Stem Cell Transplant Patient HIV Free

[leap87]

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/02/Stem_Cell_Transplant_Patient_Free_of_HIV/

 

Stem Cell Transplant Patient HIV-Free

By Julie Bolcer

 

A 42-year-old HIV patient with leukemia continues to show no signs of HIV in his blood, two years after a stem cell transplant from a donor with a gene mutation that confers natural resistance to the virus that causes AIDS.

 

The stunning findings were published Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine, according to CNN, but doctors caution that the stem cell treatment is too dangerous to be of routine use to most people infected with HIV.

 

In the study, reported CNN, “the team deliberately chose a compatible donor who has a naturally occurring gene mutation that confers resistance to HIV. The mutation cripples a receptor known as CCR5, which is normally found on the surface of T cells, the type of immune system cells attacked by HIV.

 

“The mutation is known as CCR5 delta32 and is found in 1 percent to 3 percent of white populations of European descent.

 

“HIV uses the CCR5 as a co-receptor (in addition to CD4 receptors) to latch on to and ultimately destroy immune system cells. Since the virus can't gain a foothold on cells that lack CCR5, people who have the mutation have natural protection. (There are other, less common HIV strains that use different co-receptors.)

 

“People who inherit one copy of CCR5 delta32 take longer to get sick or develop AIDS if infected with HIV. People with two copies (one from each parent) may not become infected at all. The stem cell donor had two copies.”

 

Doctors say that while the risky stem cell transplant option should not be routinely exercised, the findings point the way toward development of potentially safer CCR5-disabling gene therapies or treatments that can be injected into the body.

 

Interesting. Now I have to go dig up that journal article.

[Tango Charlie]

Imagine what sorts of things they'd be doing if the pro-life movement and other religious groups weren't so up-in-arms over this area of research. Even under Obama the States isn't giving stem cell research the kind of massive federal funding its potential warrants. It's awesome reading about stuff like this, but at the same time it reminds me of what a travesty the lack of support it has received is.

[A-Stark]

Well... that's embryonic stem cell research you're referring to. This was just a bone marrow stem cell transplant.

[Tango Charlie]

I can't predict what the outcome of the US tackling stem cell research with full force rather than only allowing federal funding for the lines which aren't embryonic. Also, I never miss an opportunity to rail against governments.

[Leon]

Interesting. But I wonder how they're going to come up with a way to transform everyone's T-cells such that the CCR5's are damaged.

 

 

And even if the procedure's considered 'dangerous,' I can see thousands of people wanting it nevertheless.

[HBP]

Imagine what sorts of things they'd be doing if the pro-life movement and other religious groups weren't so up-in-arms over this area of research. Even under Obama the States isn't giving stem cell research the kind of massive federal funding its potential warrants. It's awesome reading about stuff like this, but at the same time it reminds me of what a travesty the lack of support it has received is.

 

IMO hESC's are unethical outside of leftover in vitro fertilization sources.

 

iPSC's are the way of the future.

[TheFonz]

For those interested, the study was actually published last year in NEJM:

 

Hutter G., et al. (2009). Long-term control of HIV by CCR5 Delta32/Delta32 stem cell transplantation. N Engl J Med, 360, 692-698.

 

Tango Charlie: The argument over ES cells is pretty much a non-issue among most scientists. As HBP mentioned, the advent of induced pluripotency is the wave of the future. Bush was actually right Can't believe I said that.

 

Some scientists are even working on conversion of existing cells directly into other types of cells, without first inducing pluripotency or any sort of stem-cell state. Doug Melton and his lab at Harvard published a paper in Nature last year where they delivered a set of transcription factors to pancreatic exocrine cells, and directly converted them into insulin-secreting beta cells. Pretty amazing stuff that could one day potentially cure T2DM.

[Tango Charlie]

Tango Charlie: The argument over ES cells is pretty much a non-issue among most scientists. As HBP mentioned, the advent of induced pluripotency is the wave of the future. Bush was actually right Can't believe I said that.

 

Some scientists are even working on conversion of existing cells directly into other types of cells, without first inducing pluripotency or any sort of stem-cell state. Doug Melton and his lab at Harvard published a paper in Nature last year where they delivered a set of transcription factors to pancreatic exocrine cells, and directly converted them into insulin-secreting beta cells. Pretty amazing stuff that could one day potentially cure T2DM.

 

Yeah, I remember reading something about that a few years ago if I recall correctly. In my defense, I was not suggesting one route was better than the other, but rather that tying the hands of researchers over ambiguous moral issues -- like whether a frozen embryo scheduled to be discarded has a soul that would be negatively impacted through being used for stem cell research or not -- isn't productive.

 

So I wouldn't call Bush "right" in this. Maybe his strictly unscientific intervening in the scientific process happened to luck out and encourage scientists down the more promising path anyway, but it was luck of the draw, and I wouldn't hold it to his credit.

[Dumblydorr]

like whether a frozen embryo scheduled to be discarded has a soul that would be negatively impacted through being used for stem cell research

 

and if it does? You can't do such dangerous things without complete understanding.

[TheFonz]

So I wouldn't call Bush "right" in this. Maybe his strictly unscientific intervening in the scientific process happened to luck out and encourage scientists down the more promising path anyway, but it was luck of the draw, and I wouldn't hold it to his credit.

 

lol I don't think most people would.

 

I meant he was right in the sense that he decided to forego discussion on stem cell research, because he felt that iPS cells were going to take over, and instead he decided to "focus" on other issues. Trust me, I am FAR from a Bush fan, but I just find it funny that he was right about iPS cells. I remember him talking about it: "Scientists have shown that they can take skin cells from an adult and turn them into embryonic stem cells, avoiding the use of aborted embryos", and I just thought "Who knows if that will ever catch on."

 

I think most scientists would feel that the use of embryonic cells from tissues (that were to be discarded anyway) would be most prudent. Hell, even McCain supported government funding for ES cell research.

[Tango Charlie]

and if it does? You can't do such dangerous things without complete understanding.

 

I propose that trees have souls and can feel pain and suffering as thoroughly as any human. Being cut down also damages their soul in some vague and ambiguous way that I can't explain. There is of course no evidence that this is the case, but that's my opinion, and I insist that people stop doing such dangerous things as cutting down trees without complete understanding.

[estairella]

Sorry if I seem pessimistic, but I would be worried about the development of such a cure if it's used to treat people already infected with HIV. This seems to be the perfect way to create a resistant strain = introduce the defected CCR5 receptors to a host containing actively replicating HIV and letting natural selection take its course.

 

This might very well be a cure in the future the same way a vaccine is a cure - given to everyone who is HIV- so that the disease can no longer spread (having sex with an HIV+ person will be okay, because none of the virions will be able to enter cells and therefore no replication -> no mutation can take place).

 

The fact that families with inherited defective CCR5s have long been known as pretty much the ONLY way to be completely immune to HIV means we're not going to get another chance if we screw this up.

[leap87]

Thanks TheFonz for that information. I was looking for the journal article in the 2010 issue and I couldn't find it.

 

While I'm not an expert in stem cell research, I do believe it has a huge potential for many different disorders particularly the neurological ones. I have been following the latest research on stem cell therapy and spinal cord damage and it seems very promising. I don't really get why it is unethical to use stem cells - I guess I fail to see the other side of the argument.

 

I'm going to check out the journal article before I start talking about this since I don't really know what they've done exactly. However, it is great to see that there might be some sort of cure for HIV. Even though for years now I have been thinking that the cure exists but if they put it out, the big pharma wouldn't be making any money. But that's just paranoid me.

[HBP]

Thanks TheFonz for that information. I was looking for the journal article in the 2010 issue and I couldn't find it.

 

While I'm not an expert in stem cell research, I do believe it has a huge potential for many different disorders particularly the neurological ones. I have been following the latest research on stem cell therapy and spinal cord damage and it seems very promising. I don't really get why it is unethical to use stem cells - I guess I fail to see the other side of the argument.

 

I'm going to check out the journal article before I start talking about this since I don't really know what they've done exactly. However, it is great to see that there might be some sort of cure for HIV. Even though for years now I have been thinking that the cure exists but if they put it out, the big pharma wouldn't be making any money. But that's just paranoid me.

 

hESC's are made by combining egg/sperm. Right now, in Canada, the only source for them are left over in vitro fertilization embryos (they have to create an excess for successful pregnancy). I would argue this is ethical, because otherwise they would just be wasted.

 

But if you were able to do IVF just for research, you would have to extract eggs for that purpose. Pay for them? Invasive? It becomes a problem.

 

iPS cells are much better because you create them from a non-invasive source. Also, they're patient-matched so they have much more potential.