HIV evolving into a milder form - University of Oxford

HIV is being "watered down" genetically as the virus fails to replicate because of some people's immune system. Scientists in a major study undertaken at the University of Oxford believe that in time the virus will be less infectious and AIDS would take longer to develop in patients.


BBC News

"[Then] the virus is trapped between a rock and hard place, it can get flattened or make a change to survive and if it has to change then it will come with a cost," said Prof Philip Goulder, from the University of Oxford.

The "cost" is a reduced ability to replicate, which in turn makes the virus less infectious and means it takes longer to cause Aids.

This weakened virus is then spread to other people and a slow cycle of "watering-down" HIV begins.

The team showed this process happening in Africa by comparing Botswana, which has had an HIV problem for a long time, and South Africa where HIV arrived a decade later.

Prof Goulder told the BBC News website: "It is quite striking. You can see the ability to replicate is 10% lower in Botswana than South Africa and that's quite exciting.

"We are observing evolution happening in front of us and it is surprising how quickly the process is happening.

"The virus is slowing down in its ability to cause disease and that will help contribute to elimination."

Although naturally - it would take quite some time for HIV to be rendered harmless, it is encouraging news

Edit: Another interesting article via Al Jazeera - HIV study

a reply to: auroraaus

Weren't viruses supposed to become more powerful over time?
how's it that one of the most dangerous ones is working in the opposite way?
I need someone with high IQ points to break this down for me.
Makes it almost feel like the virus was born with an expiration date, and simply has too much mileage at this point...

a reply to: auroraaus

Although naturally - it would take quite some time for HIV to be rendered harmless, it is encouraging news

Yeah...simply doing nothing and waiting for about 100 years is all that's needed for HIV to mutate itself into oblivion.

Not a great plan for the infected i know, but basically waiting is the sure fire method for eradicating the virus.

It would seem that due to some immune systems that it comes into contact with the virus is attempting to evolve to 'outwit' their immune system. But this is coming at a cost. Yes it outwits the immune system but it lowers it's ability to replicate.

With this in mind if and when the virus is then transmitted to another person it has a reduced ability to replicate ultimately resulting in a slower progress to HIV.

The more immune systems it comes into contact with that it has to battle with means it can go either way. It can evolve to become or powerful or this can go wrong so to speak and it can get it right I.e. It wants to be able to do invade the cells easier. But it's then may not become good at replicating.

a reply to: IShotMyLastMuse

See above

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
a reply to: auroraaus

Weren't viruses supposed to become more powerful over time?
how's it that one of the most dangerous ones is working in the opposite way?
I need someone with high IQ points to break this down for me.
Makes it almost feel like the virus was born with an expiration date, and simply has too much mileage at this point...

If the strong virus is killing it's hosts faster, it has less of a chance to be spread. A weaker form of the virus will take longer to kill a patient, and as such, will allow for more of itself to be spread.

a reply to: auroraaus

What about detection, will this milder iteration of the virus become harder to spot or require new methods to diagnose?

No. That's a myth recently spread by Ebola mongers. When viruses mutate they more often mutate to a less virulent form. It's been shown over and over again.
Flu viruses are very quick to mutate and it was its mutation that finally ended the tragic Spanish flu Pandemic at the end of WW 1. That particular virus which started as a bird flu and mutated to a swine flu went back to being a bird flu again. When it did it became unable to infect people.
This virus is not like a flu virus but it's mutation to a less virulent form over time should have been expected though this is quick according to this report.flu mutates rapidly which is why everyone needs a new vaccine every year.



A reply to: IShotMyLastMuse

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

thanks for the info!

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: auroraaus

Although naturally - it would take quite some time for HIV to be rendered harmless, it is encouraging news

Yeah...simply doing nothing and waiting for about 100 years is all that's needed for HIV to mutate itself into oblivion.

Not a great plan for the infected i know, but basically waiting is the sure fire method for eradicating the virus.

Time or a vaccine. Small pox which was a very very slow mutater was finally eradicated when it couldn't find a host to replicate in. It's not gone but cases are very rare now.
Polio was eradicated in the same way. It too is still out there but finding a host is extremely rare.
Just one more reason to support vaccinations folks. Just saying...

Any time. I read a lot about viruses when the Ebola scare started. I tend to do that with news articles.
When Caylee Anthony was missing I read an awful lot about human decomposition. Yucky but now if someone asks about that hey I can say did you know... I kind of get a Cliff Claven reputation where ever I go. LOL.

A reply to: IShotMyLastMuse

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
a reply to: auroraaus

Weren't viruses supposed to become more powerful over time?
how's it that one of the most dangerous ones is working in the opposite way?
I need someone with high IQ points to break this down for me.
Makes it almost feel like the virus was born with an expiration date, and simply has too much mileage at this point...

There are a number of trade-offs. There's time to become infectious (hours, days, months, years), the chance of infecting another host (a probability ranging from 0.0 to infinity) and the health of the host (ranging from unaffected to drops dead instantly).

If the virus is so deadly that it kills it's host before the host becomes infectious, that isn't very successful. The infection rate is less than 1.0, so the virus dies out.

On the other side, the virus could become dormant for decades in the host, and only become occasionally become infectious. The infection rate is less than 1.0, so the virus still dies out.

But if the virus manages to remain active and infectious, while the host remains healthy, that is the perfect outcome. Then the virus remains active until all hosts have been infected. Something like the common cold or flu or a zombie outbreak.
Each hosts will successfully infect more than one other host. So the virus will spread and spread.

The critical number is the infection rate. If that is less than 1.0, the virus is bound to die off.

originally posted by: capragenus
It would seem that due to some immune systems that it comes into contact with the virus is attempting to evolve to 'outwit' their immune system. But this is coming at a cost. Yes it outwits the immune system but it lowers it's ability to replicate.

With this in mind if and when the virus is then transmitted to another person it has a reduced ability to replicate ultimately resulting in a slower progress to HIV.

The more immune systems it comes into contact with that it has to battle with means it can go either way. It can evolve to become or powerful or this can go wrong so to speak and it can get it right I.e. It wants to be able to do invade the cells easier. But it's then may not become good at replicating.

You make it sound like it sat down and had a think about the matter lol

Milder iteration of the virus????

There are some people that due to genetics get a slow acting HIV.

They have a copy of the CCR5-Δ32 variant gene.

People with two copies of the CCR5-Δ32 variant are immune to HIV.

en.wikipedia.org...-.CE.9432
www.sciencedaily.com...
www.delta-32.com...

a reply to: auroraaus

Good catch. F&S&

Diseases do become less deadly over time. Seems to have something to do with nature's push for cooperative integration and reciprocity.

originally posted by: stormcell

There are a number of trade-offs. There's time to become infectious (hours, days, months, years), the chance of infecting another host (a probability ranging from 0.0 to infinity) and the health of the host (ranging from unaffected to drops dead instantly).

Probability doesn't range from 0 to infinity. It ranges from 0 to 1. You can't have a 500% chance to catch the flu.

a reply to: andy06shake

Highly doubt - because the virus is still there and and will continue to be found in testing.