Using Genetics to cure HIV

    In Recent discoveries, researchers supported by the National Institutes of Health have found a promising new way to fight HIV using tiny particles called exosomes. In a recent study, they used these particles to deliver a specially designed protein, ZPAMt, directly into HIV-infected cells of  mice. The protein attaches to the virus’s genetic material and shuts down its ability to replicate, reducing HIV levels in the bone marrow, spleen, and brain. Because exosomes can cross the blood-brain barrier, this approach can reach parts of the body where HIV often hides, something existing treatments struggle to do.

    

    The research, led by Kevin Morris, Ph.D., explores a “block and lock” strategy, aiming to keep HIV dormant and prevent it from multiplying. The success of this exosome-based delivery method could have big implications, not just for HIV, but also for other brain-related diseases like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and addiction. By showing that therapeutic proteins can be delivered safely and effectively to hard-to-reach areas, this study opens the door for a new wave of targeted treatments.

Scientist in China convicted of inhumanely editing germline DNA

 

He Jiankui was sentence to three years in prison as well as a $430,000 fine for editing embryos of impregnated women in in experiments. Jiankui claims he was attempting to edit the embryos disable the gene CCR5, which encodes a protein that allows HIV to enter cells. His goal was to replicate a mutation found in 10% of Europeans to protect them from infection. Jiankui may have inadvertently caused other dangerous mutations but nothing can be know until follow-up research is done on the girls. The Chinese health ministry will be in charge of gathering information in said follow-ups.

The backlash from this unregulated experiment can potentially hover many more regulatory measures over the genome editing community. Many of the nations with gene editing regulatory practice have highly restrictive or intermediate measures in place, while Mexico and China have comparatively permissive guidelines. The primary argument against gene editing in human is who decides when is it absolutely necessary and no longer potentially more harmful. Much of the modern world is under this notion so the regulations will remain restrictive. However many scientists argue for looser restrictions so that more research can be done to finely tune gene editing to a point of viability  

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00673-1

https://journals.biologists.com/dev/article/146/3/dev175778/48972/CRISPR-babies-a-view-from-the-centre-of-the-storm

A New Strategy to Understand Chronic Diseases Such as HIV

As stated in the article "Genetics of Both Virus and Patient Work Together to Influence the Course of HIV Infection", a patients genetics may impact disease progression by inducing mutations in the HIV genome.  Researchers from Switzerland are the first to investigate the relative impacts of human and viral genetics on the viral load within the same group of patients.  A patients viral load is basically how much HIV is in their blood. The researches were able to collect data of both patient and viral genes, and use linear mixed modeling to determine the differences between the viral load of the patients.

They discovered that HIV strain differences were explaining 29% of differences in viral load of the patients.  Also, they found that 8.4 percent was based on human genetic variation.  The director of study, Jacques Fellay, states that, "Our paper demonstrates that the genetic make-up of both the patient and the infecting virus contribute to the clinical course of HIV infection".  However, further research is needed for confirmation, and also how this strategy could be used to better understand other chronic infectious diseases.

As we have learned in class about genetic variation, I know that it usually has an impact on what types of diseases people end up with in a natural state, as well as their ability to retrieve an infection.  I think this article describes an interesting stepping stone towards really understanding diseases we still have questions about.  I most definitely think this strategy should be used by geneticists on other chronic diseases.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170209142657.htmhttps://www.aidsmap.com/Viral-load/page/1327496/