|
Home > Archive > HIV Aids > January 2005 > HIV immunity from low-dose repeated exposure to live virus.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
HIV immunity from low-dose repeated exposure to live virus.
|
|
| Ian Stirling 2005-01-31, 10:42 am |
| Given that it's generally agreed in many sources that the infectivity
of a single episode of straight sex with an otherwise healthy
person is under 1%, and that presumably some virus gets through,
but does not succeed in infecting the other partner.
It seems logical to me that small doses of HIV, such as one partner
may get from another during uprotected sex might over time create a
degree of immunity.
Is this the case?
| |
| Pirate John Wayne Gacy 2005-01-31, 10:42 am |
| "Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote...
> Given that it's generally agreed in many sources that the infectivity
> of a single episode of straight sex with an otherwise healthy
> person is under 1%, and that presumably some virus gets through,
> but does not succeed in infecting the other partner.
>
> It seems logical to me that small doses of HIV, such as one partner
> may get from another during uprotected sex might over time create a
> degree of immunity.
> Is this the case?
I've never heard of such a thing, though it probably occurs with other
viruses. The problem with HIV is that it infects IMMUNE SYSTEM cells.
Therefore, the normal immune system response that sends out cells to
identify the intruder would lead to infection. The very process where
the cell merges with the pathogen to identify it for antibody
production would mean the cell would be infected.
| |
| Ian Stirling 2005-01-31, 10:42 am |
| Pirate John Wayne Gacy <jwgacy@pogo.net> wrote:
> "Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>
> I've never heard of such a thing, though it probably occurs with other
> viruses. The problem with HIV is that it infects IMMUNE SYSTEM cells.
> Therefore, the normal immune system response that sends out cells to
> identify the intruder would lead to infection. The very process where
> the cell merges with the pathogen to identify it for antibody
> production would mean the cell would be infected.
That sounds logical, thanks.
Idly wondering after I was looking up likelyhood of transmission, and realised
that sub-infective doses sound a lot like vaccination.
| |
| Bennett 2005-01-31, 10:42 am |
| Yes. Check out:
1. Kaul et al J Immunol. 2000 Feb 1;164(3):1602-11. "HIV-1-specific
mucosal CD8+ lymphocyte responses in the cervix of HIV-1-resistant
prostitutes in Nairobi."
2. Kaul et alJ Clin Invest. 2001 May;107(10):1303-10. "CD8(+)
lymphocytes respond to different HIV epitopes in seronegative and
infected subjects."
3. Kaul et al J Clin Invest. 2001 Feb;107(3):341-9. "Late
seroconversion in HIV-resistant Nairobi prostitutes despite
pre-existing
HIV-specific CD8+ responses."
It's unusual and doesn't last forever, but is pretty well documented.
Clearly the antigen-presenting cells that are infected at the mucosal
surface are around long enough to evoke some kind of immune response
but there isn't enough virus to initiate an infection. I suppose it's
possible that it's an antigen-evoked response without any actual
replication going on at all. That's speculation though - I'd expect
that to act via MHC-II and result in antibody responses, rather than
MHC-I and give CD8 T cell responses.
Cheers
Bennett
| |
| Ian Stirling 2005-01-31, 10:42 am |
| Bennett <njb35@cantab.net> wrote:
> Yes. Check out:
>
>
> 1. Kaul et al J Immunol. 2000 Feb 1;164(3):1602-11. "HIV-1-specific
> mucosal CD8+ lymphocyte responses in the cervix of HIV-1-resistant
> prostitutes in Nairobi."
>
> 2. Kaul et alJ Clin Invest. 2001 May;107(10):1303-10. "CD8(+)
> lymphocytes respond to different HIV epitopes in seronegative and
> infected subjects."
>
> 3. Kaul et al J Clin Invest. 2001 Feb;107(3):341-9. "Late
> seroconversion in HIV-resistant Nairobi prostitutes despite
> pre-existing
> HIV-specific CD8+ responses."
>
> It's unusual and doesn't last forever, but is pretty well documented.
> Clearly the antigen-presenting cells that are infected at the mucosal
> surface are around long enough to evoke some kind of immune response
> but there isn't enough virus to initiate an infection. I suppose it's
> possible that it's an antigen-evoked response without any actual
> replication going on at all. That's speculation though - I'd expect
> that to act via MHC-II and result in antibody responses, rather than
> MHC-I and give CD8 T cell responses.
Interesting, I'll have a look next time I pop in to a decent library.
Thanks.
|
| |
|
|