PDA

View Full Version : New HIV drugs look promising


mickwish
12-14-2004, 10:16 PM
Thanks to tgxiii for orginally posting about this.

Some new HIV drugs (http://ur.rutgers.edu/medrel/viewArticle.html?ArticleID=2571) are almost ready for large scale trials. Belgian and American scientists have collaborated in discovering several new potential anti-AIDS drugs, including compounds that can block all known drug-resistant strains of the virus....A third compound (R278474), scheduled for Phase I trials, is even more active against common HIV strains and all the mutants tested, according to the researchers.I like the following quote by one of the chief scientists, as it shows what we are doing with the drug-related DC projects is very valid. :cool:
"A drug may be thought of as a key that fits a specific lock," said chemistry Professor Eddy Arnold, a Rutgers member of the team. "The appropriate drug or key should be able to disrupt the functioning of the AIDS virus without causing serious side effects for the patient. Drug-resistant variants may be seen as an array of locks that require different keys to prevent the spread of viral infection." Arnold, who is also a member of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine (CABM) based at Rutgers and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, explained that an ideal drug needs to work like a "master key" that can fit into and block as many of the locks (HIV variants) as possible.

To reach the goal of a "master-key," chemists on the team first synthesized hundreds of molecules and used them to search for useful drug candidates. Computer calculations of the structures of the drug and the drug target (the key and the lock) helped predict the best molecules to synthesize. The resulting drug candidates were tested against drug-resistant HIV, leading the researchers to the DAPY family of compounds.

Arnold and his colleagues Kalyan Das and Art Clark at CABM and Rutgers' department of chemistry and chemical biology worked with Stephen Hughes and co-workers at the NIH National Cancer Institute in Frederick, Md., to produce images that showed exactly how the drugs bind to their HIV targets. This information was used to modify the drugs in ways to improve their ability to bind to HIV.

The design work was carried out at Janssen's Center for Molecular Design in Belgium. Using a supercomputer, researchers there compared millions of potential molecular designs in order to select candidates for chemical synthesis. Hundreds of these candidates were then synthesized at Janssen in the United States and then tested against drug-resistant strains at Tibotec/Virco. Two of the most promising drugs, Dapivirine and R165335, have been tested in Phase II clinical trials. When R165335 was given as a single drug, viral loads were reduced to a level comparable to that achieved with a five-drug combination.
Keep crunchin for cures and better treatments, everyone!! :D

Cheers
Mick

Xeroid
12-14-2004, 11:58 PM
WoW! That's good news. Thanks for the report Mick. :)

serlv ( Zippy )
12-15-2004, 1:31 AM
Yes, excellent post. Thanks, Mick.

Cowboybooter
12-15-2004, 5:13 AM
Excellent! That's what it's all about! Who could want more, for Christmas?

:)

Bob

tgxiii
12-15-2004, 5:59 AM
I'm keeping this article bookmarked for those who keep asking me, "How do you know this process (FaD) even works?"

Siliconjunkie
12-15-2004, 8:33 AM
Not to be a party pooper, but I read it as they did the crunching themselves. FaD is only worth something if they give us meaninful things to try.

Just out of curiosity, has FaD ever produced something that was used?

tgxiii
12-15-2004, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Siliconjunkie
Not to be a party pooper, but I read it as they did the crunching themselves.
Yes, they did the crunching themselves, but at least it proves that virtual screening works (in terms of medical science).

GohanSSJ
12-15-2004, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Siliconjunkie
Just out of curiosity, has FaD ever produced something that was used?
Not sure, but i do believe they found things that could of been the cure, ofcourse chances are really big it wasn't, but you have to see it like this, they have to try lots of things before they finally find the one that works, and even with the failed ones they still learn something, so in the big picture it does help.

Siliconjunkie
12-15-2004, 12:38 PM
Oh, don't get me wrong FaD has value. IF they data is used and respected. If we eliminate 349839849389384938 possiblities a day, but are not considered credible, then we did nothing, same with the 1 in 349839849389384938 that we find.

