“efficiently remove the latent genome” - Dr. Lebbink

[hopeful22]

“We could efficiently remove the latent genome from infected cells, essentially curing cells of their invader,” says Dr. Lebbink.

I have not read much about latent genome talk with CRISPR. I am not sure if this Dr. Lebbink’s work has been discussed on here. If you scroll down the article you’ll pass the general psa we all know about and get to the details about Dr. Lebbink’s work. The 2nd link is the published study. 

 

https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/herpes-vaccines-simplex-virus-hsv1-and-hsv2-remain-clinical-trials

 

http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1005701

 

[moialbalushi]

Just now, hopeful22 said:

“We could efficiently remove the latent genome from infected cells, essentially curing cells of their invader,” says Dr. Lebbink.

I have not read much about latent genome talk with CRISPR. I am not sure if this Dr. Lebbink’s work has been discussed on here. If you scroll down the article you’ll pass the general psa we all know about and get to the details about Dr. Lebbink’s work. The 2nd link is the published study. 

 

https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/herpes-vaccines-simplex-virus-hsv1-and-hsv2-remain-clinical-trials

 

http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1005701

 

Nice !! Lots of good news these days !! 

[dont quit!17]

7 hours ago, hopeful22 said:

“We could efficiently remove the latent genome from infected cells, essentially curing cells of their invader,” says Dr. Lebbink.

I have not read much about latent genome talk with CRISPR. I am not sure if this Dr. Lebbink’s work has been discussed on here. If you scroll down the article you’ll pass the general psa we all know about and get to the details about Dr. Lebbink’s work. The 2nd link is the published study. 

 

https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/herpes-vaccines-simplex-virus-hsv1-and-hsv2-remain-clinical-trials

 

http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1005701

 

That PLOS journal article is a from Netherland study in 2016. Apparently they were having problems with the latent HSV-1 genome target site. If I recall correctly, the HSV DNA is tightly coiled up and CRISPR was a bit ineffective. With that being said, that vaccine article is new so although there weren't any specifics it is good to hear that they are still researching HSV, even if it is for a vaccine. Thanks for the share. 

[Dying2Live]

I have read the 2016 study several times, and my conclusion was that the researchers were able to very effectively eliminate latent EBV, but not HSV due to its tightly packed latent DNA structure. This new article states pretty explicitly that they believe CRISPR could in fact effectively eliminate latent HSV. That said, the article does not make very specific or scientific statements, so it's difficult to draw any conclusions with confidence. I wish Josh Bloom would interview the researchers.

[Cas9]

The article is deceptive. Lebbink was referring to herpes in general. Subsequent studies showed that some herpes viruses could be eliminated from the cell but hsv was not one of them. For hsv1&2 they could only stop it from replicating. It doesn't mean that CRISPR doesn't have the potential to eliminate the latent virus, but as of now, no one has been fully successful. That's what they will be working on.

[jxc1337]

Why don't you guys look up the effectiveness of fulvic acid.  It's been shown the reduce viral load for many different viruses, including HSV.

[Dying2Live]

1 hour ago, jxc1337 said:

Why don't you guys look up the effectiveness of fulvic acid.  It's been shown the reduce viral load for many different viruses, including HSV.

Sounds interesting...are there any studies on FV for HSV?

It may take some time to get traction assuming some folks try it and report postitive results. I think most of the people on this forum, some of whom have a high frequency of symptoms even on antivirals, have tried many, many, homeopathic remedies, and seen many seemingly promising options fizzle. So, if there's any more info on the efficacy of FV, I'm sure ot would be welcome information.

[Dying2Live]

1 hour ago, Cas9 said:

The article is deceptive. Lebbink was referring to herpes in general. Subsequent studies showed that some herpes viruses could be eliminated from the cell but hsv was not one of them. For hsv1&2 they could only stop it from replicating. It doesn't mean that CRISPR doesn't have the potential to eliminate the latent virus, but as of now, no one has been fully successful. That's what they will be working on.

Yes, it would seem that the statements being made in the article are misleading. I'm curious if the wording is meant to be intentionally misleading, or if the author has unknowingly skewed the terminology in specifically mentioning "HSV."

[ManagingIllness]

CRISPR therapies are over 10 years away. Given the fear and panic vaccines have caused, I can't see how DNA modification therapy will be accepted by the general public easily. Regulations will be tough and advancement will be slow.

Also, regarding the original post, this is amazing:

 

Quote

Our studies indicate that the CRISPR/Cas9 system can be effectively targeted to herpesvirus genomes as a potent prophylactic and therapeutic anti-viral strategy that may be used to impair viral replication and clear latent virus infection.

