"Gasping": Scientists Make Breakthrough Toward Full Cure for HIV
As The Guardian reports, scientists at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity in Melbourne found a way to make the HIV virus visible, potentially laying the groundwork for ways to banish it from the body altogether.
As detailed in a paper published in the journal Nature Communications, the team developed a way to send messenger RNA into cells, to root out the hiding virus by fully enveloping it in a bubble of formulated fat called lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). The genetic molecules then instruct the cells to make the virus visible.
Author and Doherty Institute research fellow Paula Cevaal told the Guardian that it was "previously thought impossible" to deliver mRNA into HIV-containing white blood cells. But thanks to a new type of LNPs, dubbed LNP X, the team found a way for these cells to accept the mRNA.
"Our hope is that this new nanoparticle design could be a new pathway to an HIV cure," she added.
The human immunodeficiency virus attacks the human body's immune system and can lead to deadly AIDS if left untreated. Despite decades of research, there's still no effective cure for the disease; though a handful of patients have been fully cured of HIV, the treatments remain brutally complex and expensive.
While the number of people in the United States living with HIV has decreased since 2018, over 39,000 new patients were diagnosed in 2023.
The latest research came with such surprising findings that the team didn't believe it at first.
"We were overwhelmed by how [much of a] night and day difference it was — from not working before, and then all of a sudden it was working. And all of us were just sitting gasping like, 'wow,'" Cevaal told the Guardian.
While it's a promising step in the right direction, scientists still have to figure out whether making the hidden virus visible will cause the body's immune system to deal with it. Other possibilities include developing new ways to combine their findings with other gene therapies to ultimately cure HIV.
Before the latest technique can be used in humans, it would also have to be put through its paces, from animal experiments to human safety trials, a process that could easily take many years.
And Cevaal appears to be realistic about those chances.
"In the field of biomedicine, many things eventually don't make it into the clinic — that is the unfortunate truth; I don't want to paint a prettier picture than what is the reality," she told the Guardian. "But in terms of specifically the field of HIV cure, we have never seen anything close to as good as what we are seeing, in terms of how well we are able to reveal this virus."
"So from that point of view, we're very hopeful that we are also able to see this type of response in an animal, and that we could eventually do this in humans," she added.
Beyond HIV, the researchers are hoping their LNP-based mRNA delivery method could be applied to other diseases as well, including certain types of cancer.
More on HIV: Religious Conservatives Trying to End Insurance Coverage of Incredibly Effective Anti-HIV Drug
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
4 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
The UN warns millions will die by 2029 if US funding for HIV programs isn't replaced
LONDON (AP) — Years of American-led investment into AIDS programs has reduced the number of people killed by the disease to the lowest levels seen in more than three decades and provided life-saving medicines for some of the world's most vulnerable. But in the last six months, the sudden withdrawal of U.S. money has caused a 'systemic shock,' U.N. officials warned, adding that if the funding isn't replaced, it could lead to more than 4 million AIDS-related deaths and 6 million more HIV infections by 2029. A new UNAIDS report released Thursday said the funding losses have 'already destabilized supply chains, led to the closure of health facilities, left thousands of health clinics without staff, set back prevention programs, disrupted HIV testing efforts and forced many community organizations to reduce or halt their HIV activities.' It also said that it feared other major donors scaled back their support, reversing decades of progress against AIDS worldwide — and that the strong multilateral cooperation is in jeopardy because of wars, geopolitical shifts and climate change. A 'lifeline' removed The $4 billion that the United States pledged for the global HIV response for 2025 disappeared virtually overnight in January, when U.S. President Donald Trump ordered that all foreign aid be suspended and later moved to shutter the U.S. AID agency . Andrew Hill, an HIV expert at the University of Liverpool who is not connected to the United Nations, said that while Trump is entitled to spend U.S. money as he sees fit, 'any responsible government would have given advance warning so countries could plan,' instead of stranding patients in Africa where clinics were closed overnight. The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR , was launched in 2003 by U.S. President George W. Bush, the biggest-ever commitment by any country focused on a single disease. UNAIDS called the program a 'lifeline' for countries with high HIV rates, and said that it supported testing for 84.1 million people, treatment for 20.6 million, among other initiatives. According to data from Nigeria, PEPFAR also funded 99.9% of the country's budget for medicines taken to prevent HIV. U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Angeli Achrekar, a UNAIDS deputy executive director who was PEPFAR's principal deputy coordinator until January 2023, said the program is under review by the Trump administration though Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a waiver 'to continue life-saving treatment.' ''The extent to which it will continue in the future, we don't know,' she told a video news conference with U.N. reporters in New York. 'We are cautiously hopeful that PEPFAR will continue to support both prevention and treatment services.' A gap impossible to fill In 2024, there were about 630,000 AIDS-related deaths worldwide, per a UNAIDS estimate — the figure has remained about the same since 2022 after peaking at about 2 million deaths in 2004. Even before the U.S. funding cuts, progress against curbing HIV was uneven. UNAIDS said that half of all new infections are in sub-Saharan Africa. Tom Ellman of Doctors Without Borders said that while some poorer countries were now moving to fund more of their own HIV programs, it would be impossible to fill the gap left by the U.S. 