Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientists Image an HIV Particle Being Born

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the begotten-in-dire-woe dept.

Biotech 129

FiReaNGeL alerts us to a huge development in virology and microscopy: by using a specialized microscope that only illuminates a cell's surface, scientists at Rockefeller University have watched, in real time, hundreds of thousands of molecules coming together in a living cell to form a single particle of HIV-1. A video is available on Rockefeller's front page. "By zeroing in at the cell's surface, the team became the first to document the time it takes for each HIV particle, or virion, to assemble: five to six minutes. 'At first, we had no idea whether it would take milliseconds or hours,' says Jouvenet. 'We just didn't know.' 'This is the first time anyone has seen a virus particle being born,' says Bieniasz, who is an associate professor and head of the Laboratory of Retrovirology at Rockefeller and a scientist at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center. 'Not just HIV,' he clarifies, 'any virus.'"

cancel ×

129 comments

A viral video... (5, Funny)

Tarcastil (832141) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538217)

A viral video that benefits science?

Only one problem (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538257)

This video was made by the US military 20 years ago when they were developing HIV.

Re:Only one problem (1)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538641)

President Reagan and those white JellyBellies that Nancy kept giving him. It all comes down to that.

Re:Only one problem (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538851)

It took Reagan until 1987 to give his first speech on AIDS. Neither he nor Nancy gave a shit about the disease, but they could probably give a dissertation about Jelly Bellies. It was just the gay disease and it didn't affect normal people. Normal people care about Jelly Bellies and not gay cancer. It wasn't until 'normal' people started getting the disease that he allowed decent emergency funding for it. Fuck Reagan. Half a million Americans are dead due to his homophobia.

Re:Only one problem (1)

IrritableBeing (1281212) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539031)

So you're saying the gays created AIDS?

Re:Only one problem (2, Insightful)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539181)

Half a million would still be dead if he weren't a homophobe.
Blood transfusions aside, AIDS is still a preventable condition.

Re:Only one problem (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23539307)

No, his failure to address the AIDS crisis didn't give people the information that they needed to know that they were at risk. AIDS exploded because there was no campaign in effect that told people how they could protect themselves.

Re:Only one problem (1, Troll)

tylernt (581794) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539741)

No, his failure to address the AIDS crisis didn't give people the information that they needed to know that they were at risk. AIDS exploded because there was no campaign in effect that told people how they could protect themselves.
Yeah, because people are far too stupid to realize that they can get diseases from having unprotected sex or sharing needles. Never would have figured that out on my own.

Re:Only one problem (1, Troll)

beckerist (985855) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539945)

Evolution at work. Wear a condom.

Re:Only one problem (1)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540055)

You know what, kids? It didn't used to kill you. That's one for your generation.

Re:Only one problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23540907)

The death rate from STD's before modern antibiotics are about the same rate as it is today.

Re:Only one problem (5, Insightful)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540275)

Not stupid, ignorant. Both ignorance and HIV are preventable, and the US government is chartered with the task of protecting their citizens. Instead of allowing equally ignorant religious right backers to make a lot of hay about the gay disease, Reagan should have done his job and used the resources of the US government to protect citizens through education.

You moral values are fucked up. You fail to recognize that ignorance is deadly. You fail to recognize that education is a moral value that should be held in reverence. You fail to recognize that human beings should not be treated like political footballs.

Re:Only one problem (1, Insightful)

DavidM01 (1123199) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540649)

You have no idea what conservatism is. Limited government is the ONLY type of government compatible with personal liberty. Period. If you disagree I have millions of dead people who would disagree with you who lived under tyrannical all-controlling governments. Of course half-wits like yourself don't need historical information, you know everything. Oh yeah one other thing, Reagan concentrated on the U.S.S.R. and not AIDS(neither was Carter). That doesn't make him a homophobe, but it makes you a partisan hack. Which killed more AIDS or Communism?

Re:Only one problem (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540723)

You're amusing.

Re:Only one problem (1)

WoggyMumma (1215972) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541593)

I honestly think you wouldn't have.

It's an ugly baby... (2, Funny)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538525)

But nonetheless custom dictates that we ought to all stand around and politely congratulate the parents.

It's a trap! (2, Funny)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538817)

You may have fooled me once but I won't be rickrolled again!

Re:A viral video... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538837)

Cue hundreds of dumbass threads from Slashdotters who know nothing at all about 'HIV'.

HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

Read "Science Sold Out". Go to Virusmyth.com.

NewAidsReview.com

etc.etc.

Indicator disease + 'HIV' = 'AIDS'
Indicator disease - 'HIV' = Indicator disease

Circular argument.

Why aren't millions of people in the West DYING from so-called 'AIDS', since all REAL STD infection rates have been rising every year for the past thirty years? Why aren't teenagers dropping dead from 'HIV' in their millions, since millions of them are infected with REAL STDs?

Cue Slashdotters' brains imploding because they can't even begin to question the bullshit of the establishment position. How embarrassing.

Re:A viral video... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23539039)

Why are you getting so worked up then? And aren't you also that AC creationist? I recognise your writing style.

Re:A viral video... (0, Redundant)

inflamed (1156277) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541441)

Thanks for the troll. It has long fuzzy hair and a nice rotund belly.

404? (0, Redundant)

42forty-two42 (532340) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538271)

The link from RU's frontpage seems to be broken - anyone have a mirror?

Re:404? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538325)

I get a 200 response instead of the 404 you got, but still no content. Is this progress?

Re:404? (0, Redundant)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538413)

Error!
Unable to locate the News Relase you specified.

Thats what I get, if only they had the power of a Slashdotting, they might be able to eliminate HIV...

Re:404? (1)

pgn674 (995941) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538455)

I get the home page OK. On there is a link to where the video is: http://newswire.rockefeller.edu/?page=engine&id=763 [rockefeller.edu] That page loads too, with the following text where I assume the video would be: "Error! Unable to locate the News Relase you specified."

Re:404? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23539223)

I get the same...

Re:404? (1)

WillCodeForRaisins (830957) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541721)

Yep. Me, too. Mirror anyone?

Re:404? (0, Offtopic)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538587)

The link from RU's frontpage seems to be broken - anyone have a mirror?
What do you need a mirror for? Did your eyeshadow run or something?

Re:404? (1)

FiReaNGeL (312636) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539471)

Thats why I linked directly to their front page, its weird, they screwed up something

I remember (5, Funny)

mfh (56) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538283)

When they used to say that the time it took a Windows computer to go from the first boot time to an infected state was about five minutes.

Coincidence?

Re:I remember (2, Funny)

chunk08 (1229574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538391)

Coincidence?
No. the US Military tested AIDS on Windows. Windows was designed to be an easily infectable host for experimentation, and was released to the public when the military decided that that would be the best way to spy on us.

Re:I remember (0, Offtopic)

value_added (719364) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538611)

When they used to say that the time it took a Windows computer to go from the first boot time to an infected state was about five minutes.

Coincidence?


The real coincidence was that it's same amount of time you have to wait for everything in the background to finish loading to get a fully functioning machine.

Re:I remember (3, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539345)

When they used to say that the time it took a Windows computer to go from the first boot time to an infected state was about five minutes. Coincidence?
The real coincidence was that it's same amount of time you have to wait for everything in the background to finish loading to get a fully functioning machine.
Your use of the words "fully functioning" is somewhat debatable...

Re:I remember (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541725)

When they used to say that the time it took a Windows computer to go from the first boot time to an infected state was about five minutes. Coincidence?
The real coincidence was that it's same amount of time you have to wait for everything in the background to finish loading to get a fully functioning machine.
Your use of the words "fully functioning" is somewhat debatable...
blah blah Windows is bad blah blah..
Wait isn't this an article on HIV? I guess it doesn't really matter..

Not exactly great PR for us men (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538337)

"...the group tagged a major viral protein, called the Gag protein..."

It's ok if you swallow it, it tastes good, I swear!

At last! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538351)

Gay nigger AIDS is on-topic. Truly a proud moment in Slashdot history.

How much longer until a cure? (1)

TRAyres (1294206) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538377)

Not to be premature, but if they are able to cure viruses, there is going to be a second sexual revolution. No condoms, ever again? HOORAY! Everyone throw your HATS IN THE AIR! (Jim-hats, that is). Then all we need is a safe version of the male 'pill', and everything is set, set, set!

They already have a cure. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538407)

But the drug comapnies and the US government doesn't want to realease it. There is to much profit to be made in letting people suffer with expensive aids drugs over many years.

Why doesn't anybody understand this? If they cured everybody the drug companies would lose billions of dollars a year in profit. The drug companies are in the business of making money NOT curing people. No one can refute this.

