• More Blogs
• Observations »
• Bering in Mind »
• Cross-check »
• Extinction Countdown »
• Solar at Home »
• Expeditions »
• Guest Blog »
• Anecdotes from the Archive »

Although acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) didn't hit mainstream collective consciousness until the early 1980s, new research out of the University of Arizona in Tucson indicates that the most pervasive global strain of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) began spreading among humans between 1884 and 1924, a finding that suggests growing urbanization in colonial Africa set the stage for the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Michael Worobey, an assistant ecology and evolutionary biology professor at Arizona, led the research, which studied a number of HIV-1 (the strain found in most cases outside of Africa) genetic sequences to determine the time periods when the virus genetically diverged from its predecessors. These findings, published in the current issue of Nature, were mapped out in the form of a family tree whose roots date back to the beginning of the 20th century.

The research, co-sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, included a team of scientists from four continents who screened multiple tissue samples and uncovered the world's second-oldest genetic sequence of HIV-1 group M, which dates from 1960. The scientists used that, along with dozens of other previously known HIV-1 sequences, to construct a range of plausible family trees for this viral strain.

The scientists recovered the 48-year-old HIV gene fragments from a wax-embedded lymph node tissue biopsy from a woman in Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The oldest known HIV-1 group M genetic sequence comes from a 1959 blood sample given by a Kinshasa man. A comparison between the same genetic regions of the 1959 and 1960 viruses provided additional evidence that their common ancestor existed around 1900.

Earlier estimates indicated that HIV first appeared in 1930, still well before most people had heard of either the virus or AIDS.

Bloomberg.com today reported that the AIDS virus is infecting more women, heterosexual couples and gay men in China as the epidemic spreads from intravenous drug users to the general population, according to a study to be published Thursday in Nature.

Elsewhere, The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., Tuesday announced it has received a $30-million grant from the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), a large philanthropy in New York City, to create the world's only center dedicated to the "neutralizing antibody" approach, a promising way to develop an AIDS vaccine, according to The San Diego Union-Tribune's Web site. IAVI created the Neutralizing Antibody Consortium six years ago to address a neglected area of AIDS vaccine research and development, according to the La Jolla Light Web site.

(Image courtesy of iStockphoto; Copyright: Duncan Walker)

5 Comments

1. 1. northwesternsun 06:29 AM 10/2/08

   thfghfghfdhffdhfdgdf

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. northwesternsun 06:33 AM 10/2/08

   I am sorry about my former mistake, it is merely a accident.
   I hope our scientist spare their effort to find a way of limiting this kind of disease.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Mmoasem in reply to northwesternsun 10:05 AM 10/3/08

   Thge report is quite interesting in placing a historical and political economic phenomena of European colonization in African with the origins of HIV/AIDS. The report did not specifically say the trend/pattern of how virus infected Africans.Did infected British,French,Germans,Spaniards,
   Italians or Portuguese colonizers brought the virus to Africa and transmitted the virus through socialization? In his book,"THE RIVER",Mr.
   Stephenson pointed to Belgium/French bio-medical researchers monkey/
   chimp brain/kidney harvesting scheme as medium rural Africans got infected as natives fed on infected chimp/Bonobo monkey carcass. The lack of sophiscated medical technology in sub-Saharan Africa makes the continent vulnerable to emerging diseases. The colonialist theory is suspect and diversionary.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. JHSibal 03:09 PM 10/3/08

   Urbanization (1) in Africa did exist prior to the Europeans being able to live there once quinine was in wide use around 1870 and onwards. Prior to that, it was know as "the white man's grave" and social and literal intercouse too place on the rocky islands off the coast.
   But the Congo, specifically, had a symbiotic relationship with Portugal for half a millennia going back to 1482, prior to the "discovery" of AIDS. A brisk trade ensured from the cities of the Congo--they were urbanized apparently--and the Congo royal family went to school in Lisbon for centuries--where they sometimes sold off family members when low on cash. And African women were highly prized as exotic trophies in Portugal--many were married and given status.
   Given this and knowing the intrinsic sexuality of our specie, I don't think this thesis holds water as it is currently understood.
   What is the definition of "urbanization" in this theory?
   Are we to understand that 500 years of Europeans having sex with Africans on a rather large scale (and for that matter, on beds, tables, in the fields, abord ships and on the farms of Portugal and Spain), does not constitute sufficient well, uhhh.....dipping into viral reservoirs?
   Is the use of "bush meat" a recent phenemona?
   While this is a promising theory, it seems to require a history of Africa which is contrary to the current data.
   
   (1) Urbanization itself is a complex issue. The physical remains of African cities are almost nil. In an area like Egpyt, the whole concept is contrary to an European notion. BUT, large numbers of people existed, mingled and had sex with each other. That is not in doubt.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. emil47 01:34 PM 10/12/08

   As I understand the problem, the virus became dangerous to man only after a lot of genetic mutations (because it is an successor of an ape's virus); if that is true, why is it important that it was traced back to 1900-th?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this