'There's nothing we can do that will protect these countries from the sudden, vicious withdrawal of support from the U.S.,' said Ellman, head of the group's South Africa medical unit. Experts also fear another significant loss — data. The U.S. paid for most HIV surveillance in African countries, including hospital, patient and electronic records, all of which has now abruptly ceased, according to Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Global Health Institute at Duke University. 'Without reliable data about how HIV is spreading, it will be incredibly hard to stop it,' he said. A new drug revives hope The uncertainty comes in the wake of a twice-yearly injectable that many hope could end HIV . Studies published last year showed that the drug from pharmaceutical maker Gilead was 100% effective in preventing the virus. At a launch event Thursday, South Africa's health minister Aaron Motsoaledi said the country would 'move mountains and rivers to make sure every adolescent girl who needs it will get it,' saying that the continent's past dependence upon US aid was 'scary.' Last month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug, called Yeztugo , a move that should have been a 'threshold moment' for stopping the AIDS epidemic, said Peter Maybarduk of the advocacy group Public Citizen. But activists like Maybarduk said Gilead's pricing will put it out of reach of many countries that need it. Gilead has agreed to sell generic versions of the drug in 120 poor countries with high HIV rates but has excluded nearly all of Latin America , where rates are far lower but increasing. 'We could be ending AIDS,' Maybarduk said. 'Instead, the U.S. is abandoning the fight.' ___ Associated Press writer Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP receives financial support for global health and development coverage in Africa from the Gates Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at . ___ A previous version of this story was corrected to show that the name of the drug is Yeztugo, not Sunlenca.
Los Angeles Times
6 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
U.S. aid cuts halt HIV vaccine research in South Africa, with global impact
JOHANNESBURG — Just a week had remained before scientists in South Africa were to begin clinical trials of an HIV vaccine, and hopes were high for another step toward limiting one of history's deadliest pandemics. Then the email arrived. Stop all work, it said. The United States under the Trump administration was withdrawing all its funding. The news devastated the researchers, who live and work in a region where more people live with HIV than anywhere else in the world. Their research project, called BRILLIANT, was meant to be the latest to draw on the region's genetic diversity and deep expertise in the hope of benefiting people everywhere. But the $46 million from the U.S. for the project was disappearing, part of the dismantling of foreign aid by the world's biggest donor earlier this year as President Trump announced a focus on priorities at home. South Africa has been hit especially hard because of Trump's baseless claims about the targeting of the country's white Afrikaner minority. The country had been receiving about $400 million a year via USAID and the HIV-focused PEPFAR. Now that's gone. Glenda Grey, who heads the Brilliant program, said the African continent has been vital to the development of HIV medication, and the U.S. cuts threaten its capability to do such work in the future. Significant advances have included clinical trials for lenacapavir, the world's only twice-a-year shot to prevent HIV, recently approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. One study to show its efficacy involved young South Africans. 'We do the trials better, faster and cheaper than anywhere else in the world, and so without South Africa as part of these programs, the world, in my opinion, is much poorer,' Gray said. She noted that during the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic, South Africa played a crucial role by testing the Johnson & Johnson and Novavax vaccines, and South African scientists' genomic surveillance led to the identification of an important variant. A team of researchers at the University of the Witwatersrand has been part of the unit developing the HIV vaccines for the trials. Inside the Wits laboratory, technician Nozipho Mlotshwa was among the young people in white gowns working on samples, but she may soon be out of a job. Her position is grant-funded. She uses her salary to support her family and fund her studies in a country where youth unemployment hovers around 46%. 'It's very sad and devastating, honestly,' she said of the U.S. cuts and overall uncertainty. 'We'll also miss out collaborating with other scientists across the continent.' Professor Abdullah Ely leads the team of researchers. He said the work had promising results indicating that the vaccines were producing an immune response. But now that momentum, he said, has 'all kind of had to come to a halt.' The BRILLIANT program is scrambling to find money to save the project. The purchase of key equipment has stopped. South Africa's health department says about 100 researchers for that program and others related to HIV have been laid off. Funding for postdoctoral students involved in experiments for the projects is at risk. South Africa's government has estimated that universities and science councils could lose about $107 million in U.S. research funding over the next five years due to the aid cuts, which affect not only work on HIV but also tuberculosis — another disease with a high number of cases in the country. South Africa's government has said it will be very difficult to find funding to replace the U.S. support. And now the number of HIV infections will grow. Medication is more difficult to obtain. At least 8,000 health workers in South Africa's HIV program have already been laid off, the government has said. Also gone are the data collectors who tracked patients and their care, as well as HIV counselors who could reach vulnerable patients in rural communities. For researchers, Universities South Africa, an umbrella body, has applied to the national treasury for over $110 million for projects at some of the largest schools. During a visit to South Africa in June, UNAIDS executive director Winnie Byanyima was well aware of the stakes, and the lives at risk, as research and health care struggle in South Africa and across Africa at large. Other countries that were highly dependent on U.S. funding including Zambia, Nigeria, Burundi and Ivory Coast are already increasing their own resources, she said. 'But let's be clear, what they are putting down will not be funding in the same way that the American resources were funding,' Byanyima said. Magome writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writer Michelle Gumede in Johannesburg contributed to this report.
