

HIV virus used to turn white blood cells into cancer serial killers - ukdm
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/hiv-virus-used-to-turn-white-blood-cells-into-cancer-serial-killers-20110811/

======
hvs
To clarify, the modified HIV virus in this case was used as a vector to
deliver an antibody specific to the cancer onto a T-cell. The T-cell then goes
on to destroy the cancer. HIV is one of the most efficient vectors for genes.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_vector>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lentivirus>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimeric_antigen_receptor>

<http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1103849>

EDIT: Also note that the HIV vector is used to modify the T-cell _before_ it
is inserted into the human. The HIV is never actually inserted into the human
(in this case).

~~~
amitutk
Such viral vectors are routinely used in the lab to knock in a variety of
genes in the cell. Vector is really the packaging. What was important in the
study was the actual antigen which has packaged in the vector.

~~~
hvs
Without a doubt. I was only commenting on the HIV vector because there are so
many that say, "What the hell?" when they hear "HIV."

~~~
zacharycohn
I know I did, until I read further into the article.

------
checoivan
This is incredibly good news. So many researchers have been looking for a way
to alter the inmmune system to target cancer, and it's surprising (but also
makes sense) that the solution seems to be around HIV. It's this kind of out
of the box thinking that pushes forward.

And this: "this small trial involving just three patients was lucky to go
ahead at all. The study was rejected by pharamceutical companies and the
National Cancer Institute.".

There's a very good talk on TEDMed from David Agus, about proteomics and
cancer research. He bubbles up a similar concern about limitations of clinical
trials.

[http://www.ted.com/talks/david_agus_a_new_strategy_in_the_wa...](http://www.ted.com/talks/david_agus_a_new_strategy_in_the_war_on_cancer.html)

~~~
cma
His graph with heart disease, etc. is misleading; if we have made all those
reductions in those areas and cancer deaths have remained the same, we have
obviously made progress in cancer as well: since less people are dying of the
other stuff, they have a greater chance of eventually contracting cancer.

~~~
checoivan
I agree you could argue that. But rather than crunching numbers, I think his
point was to illustrate the state of some cancer treatments today. How despite
of everything and all advances in medicine,we still need to make HUGE
improvements in cancer.

For example, pancreatic cancer. Prognosis is 20% 1 year survival and five-year
rate is 4%. The best approved treatment so far is Gemzar, which was introduced
in the early 80's. It's improve rate over other chemos was that it works in
23% of the patients, and improves the median survival to 5.65 months compared
to 4.41 months with 5-flu chemo.

Over 20 years and some of the best we got is +1.2 months and for only 23% of
the patients. That's what he's pushing for and I support,improving this rates.

In the end It's not about crunching numbers and making one disease or other
look better tackled. It's about having hope for all this people and know
something can be done, instead of staring at such a grim prognosis.

------
sliceof314
It's awesome to see one shitty thing in life being used to get rid of another
shitty thing in life.

~~~
nvictor
gold.

------
cschmidt
More comments here <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873604>

------
jsmcgd
This is very exciting. Anyone have any thoughts on the extensibility of this
to treating other cancers?

~~~
JunkDNA
The main issue is that for this to work, you need to know specifically what
antigen you're targeting on the tumor cells. Think of the antigen as a unique
tag that the immune system can use to differentiate cells (a "natural key" if
you will). In the majority of cancers we haven't got a clue as to what we
should use as for an antigen (though it's not an insurmountable probelem).
However, with leukemia they can use CD-19 which is found exclusively on the
surface of normal and cancerous B-cells. The last thing you want is an antigen
that "looks" like something common, so CD-19 apparently fits the bill there as
well. If you choose something non-specific, then the immune system can go
after all kinds of other tissue that you don't want it to which could very
likely kill the patient.

All that being said, targeted therapy like this is probably the future of
cancer treatment, but it's going to take tremendous effort to work out all the
kinks. The immune system is ferociously complex, and is still poorly
understood. However, it does have the advantage of being battle tested
throughout evolution.

