Biology Talk

douglas · Guest

Could this be a possible treatment for HIV/AIDS:

Synthesize a peptide nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide for HIV’s
gag gene’s mRNA. The reason for using PNA is that it is substantially
more resistant to enzyme degradation by nucleases and proteases. The
reason for choosing the gag gene is that it’s proteins, p24, p17, p7,
and p6, code for the basic physical infrastructure of HIV; w/o these
key proteins, there is no HIV. Then, encapsulate the oligonucleotides
in liposomes studded w/ anti-CD4 antibodies. This will ensure 1)
toxicity is limited—cf Ambisome, the liposomal preperation of
amphotericin B—2) the biologic goes only where it’s needed, which is
the cytoplasm of CD4+ T-cells. Decorating the liposome w/ anti-CD4
antibodies will trigger endocytosis, in my limited knowledge, at
least. I predict low toxicity and high efficacy in reducing the
patient’s viral load to hopefully 0 copies/ml.

Maybe, when I'm doing my PhD or MD dissertation --a long ways off, see
below--, I could do it on this, patent the resulting product --ie the
PNA oligonucleotide itself--, and license it to Genentech or Hybridon
for further development into a marketable biologic.

What are your thoughts? Should LNA instead of PNA be used? Cell-
penetrating peptides vs. liposomes? Targeting the gag gene vs.
targeting the pol gene? Are there any publications about this subject?
And, just for fun, what do you think the generic name would be for
this biologic? Brand name?

BTW, if this helps you answer, I'm a 16.5 year old community college
freshman who hopes to have a career as a physician-scientist.

Thanks!!!!

douglas · Guest

On May 10, 7:46 am, "N10" <limbic_les...@hotmail.com> wrote:

N10 · Guest

Your future is assured, this a brilliant idea for one so young.

N10
"douglas" <Protoman2050@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dce0208f-8fac-4ba3-8310-f6cfcd700d51@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Could this be a possible treatment for HIV/AIDS:

Synthesize a peptide nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide for HIV’s
gag gene’s mRNA. The reason for using PNA is that it is substantially
more resistant to enzyme degradation by nucleases and proteases. The
reason for choosing the gag gene is that it’s proteins, p24, p17, p7,
and p6, code for the basic physical infrastructure of HIV; w/o these
key proteins, there is no HIV. Then, encapsulate the oligonucleotides
in liposomes studded w/ anti-CD4 antibodies. This will ensure 1)
toxicity is limited—cf Ambisome, the liposomal preperation of
amphotericin B—2) the biologic goes only where it’s needed, which is
the cytoplasm of CD4+ T-cells. Decorating the liposome w/ anti-CD4
antibodies will trigger endocytosis, in my limited knowledge, at
least. I predict low toxicity and high efficacy in reducing the
patient’s viral load to hopefully 0 copies/ml.

Maybe, when I'm doing my PhD or MD dissertation --a long ways off, see
below--, I could do it on this, patent the resulting product --ie the
PNA oligonucleotide itself--, and license it to Genentech or Hybridon
for further development into a marketable biologic.

What are your thoughts? Should LNA instead of PNA be used? Cell-
penetrating peptides vs. liposomes? Targeting the gag gene vs.
targeting the pol gene? Are there any publications about this subject?
And, just for fun, what do you think the generic name would be for
this biologic? Brand name?

BTW, if this helps you answer, I'm a 16.5 year old community college
freshman who hopes to have a career as a physician-scientist.

Thanks!!!!

douglas · Guest

On May 11, 11:40 am, Joachim Pimiskern <JoachimPimisk...@web.de>
wrote:

Joachim Pimiskern · Guest

douglas schrieb:

Joachim Pimiskern · Guest

douglas schrieb:

douglas · Guest

On May 15, 10:38 pm, Joachim Pimiskern <JoachimPimisk...@web.de>
wrote: