Breakthrough in search for HIV cure leaves researchers ‘overwhelmed'
A cure for HIV could be a step closer after researchers found a new way to force the virus out of hiding inside human cells.
The virus's ability to conceal itself inside certain white blood cells has been one of the main challenges for scientists looking for a cure. It means there is a reservoir of the HIV in the body, capable of reactivation, that neither the immune system nor drugs can tackle.
Now researchers from the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity in Melbourne, have demonstrated a way to make the virus visible, paving the way to fully clear it from the body.
It is based on mRNA technology, which came to prominence during the Covid-19 pandemic when it was used in vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech.
In a paper published in Nature Communications, the researchers have shown for the first time that mRNA can be delivered into the cells where HIV is hiding, by encasing it in a tiny, specially formulated fat bubble. The mRNA then instructs the cells to reveal the virus.
Globally, there are almost 40 million people living with HIV, who must take medication for the rest of their lives in order to suppress the virus and ensure they do not develop symptoms or transmit it. For many it remains deadly, with UNAids figures suggesting one person died of HIV every minute in 2023.
It was 'previously thought impossible' to deliver mRNA to the type of white blood cell that is home to HIV, said Dr Paula Cevaal, research fellow at the Doherty Institute and co-first author of the study, because those cells did not take up the fat bubbles, or lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), used to carry it.
The team have developed a new type of LNP that those cells will accept, known as LNP X. She said: 'Our hope is that this new nanoparticle design could be a new pathway to an HIV cure.'
When a colleague first presented test results at the lab's weekly meeting, Cevaal said, they seemed too good to be true.
'We sent her back into the lab to repeat it, and she came back the next week with results that were equally good. So we had to believe it. And of course, since then, we've repeated it many, many, many more times.
'We were overwhelmed by how [much of a] night and day difference it was – from not working before, and then all of a sudden it was working. And all of us were just sitting gasping like, 'wow'.'
Further research will be needed to determine whether revealing the virus is enough to allow the body's immune system to deal with it, or whether the technology will need to be combined with other therapies to eliminate HIV from the body.
The study is laboratory based and was carried out in cells donated by HIV patients. The path to using the technology as part of a cure for patients is long, and would require successful tests in animals followed by safety trials in humans, likely to take years, before efficacy trials could even begin.
'In the field of biomedicine, many things eventually don't make it into the clinic – that is the unfortunate truth; I don't want to paint a prettier picture than what is the reality,' stressed Cevaal. 'But in terms of specifically the field of HIV cure, we have never seen anything close to as good as what we are seeing, in terms of how well we are able to reveal this virus.
'So from that point of view, we're very hopeful that we are also able to see this type of response in an animal, and that we could eventually do this in humans.'
Dr Michael Roche of the University of Melbourne and co-senior author of the research, said the discovery could have broader implications beyond HIV, with the relevant white blood cells also involved in other diseases including cancers.
Dr Jonathan Stoye, a retrovirologist and emeritus scientist at the Francis Crick Institute, who was not involved in the study, said the approach taken by the Melbourne team appeared be a major advance on existing strategies to force the virus out of hiding, but further studies would be needed to determine how best to kill it after that.
He added: 'Ultimately, one big unknown remains. Do you need to eliminate the entire reservoir for success or just the major part? If just 10% of the latent reservoir survives will that be sufficient to seed new infection? Only time will tell.
'However, that does not detract from the significance of the current study, which represents a major potential advance in delivery of mRNA for therapeutic purposes to blood cells.'
