h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

... by using modified HIV. (Human immunodeficiency virus)
http://www.inquisitr.com/431832/doctors-use-hiv-to-cure-7-year-olds-cancer/

: Human Immunodeficiency Virus
When the disbelief faded, the name suggested some sort of link... Hmm?
The aspect of it that has 'me' most interested is, put simply:


What thought processes led to the experiment stage?

That's just gene therapy under a headline grabbing name.

HIV is a virus (techinically a retrovirus but that's not important). What virii (viruses) do is invade a cell, insert themselves into the genome of that cell - literally inserting their own genes into the DNA of the host. This hijacks the cells DNA replication machinery to make further copies of the virus.

Hence if you want a 'vector' to insert 'foreign' DNA into a cell then a virus is an ideal tool to use. Virii are really very simple so you can easily delete or alter the bits that make it nasty and insert a 'desirable' gene in there that may a disease curer or otherwise therapeutic.

Simples really, not a particularly revolutionary thing at all. Albeit gene therapy is of course relatively new in medicine and finding a therapeutic gene (or genes) that actually does what you want is not easy at all.

HIV is of course also a natural attacker of white blood cells and so is quite a natural choice for use as a therapy against white blood cells - Leukemia is a cancer of white blood cells.
It's the stopping it after curing the white blood cells I'm not sure about - but clearly they've managed it I suppose.

Thank you, Orcus. It's not quite so magic now.

(you'd taken all the magic away - until that last "I suppose")


Rod

Science is not magic. But it is full of wonder.

Agreed, Gnomon - the 'magic' bit is from another thread - (Arthur C) Clarke's 3rd Law...

Well the "I suppose" bit is me assuming - I don't have enough information.

Personally I think it would be unethical to give someone AIDS in exchange for cancer but then you can live with HIV/AIDS for a long time now and maybe it's better than the alternative.
However, the article does say they've used a 'deactivate' (I forget the actual wording) version of the retrovirus so I suppose they have nullified its pathogenic effect.

Viruses have been used to insert foreign DNA into various genomes for a long time - decades now.

If you want to do it in bacteria you use 'bacteriophages' (amongst other methods in this case) which are viruses specific to bacterial cells - this is the most common. If you want to do it plants then you use plant-specific virii and so on.

Of course, viruses themselves have been doing it since the dawn of their creation/evolution.

Fair enough, Orcus. Sounds reasonable.


Y'know, I've sometimes thought after such explanations, that technology says "know a bit more, do a lot more"


Thanks

That is FASCINATING.