Re:They already have a cure. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538461)

Nobody understands it because it doesn't make sense.
The pharmaceutical companies (or any companies at that) don't care about the good of the industry in general, they only care about the maximization of their own profits. If one company discovers the HIV cure before the others, it is going to make sh&tloads of money, giving it a huge step ahead of the competition and allowing it to tap exclusively into a marketshare that it has up till now only shared.

Re:They already have a cure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538463)

But the drug comapnies and the US government doesn't want to realease it. There is to much profit to be made in letting people suffer with expensive aids drugs over many years.
Yeah! The drug companies LIKE to spend money to continue pretending to search for a cure, rather than selling one! Why doesn't anyone understand that drug companies feed on evil??

Re:They already have a cure. (3, Insightful)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538967)

Well, they do spend more on marketing than they do actual research...

Re:They already have a cure. (1)

SocratesJedi (986460) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539197)

Well, they do spend more on marketing than they do actual research...
I've noticed that this is often brought up when discussing drug companies. I'm never quite sure what to make of it. The often efficient properties of capitalism notwithstanding, isn't the need to deploy money into advertising an inefficient aspect of a competitive economic system rather than some evil aspect of Big Pharma?

Perhaps I simply don't see a more elegant solution, but it seems that in order to eliminate the need for marketing in drug development competition would need to be eliminated (perhaps by the creation of some national or international regulatory authority?), but I haven't often heard people suggesting that be done. Thoughts?

Re:They already have a cure. (0, Troll)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540107)

If you assume that all doctors keep abreast of developments in their fields there really is no need for advertising. I'm sure you've seen all of the "ask your doctor if xyz is right for you" ads. Shouldn't they already know what's available?

((as an aside, I always pick a young doctor as my primary care physician simply because they will generally be more up to date. I also generally choose female doctors because I know that they still have to work harder than their male counterparts to gain the same level of respect))

Re:They already have a cure. (1)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540309)

Are you SURE that's the reason you pick a female doctor?

Re:They already have a cure. (0, Troll)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540521)

+1 Obligatory

Re:They already have a cure. (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539829)

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

the wolf brings to the table his warrior's instincts, his brains and his training. the sheep remains a sheep no matter how well armed.

Re:They already have a cure. (2, Informative)

ElectricRook (264648) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539997)

the wolf brings to the table his warrior's instincts, his brains and his training. the sheep remains a sheep no matter how well armed.

Owning sheep, I'd like to clarify...

Sheep will try to defend themselves, but they lack the ability to form an alliance with other sheep or prey animals... Sheep will try to attack once or twice. The only tool they have is ramming. And adult male sheep (Rams) do in fact kill lots of humans every year.

Most canine predators have the ability to form alliances for the common good, and they have really good predator teeth.

Sheep lack teeth for attacking, and they have an attitude of "give-up, roll over & die". You see this when you vaccinate. The vaccinated lambs take a few steps, roll over and wait for death. After about 5 minutes, they realize that death has passed them by, they get up and seek out mom for a drink. I can't see the evolutionary advantage in this strategy, we might have bred it into them.

Re:They already have a cure. (1)

brock bitumen (703998) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541779)

The evolutionary advantage of a herd animal, being common prey, to roll over & die is in protecting the rest of the herd. They bred it into themselves, not us, ie. evolution. You see this in the elderly herd too, they will wander away, or on the outside of the pack in a way to allow themselves as the sacrifice so the predator gang will take them and leave the strong, the females, and the young

Re:They already have a cure. (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541835)

I can't see the evolutionary advantage in this strategy, we might have bred it into them.
I have heard it explained before that it evolved as it allowed a group of sheep to prosper in areas with predators (one sheep would give up, the predators would take the easy kill, and the rest would live another day). I have also heard that "falling sheep" (can't think of the real name for them at this moment) were bred as a way to protect other animals (farmers would keep the "falling sheep" in the herds of other animals so predators would go after the easy prey instead of the more valuable animals).

Re:They already have a cure. (1)

inflamed (1156277) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541463)

When you refer to drug companies, what aspect of them do you think of that you can personnify with the characteristic of "liking things?" The people I know in pharmaceutical research (me included) are a cynical bunch who dearly hope to invest their lives in helping other people live happier lives.

Re:They already have a cure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538847)


And a lot of Red Cross employees would suddenly lose their jobs and a lot of charity dinners.

Noone can refute that it is in the best interest of the Red Cross to preserve and spread HIV to as many as possible, because that ensures their funding is kept well up. Who in Red Cross wants to lose their jobs?

Please, refute for me the argument that the Red Cross would have less funding for staff costs if HIV was cured.

Re:They already have a cure. (1)

11223 (201561) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539581)

I can refute it. Everyone who is working for a profit motive is a selfish evil bastard who wants the gays and the druggies to get what's coming to them. Everyone working for a non-profit is doing it out of a selfless desire to do good and improve the world, even if it means they eliminate the condition for their employment. Duh.

Ah, paranoia. How cute (5, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539015)

Dude, let's put it like this:

Any company which discovers a cure gets a monopoly (patent) on it for 20 years. Which is a lot.

Now picture having this choice:

A. You get the existing anti-virals which tend to do a lot of damage. (There's a reason you don't get them for a cold or even a flu: they do more damage than the flu.) And they might or might not work. In fact, you'll probably just buy you some time. And everyone makes them, so while there's some money milking potential in the "but mine work better" factor, you're still just getting a slice of the pie.

B. You get the miracle cure from Company X, which actually works and presumably with a lot less side effects.

Choice B is a no-brainer. The company which would get a 20 year monopoly on B, is going to sit on a freaking huge fortune at the end of those 20 years. Not only they'd get the lion's share of the existing pie, they'd get a whole merry bunch of retards who'd rather buy the cure later than use a condom. Again.

So basically, you're telling me that a whole lot of CEOs, doctors, their investors, etc:

1. Would rather work for the general benefit of their competitors in preserving a status quo, instead of making a metric buttload of money for themselves.

2. A lot of rich and powerful people, and some of those same CEOs, doctors, etc, would rather die themselves or watch friends and family die a slow death, than just use that supposed miracle cure.

3. Thousands to millions of underlings, who otherwise can't seem to keep much else secret, just toe the line on this one. And again, would rather be loyal to some cartel than save themselves or their friends and family in some cases. And all the retards who lose laptops, or get internal corporate networks virused, etc, lose everything _except_ this apparently. They lose customer files, they leak that their network has blank admin passwords, etc, but somehow they never manage to leak _that_.

4. Somehow the Chinese, Russians, and a fucking buttload of other governments just itching for a pretext to one-up the West, and thumb their nose at the West, also toe that line peacefully. And, you know, all the retards like those in South Africa and various other countries, peddling sweet potato juice and other local snake oil as cures for HIV and as a substitute for paying to the big pharma for a cure, don't just go ahead and and make that miracle cure.

Remember: if it's secret, then it's also not patented. Patents tell everyone that it exists, so they don't work well for a conspiracy.

Etc, etc, etc.

And the same goes for diabetes, cancer, and all the other poster cases used by such conspiracy theories. In fact, for a lot of them half the points above go double. (E.g., insulin is out of patent, and it's a commodity produced by everyone, so profit margins are tiny. Plus you have local factories which don't pay big pharma a cent. So patenting a cure would make a lot of people very very rich. E.g., cancer doesn't really have as easy a defense as using a condom, and as other diseases go down and life expectancy rises, so does the chance that you'll live enough to get a cancer. So that one requires literally believing that the millions of doctors, researchers, pharma bigwigs, etc, would rather die of it and do something as brutal as radiotherapy or chemotherapy, instead of using the miracle cure. Etc.)

So here's an idea: noone understands that conspiracy theory, because it's fucking stupid even as conspiracy theories usually go. It doesn't require even just delusions and or building whole rationales on silly suppositions instead of facts. It requires genuine inability to follow even elementary logic.

Re:Ah, paranoia. How cute (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23539815)

I worked for a VC that funded biotech and pharma startups. A big question was always market size and recurring revenues for the drug, as many have pointed out, a cure is one-and-done, a treatment keeps on producing revenue.

It's not that anyone is actively squelching a cure for AIDS, diabetes, etc. It's just that the research into a cure is not being funded the same way research into treatments are. You don't miss what you've never seen and that's the shame of the capitalist pharma program.

This isn't to say cures never get funded - new anti-biotics are constantly being researched and these are cures. Again, there is the recurring revenue aspect.

Re:Ah, paranoia. How cute (1)

Glyphn (652286) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540451)

I do not see this (the decision to invest in most profitable areas) as a shame of capitalist pharma R&D. The simple fact is that we as a society benefit from the cures and therapies they do invest in. If there are diseases and conditions that we as a society care about but that are not profitable to invest in, then we can publicly fund them, either by incentivizing for-profit organizations or by funding those activities elsewhere. Expecting investors to, in essence, voluntarily tax themselves at a higher rate by spending their money on non-profitable R&D would only encourage them to invest elsewhere.

Re:Ah, paranoia. How cute (1)

LeafOnTheWind (1066228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540831)

The thing is, that's not how antibiotics or antiviral medication usually work. A cure is simply a successful treatment. The other thing that you forget is that there are a lot of genuinely good people working at this for the good of humanity. My father and a number of his colleagues in academia started a company which works on both cancer drugs and cancer detection and they have have made considerable progress and have multiple patents. I know Slashdot gets its kicks from being blindly cynical, but the truth is that academia plays a huge roll in medical development and curing cancer is a big prize (and raise) for any researcher.

Re:Ah, paranoia. How cute (2, Insightful)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540855)

Except treatments like insulin have virtually no profits. Big Pharma would probably stop producing those kinds of low margin non-patent drugs if they could get away with it. The money is in patented drugs, and while a patented treatment makes more money, a patented cure is worth more then an non-patented treatment.

A cure for HIV etc would be a license to print money, because as the GP said, people are fucking retards and would rather pay for an STD cure then use protection. I have heard various sources say this is happening now because some people believe AIDS is treatable with current medicine (it is treatable the same way as amputation was a treatment for infection a hundred years ago).

Re:Ah, paranoia. How cute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23540377)

Honestly dude, it's best to let people like this remain in their delusional state. There's definite benefit to self-declaration of nuttiness, sort of as a keep away warning to others. Besides, you're certainly not going to sway them with logic or sound reasoning.

Re:Ah, paranoia. How cute (1)

Eivind (15695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541561)

Indeed, Cure B is a complete and utter no-brainer -- even if cure A costs $10K/year and cure B costs $100K.

Re:Ah, paranoia. How cute (2, Insightful)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541653)

So basically, you're telling me that a whole lot of CEOs, doctors, their investors, etc:

Don't forget some of them would go down in history as "the guys that cured AIDS". That's hardly a bad legacy to attach to one's family name...

Re:Ah, paranoia. How cute (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541749)

Yeah, but I heard that the guy who created the miracle cure was killed in 9/11, while trying to get it patented. They have files on it in the Pentagon that could disprove this theory but they haven't released them.

Re:How much longer until a cure? (4, Funny)

spleen_blender (949762) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538433)

Well everyone except /.ers



*cries*

Re:How much longer until a cure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538649)

Score: 3, Interesting? Coffee, meet keyboard.

Re:How much longer until a cure? (2, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538577)

Not to be premature, but if they are able to cure viruses, there is going to be a second sexual revolution. No condoms, ever again? HOORAY!

Not like this is gonna change things much for typical slashdot readers :-)

Anyhow, many religious leaders believe that God sent HIV to punish promiscuity, and are not welcoming a cure.
       

Re:How much longer until a cure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538609)

All this talk about Second Sexual Revolution can been seen only at /.
Dude, do you know any regular High Schoolers in the United States? (Not geek ones, actually some-sort of popular ones...)
The quasi-popular and the popular kids at any High School in the US have private parties with all the hot teen girls and the guys 3soming, 4soming and Infinity-soming! They do orgies that put your wildest dreams on shame (at least, they do that here in Miami, FL).
American kids don't need a Sexual Revolution, they have plenty of sex already. And, here in Miami, girls at Middle school go to class with mini-skirts and without pants, so they show their private parts to the boys and say: "Papi, mira que estoy calentita..."
So, sorry to blow up your dreams, man, but the World doesn't need any Sexual Revolution, kids are getting plenty of sex already in High School, College, everywhere.
And, also, no Sexual Revolution will do the miracle to get you laid...

Re:How much longer until a cure? (1)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538887)

I don't know about that... HIV isn't stopping the greater infected areas from having sex, and neither are other STD's in first world coutries.

Re:How much longer until a cure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538979)

Not to be premature,

Speaking of things they have to cure.

Heard by the technician: (1)

razberry636 (601469) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538387)

Push, Honey! PUSH!

