbilt University.
After the virus invades an activated immune cell, it craves sugar and nutrients from the cell to replicate and fuel its wild growth throughout the body.
Scientists discovered the switch that turns on the immune cell's abundant sugar and nutrient pipeline. Then they blocked the switch with an experimental compound, shutting down the pipeline, and, thereby, starving HIV to death. The virus was unable to replicate in human cells in vitro.
The discovery may have applications in treating cancer, which also has an immense appetite for sugar and other nutrients in the cell, which it needs to grow and spread.
http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2015/05/hivs-sweet-tooth-is-its-downfall.html
[Abstract]: http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1004864
Original Submission
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @07:44AM
Is it time? Is HIV gone? Is AIDS history? "Come on people now, everybody get together, try to love one another, right now?" How many more generations of closelegged frigid bitches will there be before the word spreads?
No, wait, there's a line missing from the song. "Smile on your brother." That's it! The time has cum for the incestuous GAY WORLD ORDER.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday June 01 2015, @08:24AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @08:30AM
Yea but how fucked we talking? While you're on the drug that fucks your immune system, are you still contagious? Because if you're not, get your ass to fucking, as many times as you can before you pass out from exhaustion. Just stay away from the common cold cuz it might kill ya.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Monday June 01 2015, @08:52AM
Worrying about mutations that beat the cure is like worrying about children figuring out how to open the safety locks on cupboards/doors/medicine bottles/gun safes/aeroplanes - it's gonna happen eventually, all we can do is delay the inevitable and make sure we reduce the harm done along the way by the absolute maximum amount possible.
Besides, treating an immunosuppresent disease with an immunosuppresent is just an evil-genius level of lateral thinking. Give that man the Nobel prize! And then lock his ass up before he takes over the world!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @09:07AM
> The virus hasn't mutated a gene to turn X back on again. Pet dogs have learnt how to use bathroom taps, just saying.
That's no reason no t to try. Even if this only works for 18 months, it will save countless lives and new infections. But the chances are it will continue to be effective.
> Don't worry, you don't have AIDS fucking your immune system, we've fixed that with a drug that fucks your immune system instead!
Yeah but that would only be temporary, surely. Starve the cells to prevent replication, then wait however many weeks for the infected cells to die off naturally. All cells in the human body have a limited lifespan. Quick blood test to make sure the virus cells are all gone, and boom, you're back to normal.
You'd probably have to take all kinds of drugs and precautions during the waiting period to compensate for the effects of the treatment, but that seems like a small price to pay for CURING YOUR FRIGGING AIDS.
Apply this treatment to enough people (doing this in Africa would be challenging to say the least, but exactly the kind of thing charities and NGOs would love to get their teeth into.) and maybe we could give smallpox some company in disease hell.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday June 01 2015, @07:17PM
I don't think you understand the process. (I know I don't.) As I read the article this merely halts replication, it doesn't kill the virus. And that means that while the disease is suppressed, it isn't gone. Viruses can generally "live" for quite a long time without metabolizing. I wouldn't even be sure that it means you aren't infectious, merely that you aren't currently dying (from AIDS), and that you are a lot LESS infectious.
This is still a good thing. It just wouldn't be some miracle cure.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Monday June 01 2015, @10:44AM
It's actually a tougher problem for the virys. It already has evolved to turn X on. The test was a substance that blocks X. Getting around it would be like you remove the handles from the tap and your dog learns to put them back on.
I believe the idea is to use the drug to cure the patient of AIDS in a sterile setting, then they can stop the drug and send them home.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @01:22PM
Or until the virus is wiped out. Remember smallpox? Me neither.
(Score: 2) by Joe on Monday June 01 2015, @10:35PM
The virus hasn't mutated a gene to turn X back on again
HIV doesn't have an effective mechanism to induce a specific mutation in a cellular gene. Sure, HIV can integrate next to a gene and affect its ability to be transcribed, but this is a non-specific process that only has limited preference for more "open" sections of the genome.
how can it not hinder the cell's performance?
It definitely will affect the ability of T cells to recognize an infection (c-Myc is important for the strength of signal through the TCR) and their ability to expand in number (dNTPs are needed for this).
Is this going to be a great antiviral for HIV?
No, but it may have some use as a short-term combination treatment with other antivirals (e.g. post-exposure prophylaxis).
- Joe
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday June 01 2015, @11:39AM
Before I started following the Atkins diet [wikipedia.org], I did some internet search for potential negative side-effects and found some interesting positive side-effects instead. According to this research paper [nutritionandmetabolism.com] assembled by the University Hospital in Würzburg (Germany), there is some evidence that reducing the carbohydrate intake has a beneficial impact on cancer-patients because cancer-cells have a high need for glucose.
Since TFA draws a connection between this HIV-medication and potential benefits to cancer-patients, I'd be interested to know if there is any research evaluating potential positive effects of low-carb diets on HIV-patients. The links I found are quite [webmd.com] old [thebody.com] and seem a bit out of touch with latest research.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @02:40PM
Is it low carb diets or just low calorie that matters?
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday June 01 2015, @04:22PM
It's low carb only. I eat lots of cheese, linen-seed, olives, fatty fish and meat. Cancer cells seem to require sugar to grow and multiply. Sugar is acquired by direct intake and from starch. Fat is converted to ketone bodies, which can be used by muscles, brain and other organs.
The Atkins diet works (for me at least), without suffering hunger.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Informative) by opinionated_science on Monday June 01 2015, @03:36PM
The biology generally support the assertion that "glucose is need for fast growing cells.". Deprived of carbohydrate the human metabolism is able to survive fine on ketones produced from fat, but this also suggested restricted energy production.
There is clinical evidence that fasting (generally, but dropping carbohydrate below ketotic limit), focus the body on repair not proliferation. A general suppression of the immune system is also observed.
In general, it does raise the question whether the obesity epidemic is the real cause of so many secondary disorders, by providing far more fuel than is necessary to the body?
In the case of HIV as a viral disease, I have not read of any clinical association data to obesity. However the principle of immune modulation through glucose control is potentially relevant.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday June 01 2015, @04:46PM
Anecdotal evidence: I did notice a steep performance-drop when running medium distances. I assume this is because carbohydrates are usually stored in the muscle tissue and fuel the body for the first 30 minutes or so, providing easily accessible energy.
Anecdotal evidence: For the immune system, I did not notice any negative impact due to the diet, rather the opposite as far as minor flues etc. are concerned. However, it requires some caution avoid some pitfalls. Lack of fibre, vitamins (yes, I know that vitamins are overrated, but I'm not yet convinced they are entirely useless) and magnesium. Green vegetables, linen-seed and olives are helpful.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Tuesday June 02 2015, @04:23AM
when running your expenditure determines the body's use of resources, not the other way around. However, the accumulation of lactic acid and lack of glucose, will of course, cause the feeling of fatigue. The trick is not to run so fast, and aim for 60% aerobic potential. The body is then able to gently shift from stored glycogen to ketosis. After approximately 40 mins, you can start to increase pace and find the sweet spot for your personal metabolism.
This has all been clinically documented, only I'm in no position to find the citations right now - the study was on marathon runners and calorific consumption, but it was a while since I read it.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday June 01 2015, @07:21PM
FWIW, I tried an Atkins-ish diet for about 6 months. Afterwards my triglycerides levels were a *lot* higher. This was not a desirable change, even though I did lose weight on it.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday June 01 2015, @08:39PM
May I ask how Atkins-ish your diet was? I'm trying to limit my meat-consumption and focus on healthy fat, like olives, fish, olive-oil, linen-seeds, cottage-cheese etc. I do eat meat, but try not to fall for the common misconception that Atkins is meat only.
Beside that, I don't usually don't discuss the details at length with larger communities, so I don't know how common it is to not get along with Atkins. I know some people have difficulties, and some swear they can only lose weight on low-fat diet, not on low-carb.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday June 02 2015, @07:56PM
Very high in meats, very low in carbohydrates, except for things like broccoli, etc. Beans pretty much ok, but limited. Cabbage, brussel sprouts, etc. ok. Sugar only in fruit, and then in extreme moderation.
The meat was largely low fat cuts. For reasons of economy this meant a lot of chicken and turkey. Perhaps beef every third day. Fish at least once a week. (It's been awhile, and I don't usually categorize this way, so this is a bit vague.) Lots of eggs and cheese (but low carb cheeses only).
I've nearly turned that on it's head, though not quite. I'm now nearly vegetarian except for eggs and fish. Sugar is still quite limited, though, and I keep trying to also limit starches...but not to the extent that I did on the atkinsish diet. Beans has become a mainstay. The problem is satisfaction is more difficult. Also interesting greens tend to be seasonal. Since I'm also trying to keep a generally low salt diet (which I also had before) this make things difficult. Frozen and canned foods generally have totally unreasonable amounts of salt added. There are some exceptions, but that means limited choices. (And it's made the worse because I really don't like thinking about what I'm going to eat. It's not only unattractive to me, it tends to make me hungry.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @07:55PM
I'm not terribly worried about low carb diets. This is a receptor they're playing with (from the generalized description). I'm worried that one could turn off enough sugar to kill healthy cells.
(Score: 2) by Joe on Monday June 01 2015, @11:04PM
cancer-cells have a high need for glucose
The preferential use of glycolosis is called the Warburg effect and it is true for most tumors, but it is not an absolute requirement. One of the reasons cancer cells like glycolosis so much, even though it is less effecient at producing energy, is because it produces more precursors needed for the cells to grow and divide.
potential positive effects of low-carb diets on HIV-patients
I don't think there would be anything that specific and I'm not sure how many people would want to get close to a topic that may give fuel to HIV denialists (like the former South African Minister of Health).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect#Oncology [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manto_Tshabalala-Msimang [wikipedia.org]
- Joe