 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / June 2005NO has anti-HIV/antiviral effects; DNCB induces NO
Persichini T, Ascenzi P, Colizzi V, Fraziano M, Venturini G, Colasanti M. Molecular bases for the anti-HIV-1 effect of NO. Commentary. Int J Mol Med. 1999 Oct;4(4):365-8. Department of Biology, University of Rome <Roma Tre>, I-00146 Rome, Italy. In infected human cells, nitric oxide (NO) has been shown to inhibit the replication of the human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1), the etiological agent of AIDS. Evidence suggests that NO may regulate HIV-1 replication by affecting the sulphydryl redox state. In this respect, it has been very recently demonstrated that NO-donors inactivate the HIV-1-encoded protease and reverse transcriptase in vitro. Further viral and host NO targets may be envisaged. Although no data are available on the anti-HIV-1 effect of NO in vivo, NO-releasing drugs, clinically used in the treatment of cardiovascular disorders, may represent a novel class of molecules for decreasing virus replication. Here, the possible molecular bases for the anti-HIV-1 effect of NO are discussed. ------------------------------------ Colasanti M, Persichini T, Venturini G, Ascenzi P. S-nitrosylation of viral proteins: molecular bases for antiviral effect of nitric oxide. IUBMB Life. 1999 Jul;48(1):25-31. Department of Biology, University of Roma Tre, Rome, Italy. Abstract: Nitric oxide (NO) is considered an important signaling molecule implied in various different physiological processes, including nervous transmission, vascular regulation, and immune defence, as well as the pathogenesis of several diseases. NO reportedly also has an antiviral effect on several DNA and RNA virus families. The NO-mediated S-nitrosylation of viral and host (macro)molecules appears to be an intriguing general mechanism for the control of the virus life cycle. In this respect, NO is able to nitrosylate cysteine-containing enzymes (e.g., proteases, reverse transcriptase, and ribonucleotide reductase). Moreover, zinc-fingers and related domains present in enzymes (e.g., HIV-1-encoded integrase or herpes simplex virus type-1 heterotrimeric helicase-primase complex) or nucleocapsid proteins may be considered as NO targets. Also, NO may regulate both host (e.g., nuclear factor-kappaB) and viral-encoded (e.g., HIV-1 tat protein or Epstein-Barr virus Zta) transcriptional factors that are involved in virus replication. Finally, NO-mediated S-nitrosylation of cysteine-containing glycoproteins and hemagglutinin may also occur. Here, NO targets are summarised, and the molecular bases for the antiviral effect of NO are discussed. ------------- DNCB induces NO http://www.mf.uni-lj.si/acta-apa/acta-apa-02-1/kataranovski.html Acta Dermatovenerologica 2002, Vol 11, No 1 Skin-organ culture as an approach in evaluation of nitric oxide (NO) involvement incontact hypersensitivity expression M. Kataranovski, G. Milojeviç, L. Kandolf and V. Miloseviç Milena Kataranovski, PhD, Professor of immunobiology, Faculty of Biology, University of Belgrade, Studentska 4 and Senior research associate, Institute for Medical Research, Military Medical Academy, Crnotravska 17, 11000 Belgrade, Yugoslavia,. E-mail: vmaimi@eunet.yu - corresponding author Abstract: Objective. Contact hypersensitivity (CHS) is a local inflammatory response of the skin following challenge of hapten- sensitized animals. The intensity of inflammation could be quantified by ear swelling, a classical manifestation of contact hypersensitivity. In this study, skin-organ culture system was employed to evaluate involvement of nitric oxide (NO) in the expression of CHS in rats. Methods. Nitrite accumulation in conditioned medium (CM) of rat ear skin following challenge with DNCB was determined by Griess assay. The experiment was conducted on two genetically different rat strains (AO and DA), which differ in the magnitude of ear swelling response. Results. Dose-dependent increase in nitrite levels was noted in CM following application of 0.65% and 1.3% DNCB to the ears of sensitized rats of both strains. The response was higher in DA rats, displaying a more vigorous ear swelling. Correlation between ear swelling and the levels of nitrites in CM of both strains was found. Decrease in nitrite levels was noted in CM in the presence of aminoguanidine, a known inhibitor with marked specificity for the inducible isoform of the NO synthase in rodents. Conclusion. Presented data demonstrated the utility of skin organ- culture system in detection of NO production during the expression of CHS. >Persichini T, Ascenzi P, Colizzi V, Fraziano M, Venturini G, Colasanti >M. Molecular bases for the anti-HIV-1 effect of NO. Commentary. Int J >Mol Med. 1999 Oct;4(4):365-8. then this almost utterly irrelevant abstract (cited below) about a local inflammatory response in conditioned medium to DNCB...as if that reflects a systemic response....as if that means anything at all in relation to HIV... LOL...there goes frodlet! Pushing his unproven cure for AIDS, DNCB that he claims is totally non-toxic. Hey, frod, ever take that bath in DNCB yet? Full strength! You go, girl! George M. Carter citing M. Kataranovski, G. Milojeviç, L. Kandolf and V. Miloseviç Skin-organ culture as an approach in evaluation of nitric oxide (NO) involvement incontact hypersensitivity expression. Acta Dermatovenerologica. 2002, Vol 11, No 1 >>Persichini T, Ascenzi P, Colizzi V, Fraziano M, Venturini G, Colasanti >>M. Molecular bases for the anti-HIV-1 effect of NO. Commentary. Int J >>Mol Med. 1999 Oct;4(4):365-8. > >then this almost utterly irrelevant abstract (cited below) The uneducated Carter struggles with the very notion of intelligence ... LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>>Persichini T, Ascenzi P, Colizzi V, Fraziano M, Venturini G, Colasanti >>>M. Molecular bases for the anti-HIV-1 effect of NO. Commentary. Int J [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The uneducated Carter struggles with the very notion of >intelligence ... One ought to in general! Gosh, frodlet, that's the best response you could come up with??? >>>>Persichini T, Ascenzi P, Colizzi V, Fraziano M, Venturini G, Colasanti >>>>M. Molecular bases for the anti-HIV-1 effect of NO. Commentary. Int J [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > that's the best response you could come up with??? No, Mr. Carter, that's the best response YOU could come up with. After all, it was I who posted the science. LOL! >> that's the best response you could come up with??? > >No, Mr. Carter, that's the best response YOU could come up with. No, Mr . Shaw, you posted a couple of abstracts which I questioned and you are apparently too stupid to understand what you posted. >After all, it was I who posted the science. Indeed. You apparently were incapable of understanding it. But it does seem to indicate that you think HIV causes AIDS and therefore people should use something based on a lab study. >LOL! I think your laughter is taking on an edge of hysteria, dearest! George M. Carter >>> that's the best response you could come up with??? >> >>No, Mr. Carter, that's the best response YOU could come up with. > >No, Mr . Shaw, you posted a couple of abstracts which I questioned You questioned nothing, Mr. Carter. That would require something you lack: intelligence. >>After all, it was I who posted the science. > >You apparently were incapable of understanding it. All we need to understand here is how the very mention of Carter's pharma-nemesis, DNCB, as an effective and very cheap alternative to the death-meds simply makes Carter's eyeballs explode! If DNCB became the standard of care, there would be no money for Carter and his pharma-cronies - and that's the true threat of DNCB. >>>> that's the best response you could come up with??? >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You questioned nothing, Mr. Carter. That is another of your lies, frod.I reiterate the post below. >Persichini T, Ascenzi P, Colizzi V, Fraziano M, Venturini G, Colasanti >M. Molecular bases for the anti-HIV-1 effect of NO. Commentary. Int J >Mol Med. 1999 Oct;4(4):365-8. then this almost utterly irrelevant abstract (cited below) about a local inflammatory response in conditioned medium to DNCB...as if that reflects a systemic response....as if that means anything at all in relation to HIV... LOL...there goes frodlet! Pushing his unproven cure for AIDS, DNCB that he claims is totally non-toxic. Hey, frod, ever take that bath in DNCB yet? Full strength! You go, girl! George M. Carter citing M. Kataranovski, G. Milojeviç, L. Kandolf and V. Miloseviç Skin-organ culture as an approach in evaluation of nitric oxide (NO) involvement incontact hypersensitivity expression. Acta Dermatovenerologica. 2002, Vol 11, No 1 >That would require something you lack: intelligence. Well, then dear, if you are the one with all the answers and the incredible brilliance, do share it! Gosh, one would think that was what you were here to do! But it seems you don't care, or so you claim? Is that what it is? >>>After all, it was I who posted the science. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >very cheap alternative to the death-meds simply makes >Carter's eyeballs explode! You do give me lots of laughs, frod! OK--you CLAIM DNCB is an "effective and very cheap alternative" -- based on WHAT evidence or data? To treat what? HIV disease and consequent development of AIDS, one would presume--is that correct? Then you're saying you DO believe HIV exists and causes AIDS and YOU have the cure. DNCB. Or are you? Frodlet, why are you so shifty and sneaky about this? >If DNCB became the standard of care, there would be >no money for Carter and his pharma-cronies - and >that's the true threat of DNCB. Honey, dearest sweet lil munchkin of life, I WISH DNCB worked as you claim. I wish it was the cheap easy cure for AIDS. But it ain't. I'm not even sure at this point it's anything more than an utter waste of time for managing HIV disease. It may have other useful indications, though. I seem to recall reading literature to that effect. But HIV? Sorry. Unless you have some new clinical data to share? George M. Carter >>>>> that's the best response you could come up with??? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >That is another of your lies, frod.I reiterate the post below. >then this almost utterly irrelevant abstract (cited below) about a >local inflammatory response in conditioned medium to DNCB...as if that >reflects a systemic response....as if that means anything at all in >relation to HIV... Again, I say, you questioned nothing. The only thing questioned here would be your sanity, and as to that, there is no question. snip... >Again, I say, you questioned nothing. Obviously you have to say that because you have no cogent response. Let me make it easier for you--but like all the questions--you'll duck it. The RE line is illustrative and you wrote it. Do you claim that the evidence you provided supports the contention? Where is the evidence that NO always has anti-HIV effects? Where is the evidence that any localized effect of DNCB in inducing an inflammatory response has any impact on systemic HIV disease? Or clinical reponse? George M. Carter >snip... > >>Again, I say, you questioned nothing. > >Obviously you have to say that because you have no cogent response. Actually, Mr. Carter, your rants are themselves clinical evidence of your escalating paranoia and mental illness. >>snip... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Actually, Mr. Carter, your rants are themselves clinical evidence >of your escalating paranoia and mental illness. And there it is again--I asked questions that pertain to the issues of this NG, and you decided once again to retreat to infantile name calling. But that's always been the way with you Fred. And truly, it's sad for you. Can't you find some help? George M. Carter >>>snip... >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >And there it is again and there it goes again! The RE line is illustrative and you wrote it. Do you claim that the evidence you provided supports the contention? Where is the evidence that NO always has anti-HIV effects? Where is the evidence that any localized effect of DNCB in inducing an inflammatory response has any impact on systemic HIV disease? Or clinical reponse? George M. Carter >The RE line is illustrative and you wrote it. No, actually I didn't write it. I merely posted it. >Do you claim that the evidence you provided supports the contention? I don't make medical claims, unlike yourself. >Where is the evidence that NO always has anti-HIV effects? Mr. Carter, your delusional paranoia forces you into a world where you need to inject "always" or "never" into everything. You simply seek out victims to argue with. That's what makes you the Troll that you are. As to the posted evidence, if you are actually interested - which you are not - go to the journals and do the research to draw whatever pre-conclusion you need. >Where is the evidence that any localized effect of DNCB in inducing an >inflammatory response has any impact on systemic HIV disease? Or >clinical reponse? Mr. Carter, you know the DNCB data has been published, to your admitted dismay. I merely provided a few recent, yet compelling, abstracts. We are all sad that you once again refuse to accept the truth which might save those who have something you don't: a positive antibody test. >>The RE line is illustrative and you wrote it. > >No, actually I didn't write it. I merely posted it. Really. How novel. >>Do you claim that the evidence you provided supports the contention? > >I don't make medical claims, unlike yourself. But you do make medical claims. >>Where is the evidence that NO always has anti-HIV effects? > >Mr. Carter, your delusional paranoia forces you into a world where >you need to inject "always" or "never" into everything. So you realize that NO also has HIV activating effects? >You simply seek out victims to argue with. That's what makes you >the Troll that you are. Here you're describing yourself to a tee, my dear! >As to the posted evidence, if you are actually interested - which you >are not - go to the journals and do the research to draw whatever >pre-conclusion you need. What a silly statement! >>Where is the evidence that any localized effect of DNCB in inducing an >>inflammatory response has any impact on systemic HIV disease? Or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >your admitted dismay. I merely provided a few recent, >yet compelling, abstracts. Indeed, the DNCB data I have seen to date is somewhat dismaying in that it appears to be relatively ineffective. >We are all sad that you once again refuse to accept the truth >which might save those who have something you don't: >a positive antibody test. Here you are making medical claims, something I thought you said you didn't do! And now it appears you think that an HIV+ test result is indicative of something needing treatment--with the only treatment you embrace: DNCB. If that's incorrect, by all means, feel free to clarify. I'm sure even your dear friend Iconoclaster is beginning to wonder at your disingenuous tactics and evasive maneuvering. George M. Carter >>>The RE line is illustrative and you wrote it. >> >>No, actually I didn't write it. I merely posted it. >>>Where is the evidence that NO always has anti-HIV effects? >> >>Mr. Carter, your delusional paranoia forces you into a world where >>you need to inject "always" or "never" into everything. > >So you realize that NO also has HIV activating effects? I only need to realize that you are out of your mind. >>As to the posted evidence, if you are actually interested - which you >>are not - go to the journals and do the research to draw whatever >>pre-conclusion you need. > >What a silly statement! You are being silly, Mr. Carter. >Indeed, the DNCB data I have seen to date is somewhat dismaying in >that it appears to be relatively ineffective. See what I said about your pre-conclusions ... there you go again! >>We are all sad that you once again refuse to accept the truth >>which might save those who have something you don't: >>a positive antibody test. > >Here you are making medical claims Nope, I was merely pointing out your irrational conduct.. >And now it appears you think that an HIV+ test result is indicative of >something needing treatment No Mr. Carter - that's YOUR Santa Claus, not mine. >If that's incorrect, by all means, feel free to clarify. You are welcome. >I'm sure even your dear friend Iconoclaster is beginning to wonder at >your disingenuous tactics and evasive maneuvering. Mr. Carter, do you believe we are out to get you because you claim not to be paid to promote deadly drugs for a purported disease that you don't have? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.