Research on the effectiveness of HIV vaccines in humans are near the beginning; and there are others that may arise in 2017!
HIV vaccine is in the field of research today, in 2016, probably his most fertile period and diverse, abundant and prolific these days, 2016 years, the search for vaccine against the Human Immunodeficiency Virus inII Research for Prevention conference (HIVR4P)as it was said in Chicago last week. A high proportion of presentations was dedicated to the multitude of different approaches that scientists are using in making a reliable and effective vaccine. At the opening plenary, Georgia Tomaras ofDuke University, North Carolina, USA, Gave an overview of the field. It was a long way for the development of vaccines effectively, even partially, the first test of any kind of vaccine was 1987 and the first large efficacy trial -failed- It was in 2003. Butthe RV144 vaccine, Which showed 2009limited effectivenessReducing infections by 31% of the subjects, injected new vitality in the field. This was not least because its effectIt appears to conduct an unexpected immune response to HIV.
During the International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2016) held in Durban in July was said that a pilot study, HVTN100, a Type-RV144 vaccine adapted to the predominant strain in South Africapresented evidence of a stronger immune response to the presence of HIV. This meant that it had been locupletada the initial target, reaching criteriato move toward a larger study to verify this effectiveness in more people, It will start inNovember two thousand and sixteen-the first efficacy study and that will last seven years, sinceHVTN 505 which was started in July 2009. (Translator's note: You have to have hope, but we also need to act with caution A staggered information can take hundreds, even thousands of people to an unwanted destination.).
How immune responses always surprise us!
There is a vaccine that surprises and very surprised researchers, and yet, it was found that the immune response seen in HVTN100 presented a kind of response has not been seen in RV144. In this study, the antibodies of the type called immunoglobulin G (IgG) appeared protective, although they do the work of attacking HIV or infected cells, but interestingly, stimulating antibodies which do not neutralize HIV, on the other hand induces the system immune to mount a general attack on HIV.
A second type of antibody, immunoglobulin-likeA (IgA), proved decidedly unhelpful and eventually become a factor correlated to an increase in infection rate.Editor's note: In short, it worked against us, "delivering", as they say on the streets and in life, "gold for the bad guys."
Now the researchers found a subtype of the IgG called IgG3 that improves immunity further reacting against two specific parts of two "ends" of the protein "viral envelope". This type of responseIt has not been seen in RV144 but was observed in HVTN 100- And this is a very positive sign.
However, when the subject of research with the RV144 were revaccinated, they were given one dose of vaccine
to make observations and studies for up to six years of reactions IgG3They began to appear. What was narrated here and the cytomegalovirus vaccine (CMV) (see below) implies that an effective HIV vaccine could involve the onset of immunity against HIV, even in childhood, which could be reinforced with another dose in adolescence.
Tomaras, the researcher stressed the multidimensional complexity of the type of immune response that researchers want to induce. There are three spectra immune response,antibody responseThe cellular response andinnate responseand in each case these responses vary bytype, through theforceand forformrelating to the scope of these responses; vaccine would need to work against the most different strains of HIV).
"Vector, Primary and Amplificantes"
There are a number of choices that are placed before the vaccine manufacturers. The RV144 and subsequent studies have shown that an HIV vaccine may work best if applied as two types of jab (translator's note: Jab is in the box, an art almost forgotten because of the current brutalities and monstrosities shows within a "cage".), a "primary(Jab)"Usually consist of HIV genes incorporated into the capsid"a kind of another virus envelope"Followed by a" magnifier "(the hook), usually consisting of HIV proteins" laid bare "and harmless. If you want to know more see the video on YouTube:Box Basics (Opens in another tab); and if you would like to see how I mentalizo, for one day, our MH antibodiesthat acabação with this virus, invest 5 minutes of your life and said antibody see here The link opens in another tab.
So far these have been applied in certain dosages of three to four doses over a year, although clearly see that it would be best to find a vaccine that would be effective with a smaller number of doses.
The pharmaceutical company Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, has an ambitious research program to develop a vaccineprime-boostYou can act against a wide variety of HIV strains. The company Hanneke Schuitermaker told the conference that Janssen apply two or more doses of a vaccinefirstan antigen osaic"(Translator's note: there is nothing about the OSAIC entry: Research -osaic antigen- Did not match results) Consisting of gene sequences from a variety of different HIV strains in a viral envelope (usually an adenovirus similar to the common cold) and following amplification with two doses containing proteincapsid. So far their best vaccine regimen produced a 94% reduction in viral infections in a study with monkeys and 66% from six viral attacks.