The Hill
8 hours ago
- The Hill
Promising technologies are not yet ready to replace animal research
A recent op-ed in The Hill praising the National Institutes of Health's new initiative to promote human-based technologies as a 'major victory for animal ethics in science' oversimplifies a far more complex research landscape. While the piece correctly identifies growing support and development of innovative, non-animal approaches, it is misleading in its framing and overstates what this federal initiative actually signals about the future of animal research. Animal studies remain essential to both basic and translational science. From mapping brain circuitry to developing life-saving vaccines, the use of animal models has helped scientists uncover core biological mechanisms and test therapies with a degree of whole-organism complexity that no alternative system can yet match. Research involving animals has been directly responsible for major advances in treating cancer, HIV/AIDS, diabetes and countless other diseases. To suggest that NIH is ready to 'leave outdated animal experiments behind' is to paint an unrealistic picture of the current scientific landscape. It implies that non-animal alternatives are fully capable of replacing animal studies across the board. In reality, these technologies — while exciting and valuable — are still evolving and have significant limitations. This kind of oversimplification does a disservice not only to the scientific community but also to public understanding. Non-animal research methods such as organ-on-a-chip platforms, computational models and 3D bioprinting hold great promise. They offer different ways to model disease, study mechanisms of action and even predict certain aspects of human physiology. But they are not yet equipped to serve as wholesale replacements for animal research. Instead, they are powerful complementary tools that can be used alongside traditional models to enrich our understanding and refine research methods. This oversimplification misleads people into believing that animal and non-animal model research is either-or, when in most cases, these models work together to address different angles of a research question. Consider Emulate's liver chip. This sophisticated model includes four types of human liver cells and has demonstrated promising applications in toxicology and disease modeling. However, the human liver contains at least seven essential cell types, and critical components are missing from the liver chip. This means the model currently lacks the complexity needed to reliably replicate diseases that affect the entire liver, let alone multiple systems. While the technology shows potential, a recent study demonstrates that there are clear limitations, including the inability to perform long-term studies due to challenges in sustaining human liver cells over time. This is just one example of how non-animal models, although deserving of federal support, still have considerable progress to make before they can completely replace animals — a concept acknowledged by the developers of these technologies. Public trust in science has declined in recent years, leaving the research community with a responsibility to communicate scientific issues with clarity, honesty and appropriate context. However, comparing funding levels for animal models versus non-animal models is an ineffective and misleading way to provide transparency. Funding levels fluctuate from year to year for various reasons, including shifting priorities, new projects and the start or natural conclusion of existing studies. Public reporting of these numbers without further context fails to reflect the true complexity, value and potential outcomes of research. Instead, scientists should take opportunities to discuss the goals of their research, the rationale behind the methods and study design and how funding supports the broader mission of improving human and animal health. Using a variety of models helps to ensure that the best research is being done to benefit patients and their families. While organ-on-a-chip and other non-animal technologies show promise, their limitations prevent them from being a full replacement for many animal models. The development of non-animal methods should not come at the expense of the existing established models that still require animals. To sustain scientific progress and drive the next wave of medical breakthroughs, agencies like NIH should focus on funding the best research possible with the most appropriate available models. Alissa Hatfield, MS, is a science policy manager for the American Physiological Society. Naomi Charalambakis, Ph.D., is the director of communications and science policy at Americans for Medical Progress.
