NIH Scientists Identify Potent Antibody that Neutralizes Nearly All HIV Strains

Wonderful developments have just unfolded at the National Institute of Health. The researchers have made a breakthrough with a 98% effectiveness against the HIV. Human trials in a year or so I hope. Finally, medical science throws us a bone.

Scientists from the National Institutes of Health have identified an antibody from an HIV-infected person that potently neutralized 98 percent of HIV isolates tested, including 16 of 20 strains resistant to other antibodies of the same class. The remarkable breadth and potency of this antibody, named N6, make it an attractive candidate for further development to potentially treat or prevent HIV infection, say the researchers.

Identifying broadly neutralizing antibodies against HIV has been difficult because the virus rapidly changes its surface proteins to evade recognition by the immune system. In 2010, scientists at NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center (VRC) discovered an antibody called VRC01 that can stop up to 90 percent of HIV strains from infecting human cells. Like VRC01, N6 blocks infection by binding to a part of the HIV envelope called the CD4 binding site, preventing the virus from attaching itself to immune cells.

ARTICLE:
J Huang, BH Kang, E Ishida, T Zhou et al. Identification of a CD4-binding site antibody to HIV that evolved near-pan neutralization breadth. Immunity DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.10.027 (2016).

WHO:
NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., is available to comment on the research. Mark Connors, M.D., chief of the HIV-Specific Immunity Section in NIAID’s Laboratory of Immunoregulation and the senior author of the paper, also is available.

The research team included scientists from NIAID’s Laboratory of Immunoregulation and Vaccine Research Center.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Excellent news. I used to intern in an AIDSclinic back in the 90s. We have come a long way since thise days.

i do not know why we keep hearing about potential treatments or cures, for years now, yet they cannot declare victory on this dreaded virus?

why do drug companies come out and say 'we have a cure' and then there is no cure?

a reply to: dantanna

No research team has come out and said "we have a cure".

What happens is the press like a good "man bites dog" story and overegg exploratory studies that sound promising but are far too immature to extrapolate from (of which most lead to research dead ends for a variety of reasons).

"Scientists find that XYZ might possibly be used as an effective treatment for HIV 15 years down the line" is not as attention grabbing as "SCIENTISTS CURE AIDS? CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT!".

originally posted by: dantanna
i do not know why we keep hearing about potential treatments or cures, for years now, yet they cannot declare victory on this dreaded virus?

why do drug companies come out and say 'we have a cure' and then there is no cure?

It's the medical researchers that say "we have a possible cure" and then it's the medical companies' job to find a way to isolate and replicate the antibody. This is not always easy. Once they find a way to replicate the antibody, they need to find the best delivery method, usually through massive testing. Then the patent seeking process begins. After these tests and patents are done, the FDA has to approve the drug.

Each step of the way can take weeks, months, years.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Nice find I showed the thread to one of our ID people and once I cut through all of his ID'Speak it may also be quite effective against other viral illnesses as well with a bit more research and perhaps some tweaking. HIV may be the tip of the iceberg.

It also may help transplant patients as well given that we have to make the immuno compromised to keep them from rejecting the donor organ.

CD4 cells are also known as T4 or Helper T's are part of the immune system or white blood cells. They help by chemically signaling other cells to attack invaders. They are kind of like a cellular Paul Revere , shouting "Influenza is coming, influenza is coming". HIV is particularly nasty because it targets the helper T's thus blunting the immune response.

Due to its potency, N6 may offer stronger and more durable prevention and treatment benefits, and researchers may be able to administer it subcutaneously (into the fat under the skin) rather than intravenously. In addition, its ability to neutralize nearly all HIV strains would be advantageous for both prevention and treatment strategies.

NIAID article. Also being reported at ScienceDaily (basically the same PR from NAID).

Wow that is good news! A lasting administration of the antibody over a sustained period of time is better than one shot in an IV line!

They also traced how the antibody evolved to cope with the HIV virus changes. That will help in possible other viruses that change (like the flu).

Nice news for once! S+F

Don't be surprised if this "ground-breaking" science is covered up

a reply to: FredT

When we look at the potential to treat other illnesses, I grow concerned. I know I watch too many movies, but many plagues, pandemic's, and even zombie outbreaks have stemmed from miracle treatments. I don't know enough about this level of medicine to know any better though. It all sounds very complicated to me as I read it. But I respect the NIH, and hope they will strive as hard as possible to make this treatment a reality someday soon.

originally posted by: JJjumpman23
Don't be surprised if this "ground-breaking" science is covered up

That's some lazy conspiratorial logic you got there.

originally posted by: JJjumpman23
Don't be surprised if this "ground-breaking" science is covered up

If that was the case then why go to all this trouble to publish? I assume your " " are facetious? It is ground breaking in the way they are targeting the virus.

The old frontal assault against the virus never worked so they have gotten creative and tried to target it in other ways like this approach which protects the immune system........

a reply to: FredT

I still do not understand he science behind it too much. Is this working like a back door, or sticking to a layer that is vulnerable inside the virus??

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: FredT

I still do not understand he science behind it too much. Is this working like a back door, or sticking to a layer that is vulnerable inside the virus??

LOl please don't think I understand it either. But my simplistic understanding is this. Instead of targeting the virus, it interferes with HIV's ability to target the T4 cells. If the T4's are kept intact, the immune system has a chance at killing the virus before it can defeat the immune system.

a reply to: FredT

woah, that would mean the body itself would create an immunity to it after it is defeated right?? Whoa man this is a bigger deal than I initially realized. We talking maybe even a possible vaccine??

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I don't know if the Immune system would create a Memory T cell following this kind of encounter but it stands to reason it might