Janssen has a study calledAPPROACH (another window automatically translated)(Approach), seven different vaccine schemes underway in 400 volunteers in the United States, Rwanda, Uganda, South Africa and Thailand. And there are also two other tests called TRAVERSE and ASCENT with 348 volunteers in all, comparing two different spectra of HIV viral strains. These are pilot studies and, as with HVTN100 if there is good immune responses by the end of this year's study APPROACH and mid-2017 from APPROACH and TRAVERSE, decisions as to which of these studies will be taken could generate a vaccine with greater efficacy in the study, in this case, which one. (HUH)
"Teaching the body to manufacture antibodies"
This is a Infographic the human body. Take a look at this, it might be interesting
The vetor- strategy> primária-> e> amplifier is not universal. Some "primary" vaccinesDNA exposed to HIVWhich would be easier and cheaper than a vector vaccine, the challenge here would be in which cells. Other vaccine would prime / impulsion scheme that could pose a fully effective strategy.
A major problem with antibodies is that although the body produce, in many cases, highly adapted and unusual antibodies, which are called "broadly neutralizing" and eliminate viruses that infect people and
They can therefore be used as a kind of "high-tech weapon" as"Long term prep",applied via infusion), once in the body develop immunity to them, the various strains of HIV, within a few weeks, and it would be like trying to stay ahead in a rush to arms that usually HIV has expired since it began in mid-1996, the application of antiretroviral Therapy -ART-.
Dennis Burton of the Scripps Institute in La Jolla, California and Stephen Kent of the University of Melbourne both spoke in separate presentations on the development of versions mais immunogenic HIVinvolving strict exposure of proteins that mimicwhich the immune system actually "sees"an infection. This was made possible, in recent years, using micro-manipulation techniques to obtain gp120 surface protein (viral) to actually bend in pairs and trios of proteins called "dimers and trimers", which is the receptor on the surface of HIV the immune system must"look"Instead of using unfolded protein capsid of HIV.
The researchers induced broadly neutralizing antibody responses using these techniques, but the antibodies have shown a frustrating tendency to react against "wrong spots" of the protein envelope,the capsid, And connect the "holes" in the protection ofglucose moleculessurrounding the protein rather than directly evolve to attach to the protein itself. But obtaining cells capable of producing broadly neutralizing antibodies to all strains of HIV, as a response to a vaccine, is already a major breakthrough.
Another strategy is to get ahead of the arms race and make a vaccine that 'mimics', before the immune system, the actions of visa adapted viruses in chronic infection, Thereby inducing the body to manufacture broadly neutralizing antibodies without the provision of HIV infection.
Christopher Parks of the International Initiative for an AIDS vaccine (IAVI) has introduced programs to develop particles similar to those of HIV that would be as 'live vectors' that would spread from cell to cell and generate what it would seem, to the immune system as a ongoing HIV infection. So far, they used a benign virus called VSV (vesicular stomatitis virus) as the protection of the live vector. Studies in monkeys have shown only a "short delay" in HIV infection and there is, however, a correlation between weak antibody response and very fast infection.
But they are trying to develop virus particles and "stronger", including coated with the HIV protein
itself and an envelope coated with a capsid derived from Ebola virus. As these really are not viruses, they would probably harmless, though evident and clearly biosafety studies will have to be made.
The vaccine that nobody expected and surprised!
Although most researchers since have focused on increasing RV144 antibodies, which should prevent infection in the first place; at least one conventional vaccine based on a vector of CMV virus that aims to produce a strong response of the immune cells, which would not necessarily stop stop HIV infection, but to contain it or even put it into permanent remission.
This is based vaccine in CMV- Opens in another tab - produced by Louis Picker in Oregon, USA, whichcaused great excitementthree years ago, when she seemed to have healed completely, 55% of a group of monkeys placed as subjects of surgery. CMV is another vector of "live" that mimics the spread of true HIV infection. The monkeys developed infections when infected with SIV, the simian equivalent of HIV, but responded harshly to the presence of infection and peakviral loadthese monkeys were very low and, optionally, the virus disappeared completely. Picker said they have now played the same results in many other monkeys. Furthermore, the effect seems quite persistent; when re-exposed to new infections by SIV in periods of 2 to 6 years after their initial infection and 3 to 7 years after vaccination, 80% of the monkeys that originally offered a good response were still protected from SIV through vaginal delivery and 56 % by rectally.
You can ignore all the words in green. It is an explanation about my certain "editorial policy that I would rate as when little,"stunt ".
I make an aside here: Note that all these tests speak in terms of at least 6 years. This has dismantles the "promise" of amfAR, thea cure for 2020!
It is foolhardy (pardon the bad word) throw in unprotected sex of any nature, to believe that "the cure will appear soon" and, therefore, re-share "equipment" for injecting drug use. I think the ideal is not to use drugs, with this and other"Exceptions"correlated, and yet, if it is to use injectable drugs, please !!!!! Do not share needles and syringes!
People who come to this site, I know what I hear and read every day by people who, for one reason or another, and, in general, most of it is composed of people of both sexes and a very wide range of "sexual visions" in great despair not knowing if they can or can not believe that his "non-reactive" is real and other questions, in particular, those who discover patients, some already achieved byopportunistic diseasesin situations several times outright (test yourself, ignoring a problem does not solve the issue and, on the contrary, it tends to worsen it) ...
The vaccine based on CMV does not work by producing antibodies: it stimulates cells to kill infected cells, and that's why "sniffs" ongoing infections, unlike others, that prevent infection. When Parker's team analyzed the results, they found a completely new type of immune response. infected cells typically exhibit the points of viral proteins they contain on their surface, such as distress beacons. The "raising". (Translator's note: The original is "flagpoles" seems to be an idiomatic expression and melhos response I received came from Google translator who responded with "masts" I decided to "hoist", which is what seems to happen to. cell, which hoisted a 'flag' and shows the identity of the attacker or offender). What it is to a large extraneous variables recognition proteins called MHC or MHC 1a 2 (MHC class meanshistocompatibility). These classically serve as a warning to the CD4 cells send "reinforcements" for the purpose of killing compromised cells as well as an early warning system composed of proteins that attract CD8 cells to kill the virus in infected cells directly.
The vaccine, which is making use CMV vector as produced responses 2 MHC class, and also raised a completely different type of immune response to molecules MHC class E. These alert the innate immune system and natural killer cells (NK is a cell of the immune system which acts as an agent state that systematically checks every cell in the body in search of problematic cells or hazardous - such as may arise as a polyp in the intestine, which could via give a cancer - and kills them or order them to be a suicideapoptosis(Open in another tab). This answer was never seen to this day - either in a vaccine or, strangely, the natural CMV infection.
What the researchers found was that by happy chance the CMV strain used to make the vector had two missing crucial genes. It was only when both genes were excluded that CMV stimulated response with MHC-E. Furthermore, although responses vary the natural MHC an animal to another animal compared, there were some specific responses to SIV genes itself, in all animals - which wants from a "broad spectrum vaccine ".Translator's Note: The original text refers to "broad-brush vaccine," and the broad-brush expression is virtually untranslatable probably an idiom whose best definition was:very general and without many detailsWhich in free translation would be "very widespread and without many details ". I found myself forced to interpret and, for better understanding, think of a US citizen who was learning to speak Portuguese and were called "to participate in a kitty ...")
Parker's team is trying to develop vaccines with human CMV range. Human CMV has genes that are analogous to the two missing genes in CMV that infects rhesus monkeys and the big question is whether the human vector will produce the same immune response, with such effective action. A dose escalation study is scheduled and will seek to obtain, with the CMV acting as a vector and it is expected that produces a more conventional response of responses with MHC-1a and 2, and if this attempt is successful will to seek by stimulating a response of an MHC-E.
A major problem remains: the vaccine only worked consistently in about 55% of the monkeys, and so far, there seems to be a form of pre-say what will be the monkeys have this answer and which ones will not. Louis Picker toldAIDSMAP.COMthe difference is probably caused by the way the CMV generates a rapid immune response and whether it is able to stop the SIV / HIV infection before they become systemic and spread throughout the body. What determines the speed of response is still unknown, but it may mean that the vaccine carried by CMV, which would have to be combined with an antibody vaccine for an answer with better efficiency. As with other vaccines, the difference between success and failure is whether the immune response can stay one step ahead of HIVthe arms racebetween the virus and the human body.
Reviewed by Claudio Souza (if any typos or spelling, consider my dyslexia accompanied a rather long peripheral neuropathy ... and tell me this Claudio Souza- Please note that your email client creates a message with the subject already. Please keep this subject, because I have a specific rule in my email client and yao allows a sound to play and a visual warning as well. In this way I will have the opportunity to resolve "the thing" as soon as possible. Thank you )
A very interesting video for those interested in the body. On the basis of my survival and also with regard to the Mara, is the knowledge we have of our bodies and a constant and diurnal observation of the behavior of our bodies (...)
This is just a brief summary of some of the presentations on the development of a vaccine in HIVR4P conference. Many more studies can be explored by the book summary viewhere, The webcastshere, And the postershere.
Tomaras G. Overview of the humoral and cellular immune response to HIV vaccination. Plenary explanation. Conference Research HIV prevention (HIVR4P 2016), Chicago, plenary presentation 01 / 02, 2016.See the webcast here.
Schuitermaker H. In toward a vaccine against HIV: (pre) clinical-evaluation of Prime-Boost schemes Using Ad26 and MVA with mosaic antigens and soluble proteins Gp140 ... explanation session to the plenary. Conference Research HIV prevention (HIVR4P 2016), Chicago, plenary presentation SY01.03, 2016.see the webcast here.
Burton D. progress based on neutralizing antibodies against HIV vaccine. Search Conference for the prevention of HIV (HIVR4P 2016), Chicago, plenary presentation in 03.01, 2016.See the webcast here.
C. Parks et al. Protection rectal SHIV infection induced by mucosal immunization with a VSV-HIV replication Chimeric Env-Trimers authority showing the immune system. Conference Research HIV prevention (HIVR4P 2016), Chicago, presentation at SY01.02, 2016 symposium.See the webcast here.
Picker L. Development of a vaccine based on cytomegalovirus action as "organic delivery vehicle. Conference on Research for HIV prevention, Chicago, Presentation at simpóso SY06.03, 2016.See the webcast here.