~~~
jsmcgd
Thanks for the reply. Just while you're here, I was wondering if I could ask
another question. Am I right in thinking that they used the HIV virus to
'program' the white blood cells? And if so, in the future might it be possible
to reprogram the cancer cells themselves? Perhaps the virus could 'patch' the
broken/missing DNA?

As you can tell, I'm horrifically ignorant on the topic but I would be
grateful if you could indulge me :)

~~~
simcop2387
While it may be possible in theory to patch/fix the cancer cells, you'd need a
virus that can target them specifically. In the case of using HIV here, it's
because it's so efficient at getting into the immune system that it can be
used as a vector to reprogram it. I've got to imagine that other "super
viruses" could be used in a similar manner if they also target things so well.

------
MatthewPhillips
> has been experimenting with using a harmless version of the HIV virus

I wasn't aware such a thing exists. Anyone care to elaborate? Is it harmless
or probably harmless?

~~~
Dan_Nguyen
It's very harmless. Obviously there's a good number more technical details in
here, but the gist of it is we take the parts of the HIV virus that makes it
so good at proliferating, take out the genetic material that makes it harmful
to our cells, and put in our own genetic information for the HIV-derived virus
to inject into our target cells (known as a viral vector).

Contrary to the mental connotation, it's a very harmless procedure that's
often used even in BSL-2 labs. It's not to say that there aren't risks
involved, but chances are you're not going to end up with AIDs.

HIV-derived lentiviruses have been in use for a long time now and are a proven
research tool. Coincidentally I just grew and harvested a new batch of
lentiviruses this past Tuesday to treat cancer cells with shRNA.

------
ryusage
The results of this sound amazing, but the article is frustratingly vague
about what role the HIV virus plays. The interviews in the video don't mention
it at all. I think most people will assume the patient is being infected with
some variation of the virus, which seems rather scary, but it doesn't sound
like that's the case.

Since the emphasis is on genetically modifying white blood cells and injecting
them back into the patient, which doesn't seem to need a virus as a delivery
mechanism, I'm guessing the HIV's role is somewhere in the genetic
modification?

~~~
simcop2387
From what I've seen in other places what was done is, they took some of the
patients T-Cells, and altered them. They did this by taking the RNA out of
some HIVs and replaced it instead with a sequence to look for a specific
antigen on the cancer cells. Then they took the HIVs and introduced them to
the T-Cells and let them get infected. Since the original nasty RNA wasn't
present, it won't replicate, but it will make some T-Cells that target the
antigen on the cancer cells. After reintroducing to the patient, their immune
systems then pick up from other signals that we don't full understand that
some T-Cells are attacking this antigen, so it should make more of them.

------
ColinWright
Also discussed at great length over here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873604>

This is a good example of the same story, not cross-connected, getting split
discussions.

------
starpilot
I'm the first to notice (or care)... "HIV virus"? Department of Redundancy
Department?

~~~
jmreid
Like GPS System? The acronym takes on a life of it's own as a 'word'.

~~~
duck
Is GPS System common? That looks and sounds weird to me.

~~~
jmreid
Sure, I've heard it said more than seen it written. Especially on news
stories: "the car was tracked using the GPS system", etc.

------
artursapek
I love the idea of disarming one virus and brainwashing it to kill another. I
wonder how long it is before cancer is eradicated.

~~~
jjtheblunt
Forever: cancers are not eradicable unless evolution and mutation and gene
expression from adverse environments and ... are all eradicable.

That's a different thing than assessing if a certain instance of cancer is
itself curable in a certain afflicted host. Perhaps it is worth hoping for
that.

------
jhamburger
"Good news, we found a way to treat your cancer."

"Great! What is it?"

"We're going to give you AIDS."

"..."

~~~
piotrSikora
You didn't read the article, did you?