Prof Tomáš Hanke of the Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, disputed the idea that getting RNA into white blood cells had been a significant challenge. He said the hope that all cells in the body where HIV was hiding could be reached in this way was 'merely a dream'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Menopause drug might prevent breast cancer and treat hot flashes, research finds
A drug intended to treat menopause symptoms could double as breast cancer prevention. New research from Northwestern University in Illinois found that Duavee, a Pfizer-made drug, 'significantly reduced' breast tissue cell growth, which is a major indicator of cancer progression. Advertisement A phase 2 clinical trial included 141 post-menopausal women who had been diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), also known as stage 0 breast cancer, according to a press release from Northwestern. This non-invasive breast cancer affects more than 60,000 American women each year, often leading to an outcome of invasive breast cancer. The women were separated into two groups — one received Duavee and the other took a placebo for a month before undergoing breast surgery. Duavee is a conjugated estrogen/bazedoxifene (CE/BZA) drug, which combines estrogen with another medication that minimizes the potential harmful side effects of the hormone. Advertisement 'The key takeaway from the study is that CE/BZA slows the growth (proliferation) of cells in milk ducts of DCIS that expressed the estrogen receptor significantly more than placebo,' Dr. Swati Kulkarni, lead investigator and professor of breast surgery at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, told Fox News Digital. 5 New research from Northwestern University found that the drug Duavee 'significantly reduced' breast tissue cell growth, a major indicator of cancer progression. Marko Geber – Another major finding is that the quality of life did not differ significantly between the two groups, but patients who took the CE/BZA reported fewer hot flashes during the study, she noted. 'This would be expected, as the drug is FDA-approved to treat hot flashes.' Advertisement Kulkarni presented the study last week at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in Chicago. 5 The women in the study were separated into two groups — one received Duavee and the other took a placebo for a month before undergoing breast surgery. Gorodenkoff – 5 Those who took the drug reported fewer hot flashes during the study. fizkes – The findings are preliminary and have not yet been published in a medical journal. Advertisement 'What excites me most is that a medication designed to help women feel better during menopause may also reduce their risk of invasive breast cancer,' said the doctor, who is also a Northwestern Medicine breast surgeon. Women who face a higher risk of breast cancer — including those who have experienced 'high-risk lesions' — and who also have menopausal symptoms are most likely to benefit from the drug, according to Kulkarni. 'These women are typically advised against standard hormone therapies, leaving them with few menopausal treatment options,' the release stated. Study limitations The researchers said they are 'encouraged' by these early results, but more research is required before the medication can be considered for approval as a breast cancer prevention mechanism. 'Our findings suggest that CE/BZA may prevent breast cancer, but larger studies with several years of follow-up are needed before we would know this for sure,' Kulkarni told Fox News Digital. Dr. Sheheryar Kabraji, chief of breast medicine at the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, was not involved in the study but commented on the findings. 5 'What excites me most is that a medication designed to help women feel better during menopause may also reduce their risk of invasive breast cancer,' Dr. Swati Kulkarni said. sarayutsridee – Advertisement 'While intriguing, this study is highly preliminary, and more research will be needed before we can conclude that conjugated estrogen/bazedoxifene (CD/BZA), a form of the hormone estrogen commonly prescribed to address symptoms of menopause, prevents invasive breast cancer or is effective at reducing cancer risk,' he told Fox News Digital. Kabraji also noted that the study focused on reducing levels of one specific protein, 'which does not always predict reduced recurrence of breast cancer.' 'This study did not directly show that CE/BZA treatment reduces the risk of DCIS recurrence or development of invasive cancer,' he noted. 5 According to Kulkarni,'larger studies with several years of follow-up are needed' to confirm that the drug prevents breast cancer. Science RF – Advertisement 'Importantly, however, patients who received this therapy experienced no worsening of quality of life, and saw improvement in vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flashes. If found to be effective in preventing breast cancer, CE/BZA is likely to have fewer side effects than current medications used for breast cancer prevention.' Lead researcher Kulkarni emphasized that this medication is not for the treatment of invasive breast cancer or DCIS. 'Right now, we can say that women who are concerned about their risk of developing breast cancer can consider this medication to treat their menopausal symptoms,' she added.