 

[Dying2Live]

10 hours ago, ManagingIllness said:

CRISPR therapies are over 10 years away. Given the fear and panic vaccines have caused, I can't see how DNA modification therapy will be accepted by the general public easily. Regulations will be tough and advancement will be slow.

Also, regarding the original post, this is amazing:

 

 

I don't disagree with you on the uphill battle faced by newer tech like CRISPR or even old tech like vaccines due to both outdated and archaic laws and processes (FDA) as well as the potential for additional legislation targeting gene editing. However, I think it is important to distinguish editing human genes vs. damaging/removing viral genes when it comes to the risks, etc. One of the first proving grounds for CRISPR techniques will be treating chronic, life-threatening infections like HIV. I believe that is an important part of the strategy of companies like Excision to bring CRISPR to market. If we are extremely lucky, CRISPR will be a game changer in managing or even curing HIV, and then I think we will see treatments quickly proliferate across a wide range of chronic infectious diseases that currently have few treatment options. I sincerely hope that we are on the verge of a biomedical revolution that has so much momentum it will force the FDA to become a modern agency whether they

[Nietzsche]

And keep in mind that the market capital for CRISPR will be that big that it will pressure goverments to speed up trails.. exiting times for sure.

[Louder]

I have read a study that was using CRISPR on herpes virus family, they were able to remove all EBV family virus from system because it didn't go latent in nervous system. In htat same study, result have shown that CRISPR was not very effective at breaking HSV-2 DNA because of cells repair system that cancelled DNA cleavage of CRISPR. But study said that it stopped that current DNA from replicating, so the main goal about CRISPR is checking safety first and had it encapsulated in a good vessel like a small virus to deliver it to the neurons where both HSV-1 and HSV-2 goes latent.

With all the research regarding CRISPR for various disease, a breakthrough in the technic even if the main purpose was not targeting HSV would be great help for all of us!

Keep faith.
 

[ManagingIllness]

Please remember the following:

 

Quote

While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. 

In other words, when dealing with genes, small differences can amount to enormous variance. In other words, that two viruses are of the same family and share 70% of their genetic information, does not necessarily mean a cure for one means a cure for the other. We have two vaccines for shingles now, which is a herpes family virus, and still zero for HSV1 & HSV2

[Malcolm]

On 5/17/2018 at 11:42 AM, ManagingIllness said:

In other words, when dealing with genes, small differences can amount to enormous variance. In other words, that two viruses are of the same family and share 70% of their genetic information, does not necessarily mean a cure for one means a cure for the other. We have two vaccines for shingles now, which is a herpes family virus, and still zero for HSV1 & HSV2

It's true that small genetic difference can make a large difference however I disagree with your conclusion. The 30% genetic difference between HSV 1/2 is regulatory. An enzyme targeting ICP0 devastates both 1 & 2.

To take your example, a French study found the ZVZ (shingles) vaccine be highly effectiveness in suppressing HSV 1/2 so much so, it could be considered an unofficial herpes vaccine:
https://jeffreydachmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Efficacy-of-antiVZV-antiHSV3-vaccine-HSV1-HSV2-recurrent-herpes-simplex-Jacqueline-Le-Goaster-2012.pdf

Edited June 4, 2018 by Malcolm

[About Blank]

Am I missing something here?

Was there a later revelation from this trial that disproved the results?  This was published in 2012

Results: From 2005 through 2011, for the 24 anti-VZV vaccinated patients, the average number of herpes relapses decreased to 0, correlated with an increased anti-VZV antibody level and clinical recovery of all patients, whereas no improvement was observed for the 26 nonvaccinated herpes patients.

https://www.dovepress.com/efficacy-of-the-anti-vzv-anti-hsv3-vaccine-in-hsv1-and-hsv2-recurrent--peer-reviewed-article-OAJCT

 

[Goku]

Ohh god when will we get herpes cure?

[Goku]

Shall I go for vzv vaccine?I am oral hsv1 positive.

 

[leeRW]

This is the conclusion of the study. What does this mean in plain English? "This suggest defective anti-VZV immune power in these patients"?

"Conclusion: Data for the anti-VZV serological antibody levels tested before and after anti-VZV vaccination showed a significant (P < 0.001) increase among vaccinated patients. This suggests defective anti-VZV immune power in these patients. After 6 years of positive results for anti-VZV vaccine, this is a logical and fair hypothesis. We can now undertake a randomized study to confirm these findings."

[ManagingIllness]

The French study has been explored thoroughly on this site. Anecdotally, many people here have got the vaccine, and seen little to no results. I am not against try, but I don't see the benefit.

As for genetic variance equating to large differences, this is nearly axiomatically true at this point.  A 4-5% difference between human and chimp DNA accounts for all the difference between the two species: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics