This is a cool idea for a possible cure of HIV, and it's great to see researchers trying it out. But from what I heard, CRISPR is quite ineffective: when you want to do gene edits with it, you often do it to cell cultures, then keep only those cells where it actually worked. CRISPR does the cutting only, and you rely on cell repair mechanisms to mend the parts together again: they can be mended in any way.
Also, the reservoir that makes HIV so tricky is in immune cells that are in a sleep state and only wake up every now and then: can the viral vector reach those?
Also important quote from the paper:
> The study was not designed to test the effect on the intact viral reservoir as EBT-001 was given when the viral reservoir was not stable and there was still active viral replication. Additionally, as animals were maintained on ART, we did not test the ability of EBT-001 to extend time to viral rebound or eliminate viral reactivation after an analytical treatment interruption.
I think yes from the article? The whole point of this therapy is to eliminate latent HIV from dormant cells that traditional small molecule retroviral therapy can't access.
> CRISPR does the cutting only, and you rely on cell repair mechanisms to mend the parts together again
But in this case, all we need is the cutting right because we don't care if the HIV survives the interaction.
You are out of date. CRISPR is extremely effective in live patients, usually packaged in a virus or lipid nano particle.
While CRISPR is often used in cultured cells (eg for CAR T therapies) there are CRISPR therapeutics in live human patients today in phase 3 trials for sickle cell disease (among other indications).
Wow this is super interesting! I’m just a layperson, but what’s interesting to me is that this seems distinct from past therapeutic uses of CRISPR that I am familiar with like CAR-T.
In CAR-T, we use CRISPR to modify immune cells so they know how to attack the target (cancer).
But in this approach, it seems more like we have created a new virus that uses CRISPR to directly edit and damage the SIV virus, which is nuts.
Most news is source from places that are not reputable, with a lot of the publishings recently going under extreme scrutiny the best a person can do is look at any CRISPR advancement with optimism and wait patiently till all collective facts are in.Just in case anyone gets too excited.
The source here is the journal Nature,[0] which is one of the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world (together with Science).
That being said, Nature publishes the highest impact papers, which often turn out to be wrong (or overstated). Still, this isn't some random news source trying to report about science.
0. I realized after commenting here that the journal is Gene Therapy, which is part of the Nature Publishing Group, rather than Nature itself.
Is this supposed to be a cure or a treatment? It seems like to be a cure it would have to catch every instance of the virus in the body, which seems like it would be hard
Is "eliminates" the right word here? My reading of the article abstract is that the treatment kills virus particles and in higher doses, the macaques showed increased white blood counts. But that's not to say that the monkeys are cured. Maybe "reduces viral load" might be a better phrasing?
It's quite possible that "eliminates" is not the right word, but I had a difficult time fitting all the relevant information into the title while remaining under HN's 80-character limit. The phrase that I would have preferred to use was "effectively removes".
"Approximately 9" participants seems surprisingly low. Although to be honest, if I were infected with HIV and on HAART, I think I would find it hard to justify to myself an experimental gene therapy when HAART is already pretty darn effective.
But maybe I would... my understanding is the impact on life expectancy is still there once you get older. My guess is the constraint is more regulatory/clinical than lack of demand.
No suggestion of "forged ethical review documents and misled doctors into unknowingly implanting gene-edited embryos" in this case, either.
> The field of gene editing will carry the hashtag #CRISPRbabies in the mind of the public for a period longer than He's sentence, and that is an additional crime he committed but was not formally charged with," says Fyodor Urnov, a CRISPR researcher at University of California, Berkeley
The intent of that scientist was to purportedly edit genes that made some people susceptible to some HIV infections so that the virus won't be acquired.
The intent in the OP is to remove virus genetics from infected cells' genomes with an existing HIV infection.
[+] [-] est31|2 years ago|reply
Also, the reservoir that makes HIV so tricky is in immune cells that are in a sleep state and only wake up every now and then: can the viral vector reach those?
Also important quote from the paper:
> The study was not designed to test the effect on the intact viral reservoir as EBT-001 was given when the viral reservoir was not stable and there was still active viral replication. Additionally, as animals were maintained on ART, we did not test the ability of EBT-001 to extend time to viral rebound or eliminate viral reactivation after an analytical treatment interruption.
[+] [-] whimsicalism|2 years ago|reply
I think yes from the article? The whole point of this therapy is to eliminate latent HIV from dormant cells that traditional small molecule retroviral therapy can't access.
> CRISPR does the cutting only, and you rely on cell repair mechanisms to mend the parts together again
But in this case, all we need is the cutting right because we don't care if the HIV survives the interaction.
Agreed on the quote
[+] [-] svsaraf|2 years ago|reply
While CRISPR is often used in cultured cells (eg for CAR T therapies) there are CRISPR therapeutics in live human patients today in phase 3 trials for sickle cell disease (among other indications).
[+] [-] thebears5454|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mycall|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soligern|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whimsicalism|2 years ago|reply
In CAR-T, we use CRISPR to modify immune cells so they know how to attack the target (cancer).
But in this approach, it seems more like we have created a new virus that uses CRISPR to directly edit and damage the SIV virus, which is nuts.
[+] [-] Sparkyte|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DiogenesKynikos|2 years ago|reply
That being said, Nature publishes the highest impact papers, which often turn out to be wrong (or overstated). Still, this isn't some random news source trying to report about science.
0. I realized after commenting here that the journal is Gene Therapy, which is part of the Nature Publishing Group, rather than Nature itself.
[+] [-] bawolff|2 years ago|reply
Is this supposed to be a cure or a treatment? It seems like to be a cure it would have to catch every instance of the virus in the body, which seems like it would be hard
[+] [-] soVeryTired|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kibwen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pomatius|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mouse_|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soligern|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whimsicalism|2 years ago|reply
"Approximately 9" participants seems surprisingly low. Although to be honest, if I were infected with HIV and on HAART, I think I would find it hard to justify to myself an experimental gene therapy when HAART is already pretty darn effective.
But maybe I would... my understanding is the impact on life expectancy is still there once you get older. My guess is the constraint is more regulatory/clinical than lack of demand.
[+] [-] ck2|2 years ago|reply
https://www.science.org/content/article/chinese-scientist-wh...
[+] [-] ben_w|2 years ago|reply
No suggestion of "forged ethical review documents and misled doctors into unknowingly implanting gene-edited embryos" in this case, either.
> The field of gene editing will carry the hashtag #CRISPRbabies in the mind of the public for a period longer than He's sentence, and that is an additional crime he committed but was not formally charged with," says Fyodor Urnov, a CRISPR researcher at University of California, Berkeley
[+] [-] heavyset_go|2 years ago|reply
The intent of that scientist was to purportedly edit genes that made some people susceptible to some HIV infections so that the virus won't be acquired.
The intent in the OP is to remove virus genetics from infected cells' genomes with an existing HIV infection.