I guess my question is, does the research community at large respect FaD results? Is there a way to see who is giving them the data and if they are using it?

Not trying to say FaD is not worth it, just trying to say that just because the FaD folks tell you that it is being used, do we know it is?

Mntsnow
12-15-2004, 1:09 PM
Yes...
http://www.find-a-drug.org.uk/certify.html

The following members have found molecules which have exhibited the desired properties during laboratory tests by the National Institute of Health for anti-Cancer activity

sao95
12-15-2004, 9:06 PM
Hey, there's quite a few XPCer's on there, very cool :)

mickwish
12-15-2004, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Siliconjunkie
Not trying to say FaD is not worth it, just trying to say that just because the FaD folks tell you that it is being used, do we know it is? This kinda reserach is like looking for needles hidden in haystacks - only the haystacks in questions are the size of the continental USA, and the needles are smaller that your grannie sows with. :eek: There is NEVER any guarantee that any actual cures will be found that can be turned into usable, marketable drugs. But.... there is HOPE, which is why we all crunch. If you want guarantees, medical research is not where you wanna be, believe you me. ;)

The whole premise of the work Keith Davies started with FAD is that there IS a good possibility of marketable results. Remember, FAD makes no money at all. Only if results that are worth further commercial work are found, and can be licensed out, does FAD and it's founder make any money from the whole FAD setup. Sure, Treweren can sell licenses to use the THINK clinet to private corporations for other DC project work they can do in-house, but the BIG hope is that the volunteer work will prodcure results that are worthy of further study in the commercial sector.

Keith Davies has published widely in their field of molecular modelling software - a Medline search should yield a few hits. Based on what I've seen I'd say he is pretty well-respected. :)

In my mind, just the possibilities of what may be achieved is enough to keep me involved. :cool:

Cheers
Mick

sao95
12-16-2004, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by mickwish
;)

The whole premise of the work Keith Davies started with FAD is that there IS a good possibility of marketable results. Remember, FAD makes no money at all. Only if results that are worth further commercial work are found, and can be licensed out, does FAD and it's founder make any money from the whole FAD setup....................worthy of further study in the commercial sector.





Cheers
Mick


I hadn't really thought of FAD in that light, and I find it troubling :(

dannychuckle
12-16-2004, 11:58 AM
which bit do you find troubling?

If its the commercial side of FaD then to quote Keith:
---------
The bottom line for many members is who gains from any commercial success and I should stress that Find-a-Drug operates on a not for profit basis and that a substantial part of any revenue will be donated to research.
---------
FaD could do with some more income - maybe they'll sort out the website then!

sao95
12-16-2004, 12:07 PM
In my naive mind I had thought that FAD would keep the cost of the medications down if cures were found, but that sounds as if it will be the same old same old, with drug companies jacking the prices so only a percentage of the upper crust will be able to afford them. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's how it sounds to me.

mickwish
12-16-2004, 3:40 PM
Medical research is expensive. It can cost upwards or US$10 million to get a new drug to market in research and development costs. :o The majority of this is the cost of clinical trials - and that cost FAD will have no bearing on at all. Unless someone donates $10 miliion to the drug company to get a drug to market, they are going to want to get their money back, I would think. That's why new drugs are expensive, not just because drug companies (and their stockholders) are greedy. Even altruistic drug companies (and there are a few) need to make some money at some stage.

Cheers
Mick

dannychuckle
12-16-2004, 4:28 PM
FaD reduces the costs and time in the discovery stage massively... well I suppose it doesn't reduce them, as many of the discoveries are unlikely to take place outside of FaD - there are so many potential cures (obviously some will be better than others). As Mick says, getting new drugs to the stage of production costs massively, and I believe many of the larger pharma companies are struggling as they haven't had the breakthroughs they were counting on to bring in the revenue.

HTH
Danny

tgxiii
12-17-2004, 4:56 AM
It would be nice if medicine costs would go down, but it takes money to do research and develop new drugs.

I think of FaD as speeding up the research and development.