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
It's a really bad time to be an expert in Washington
At the Pentagon, 14 advisory boards have been dismantled, with curt, thank-you-for-your-service notes sent to Democrats and Republicans alike. Some of the boards dealt with obscure matters. But others focused on vital issues, like rethinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal as China's nuclear buildup, Russian President Vladimir Putin's episodic nuclear threats and Trump's ambitious demand for a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system have changed the nature of nuclear strategy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Also gone: the board of experts who were trying to learn lessons from China's astoundingly successful hack into the country's telecommunications networks -- where, by all accounts, the hackers remain to this day. Then came historians at the State Department and the climate specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which employed experts in weather, oceans, climate and biodiversity. Advertisement The National Weather Service lost so many people that the agency had to hire some back. No such luck for researchers relying on the National Science Foundation, where projects are disappearing every month. Advertisement No one killed off the expert advisory board at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as it deliberated whether healthy children should receive the COVID vaccine. They did not have to. While it weighed the pros and cons, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his colleagues announced that they had already made their decision. When the history of these tumultuous past four months is written, it will doubtless focus on the moments when teams from the Department of Government Efficiency shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, when the president issued tariff threats to much of the world and when he went to war with Harvard. Less noticed, perhaps, may be the devastation of the expert class, which once dominated the city, moving between think tanks and government offices, generating alternative views in its best moments, engaging in groupthink at its worst. Today, the experts are swelling the ranks of Washington's suddenly unemployed. To the MAGA faithful, each one of these disbanded groups is a victory for a trimmer government that follows the president's wishes. To them, the National Security Council was the heart of the so-called deep state, whose members testified against Trump during his first impeachment inquiry. The raft of advisory committees mostly slowed down decision-making, they argued, when they were not undercutting policies they did not like. Worse yet, they were the source of leaks. So if an advisory committee of experts was not needed to help James K. Polk, the 11th president, figure out how to spread the United States to the West Coast, why do we need them to figure out the strategy for adding Greenland and Canada? (The expansionist Polk has been restored to a place of pride in the Oval Office -- his portrait now hangs just below and to the right of Thomas Jefferson's.) Advertisement Part of Trump's problem with experts is their portrayal as neutral arbiters, more interested in the data than presidential spin. That is what has led to the White House this week trying to discredit the Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that, yes, the new tax bill could really add $2.4 trillion to the national debt, no matter the spin. Lacking the authority to fire the budget experts there, the White House turned to casting them as politically biased. And while every new president replaces board members and demands some fealty to the new leader's ideology, what has happened in the past four months seems to some in the federal government more like China's cultural revolution, where the only good ideas are the ones that flow from the leader, and both research reports and intelligence findings should support the president's desires. And when they are not, trouble follows. Just ask the National Intelligence Council, a small subset of intelligence experts -- many drawn from academia -- what happened when it came to the conclusion that the Venezuelan government was not controlling a criminal gang, an argument that Trump had used to justify deportations. The experts were told to 'do some rewriting' so the material could not be used against the president and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. After the intelligence findings were left unchanged, the board's leadership resisted and was removed. The whole institution is being moved into Gabbard's organization, where its independent judgments can be better controlled. Advertisement At the Environmental Protection Agency, self-protective action has replaced scientific inquiry. 'We've taken the words 'climate' and 'green energy' off every project document,' one scientist still in the government's employ said recently, refusing to speak on the record for obvious reasons. Veterans of Trump's first term say these changes are a manifestation of the president's bitter memories. 'I think somebody convinced President Trump, based on his experience in his first administration, that his own staff would be the biggest obstructionists,' H.R. McMaster, Trump's second national security adviser, said at a conference on artificial intelligence and national security Wednesday. (Trump's current national security adviser, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is one of around a half dozen across both terms.) While McMaster, now at Stanford, said he did not object to shrinking the National Security Council staff, he worried that also lost would be the capacity to run 'a deliberative process, which I think would be kind of nice on some of these issues, like tariffs, to clarify what you are trying to achieve.' 'Deliberative process' appears to be exactly what Trump is trying to avoid. And if that means eviscerating the expert class, so be it. It helps explain why the Department of Government Efficiency was given license to wipe out USAID. McMaster is hardly alone in concluding that some of the aid agency's programs had 'drifted.' Many Democrats say they agree, though almost never on the record. But McMaster gave voice to the question raised all over Washington when he asked, 'Should you just crush the entire organization or recognize there is a mission for that organization to advance American interests?' It was crushed, with foreign service officers, child health experts and others locked out of the offices. And that has led to both professional and personal angst. Advertisement 'If you work in the field of maternal and child health, you are in trouble,' said Jessica Harrison Fullerton, a managing director at the Global Development Incubator, a nonprofit that is trying to fill some of the gaps USAID's dismantlement left. 'Not only are you devastated by the impacts on the people you have been serving, but your expertise is now being questioned and your ability to use that expertise is limited because the jobs are gone.' In fact, what many of Washington's experts discovered was that crushing the organizations -- and putting their experts out on the street -- was the point of the exercise. It helped create a frisson of fear, and reinforced the message of who was in control. It has also led to warnings from more traditional Republicans that Trump's demand for loyalty over analysis is creating a trap for himself. 'Groupthink and a blinkered mindset are dangers for any administration,' said Richard Fontaine, the CEO of the Center for a New American Security, which, in the days of bipartisanship, described itself as a bipartisan think tank. 'Pulling from multiple sources in and outside of government to develop solid options for foreign policy decision makers is the way to go.' Well, maybe in the Washington of a previous era. Within a 200-yard radius of USAID, DOGE teams moved into the Wilson Center, a nonpartisan foreign policy think tank that had significant private funding and money from Congress. They shuttered it, from its Cold War archives to the Kennan Institute, one of the country's leading collections of scholars about Russia. At a moment when superpower conflict is back, it was the kind of place that presented alternative views. Advertisement DOGE was unimpressed. Like their USAID colleagues in another part of the Ronald Reagan Building, they were soon stuffing their notes into cartons and discovering their computer access had been shut down. (The Wilson Center also sponsored book writers, including some from The New York Times.) The war on expertise has raised some fundamental questions that may not be answerable until after the Trump administration is over. Will the experts stick around -- after hiding out in the private sector or changing professions -- only to reoccupy the 'swamp'? And more immediately, what damage is being done in what may be the country's defining challenge: the competition with China over artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons, electric vehicles, quantum computing? That is what many in the intelligence agencies worry about, not least because Europe is already openly recruiting disillusioned American scientists, and China's intelligence services are looking for the angry and abandoned. Graham Allison, a Harvard professor who writes often on the U.S.-China technological and military competitions, told an audience at the AI Summit on Wednesday that America is not acting like it understands that 'China has emerged as a full-spectrum competitor.' 'Our secret sauce,' he said, has been the American ability to 'recruit the most talented people in the world. Einstein didn't come from America.' 'The idea that we would be taking action that would undermine that makes no sense to any strategic thinker,' he said. Of course, those strategic thinkers rank among the suspect class of Washington experts. This article originally appeared in
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Hundreds of pharmacies are set to close: How it could impact you
(NEXSTAR) — Several retail pharmacy chains have shuttered some of their stores this year, with more on the way for others, like Rite Aid, which filed for bankruptcy in May. It could create what some refer to as 'pharmacy deserts,' areas in which drugstores and the additional services they provide may not be available for miles. And in areas where other pharmacies are picking up the slack, it could have an impact on current customers. 'Closures of major chain pharmacies often create ripple effects across the community,' E. Michael Murphy, an assistant professor of clinical pharmacy at The Ohio State University, told Nexstar via email. Nearby pharmacies, independent or part of a chain, can see 'a sudden increase in patients,' he explained, which could 'lead to longer lines, and increase strain on the health care team.' It could also disrupt your medical care. Shuttering pharmacies in larger cities, like New York City and Philadelphia, may have limited impacts. Take, for example, a Rite Aid located in Philadelphia that has been designated for closure. A three-minute walk down the road will take you to a Walgreens and a local pharmacy. Within smaller communities, that may not be the case. Customers may need to drive to a nearby town to pick up their prescriptions, which 'could have some negative consequences on their adherence to their medication,' Lucas A. Berenbrok, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy, explained to Nexstar. 'For those without reliable transportation, especially older adults or people with disabilities, traveling even a few extra miles can be a serious barrier,' Murphy said. That could lead to delayed access to prescriptions and missed dosages. Closing pharmacies also reduces health access points for people. In addition to filling prescriptions, pharmacies are able to provide vaccines, chronic disease management, urgent consultations, over-the-counter treatments, and certain health tests. 'There's a lot more going on at the pharmacy now than ever before,' Berenbrok explained, outlining how pharmacists helped to administer the COVID vaccine during the pandemic, for example, and the additional services they can provide in some states. He went on to explain that while online pharmacies can help fill the void of shuttered drugstores, they're largely unable to accommodate the additional services pharmacies provide. 'They also assume reliable internet access, digital literacy, and stable housing, which are barriers for many vulnerable patients,' Murphy said. 'For communities losing local pharmacies, online options may fill part of the gap but cannot replace the full range of services a community pharmacist provides.' Berenbrok agreed that mail-order pharmacies have 'a time and place' because of their convenience, but they require planning ahead, which may not be useful for certain medications like antibiotics. If your pharmacy is closing soon, Murphy recommended being proactive and asking your pharmacist where your prescriptions are being sent and whether that pharmacy has your insurance and medication history. He also encouraged asking for a 90-day supply or mail-order option for prescriptions if transportation is a concern. Chains poised to take on former Rite Aid clients, like CVS and Walgreens, say they're prepared to welcome new customers. Even if your prescriptions are not moving to a new pharmacy, you may want to make sure your prescription is being filled a day or two before you need it rather than the same day that your current supply runs out, Berenbrok said. Then, if you're short on time and facing a long line, you won't miss a dose. Murphy also suggested contacting elected officials and urging them to take action. 'While pharmacists are committed to stepping up to meet the need, without adequate state and federal policy changes to address the broken business model that caused the pharmacy to close in the first place, we will continue to see pharmacies close and patients having to navigate the loss of their trusted health care professional.'