I guess it's universal....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538457)

I'll be there in about 5 minutes.

Resolution (1)

Mortiss (812218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538481)

While I applaud the work, I am not entirely convinced that this article is "Nature" worthy. True enough, it shows something that has not been directly observed before, but does it describe a phenomenon that is entirely novel? This data merely confirms what has been known about HIV assembly, while enabling to observe kinetics.

Maybe, I am wrong, but I would like to see a bit more data in this article. I suspect this might be one of these cases of "publish this before anyone else does" and then follow with many derivative articles.

Re:Resolution (4, Insightful)

BorgCopyeditor (590345) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538697)

If I understand correctly, the kinetics could reveal a weak spot in the "life"-cycle of the virus, which could suggest new treatment options.

Re:Resolution (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23541797)

The kinetics don't just reveal potential weak spots, they are a fingerprint of the very crucial and delicate assembly process.

There are known antiviral drugs that can work by either inhibiting or even accelerating viral capsid assembly.

To my knowledge, the best example of this is Hepatitis B. In addition to being a very real pathogen, it serves as something of a model system since the assembly is so well documented and controllable.

If you cause the HBV capsid to assemble too rapidly, it forms aberrant sheets and tubes rather than spheres. Under other conditions, assembly can be blocked entirely. And in contrast to a previous posting which suggested that this is a "partial" cure, if you can disrupt assembly then you have as close to a cure as you'll ever find with a drug.

The reason for this is simple: there is really nothing in the human body quite like a virus capsid - from a structural standpoint they are exceedingly foreign. Viruses share some characteristics with us such as the need for protein production, DNA or RNA synthesis, which means that targeting those pathways will always have some side-effects. But we have nothing like virus capsids (ignoring ferritins), and the interactions needed to build them are highly specific and sensitive: as a drug target they are ideal.

If you're interested in the details of this kind of research, look up "heteroaryldihydropyrimidine".

Did it have two dad's? (1)

howardd21 (1001567) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538495)

Look honey...it looks just like you!

ID (3, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538519)

I saw God's finger poke into the mix at 0:34.74sec of the video. I told you! ... hmmm, or maybe it was a noodly appendage.
     

Re:ID (1)

kubla2000 (218039) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538691)

I saw God's finger poke into the mix at 0:34.74sec of the video. I told you! ... hmmm, or maybe it was a noodly appendage.

   
Are you sure that was his finger?

Amazing (3, Funny)

Dan East (318230) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538751)

That's pretty amazing, especially considering the video is less than 15 seconds long.

Re:Amazing (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539489)

That's pretty amazing, especially considering the video is less than 15 seconds long.

Not when it's slashdotted.
       

The real question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23540941)

Which finger?

Re:ID (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540769)

I saw God's finger poke into the mix at 0:34.74sec of the video. I told you! ... hmmm, or maybe it was a noodly appendage.

Although you aren't original for making an ID joke on slashdot you bring up a good point whether you like it or not. The point being that those particles are not alive and yet they are forming something that is. This totally beats anything biogenesis/evolution could do due to the speed at which it occurs. That same something started somewhere in the world many decades ago for some reason out of the blue, possibly even outside of a living organsim which then somehow got inside of an animal or human. Now millions of people are infected and thousands die from it every year. Why? How? Something just doesn't do that out of the blue. What is directing those particles to do what they do and how do they make HIV come alive as an organism? Bringing this same "magic" to the macro level with another example: How do some birds find an island (Hawaii) in the middle of an ocean when they have never been there before? Saying it is just instinct doesn't explain it. It makes me wonder. It should make you as well.

Re:ID (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23541521)

Ah, you can't explain it, so it must be god. You've convinced me. When does jebus bless me with his holy seed?

Re:ID (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23541759)

Viruses aren't living organisms any more than chain letters are. They're merely DNA- or RNA-encoded "copy me" instructions which are compatible with the processes that makes living cells function. We don't quite know where they come from, though some seem to be leftover transcription errors (from cells attempting to copy their own DNA) or bacteria whose DNA turned out to be more effective when hijacking other cells than running its own. Argument from personal incredulity aside, there's no fixed limit on the rate at which viruses (or cells) may mutate. Some changes are merely less likely than others, so it takes more time for them to become inevitable. And looking back we see there have been potential cases in the late 1950s--could it have happened earlier and we just didn't figure it out until now?

so we can see it... (1)

urbanrealtor (1295226) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538569)

Intriguing that we can view so small a thing yet not have much in the way of controlling or manipulating it the way we would like to. Also, pretty fascinating for something that is not alive.

Nanotechnology to the rescue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538765)

Nano-antiHIV will cure it. Just put nano in front of anything and its instantly famous and/or marketable. I've been drinking nano water for years.

I know next to nothing about this (1)

geek (5680) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538813)

So could someone explain how this effects us? How is this a major leap as the article says? Watching it be born seems cool and all but how does that help us kill it?

Re:I know next to nothing about this (1)

Eric52902 (1080393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538823)

Now we can train nano-sharks with fricken' laser beams attached to their heads to recognize the birth taking place and inject them into people's blood stream to immunize them against HIV!

Re:I know next to nothing about this (5, Insightful)

mikael (484) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538889)

Before, researchers didn't know how long it took for the AIDS virus (or any virus) to assemble itself from the different amino-acids required to make the genes, and the proteins required to make the outer casing. It could have been hours, minutes or milliseconds. Now, they know it takes several minutes.

A cure would involve kill cells that have the virus inside. Detecting and killing such cells is one step to finding a cure, but probably impossible. Finding drugs which inhibit the virus entering cells, reaching the DNA, or leaving the cells are all partial cures.

Development of antibodies which attach and kill cells with the virus particles partially formed on the surface of the cell is the next most likely achievement. To achieve this, they now know that they need something which can completely enclose the surface of a cell within 5-6 minutes.

Also, they now have a new technique to visualise the behavior of virus particles in a cell. They can watch to see how any potential treatments interact with the virus within the cell in real-time.

Re:I know next to nothing about this (1)

geek (5680) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539309)

Thanks for the explanation. That makes a lot of sense.

Re:I know next to nothing about this (3, Funny)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539377)

Perhaps tiny little sharks with fricken lasers.

Re:I know next to nothing about this (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23540103)

They already exist and they are called macrophages. They don't have lasers, but they can shoot a a chlorine burst that will do the same thing. Too bad they are stupid. Without the helper T cells giving them directions, them and their weaker neutrophil cousins are fairly inept. They can fight some bacteria, but they generally ignore viruses.

Re:I know next to nothing about this (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538891)

It doesn't "effect" us, our parents did that.

Re:I know next to nothing about this (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23539433)

dunno why you got modded as a troll

I thought it was fricken funny!

But then most here are too dense to understand the difference between effect and affect, then and than, your and you're etc etc.....

Not quite accurate? (1)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539115)

The article and video show individual HIV particles emerging from a cell. There isn't any imaging of "hundreds of thousands of molecules coming together" to form the particles. Or am I missing something?

Re:Not quite accurate? (1)

Mortiss (812218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539157)

Well, that is in fact what is happening. (This has been shown by other studies). Aggregation of ~5000 Gag proteins leads to HIV virion budding. However due to the resolution limits of the light microscope (at least the setup used here), this is not seen.

Video is currently available at... (5, Informative)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540151)

NewswiseScience News [newswise.com] .

(The link from the Rockefeller University main page is currently broken).

Re:Video is currently available at... (1)

ckedge (192996) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540407)

Quicktime? Fuck that. Please try again.

Particle? (1)

PingPongBoy (303994) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540181)

I thought particles are for the most part pieces of matter, regardable as uniform in structure. I do not work with viruses--are individual viruses referred to as particles?

There is something about the theory of fractal similarity at different scales--HIV gathering on a cell resembles flies assembling on dead meat.

The video caption is "individual HIV particles (white spots) assembling on the surface of an infected cell" but the article is titled "single HIV particle". That's fishy.

Re:Particle? (1)

bh_doc (930270) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540471)

"Dust particles" aren't single atoms of dust. The definition you're thinking of applies moreso to the physical sciences than any other setting. Whereas here, it seems to be used to mean a very tiny clump of something.

Interesting... (1)

My-Random-Thoughts (1276072) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540949)

That is interesting. What a scary form of birth...

Where's the Video? (0, Troll)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541083)

They say they photographed it in action. Where's the video?

Re:Where's the Video? (1)

Fumus (1258966) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541699)

Enable javascript.

Gag molecules? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23541319)

I thought HIV couldn't be transmitted that way...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...