Talk:HIV-Derived Lentiviral Vectors and Their Use as Gene Therapy Agents Against Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Overall, this page is really good! I thought the topic choice was really thorough and interesting. I liked that you addressed the function and then asked questions like "are the lentiviral vectors safe?". The conclusion section was also really helpful to wrap everything up. Also, good use of figures that linked back to the text.

There are a couple of formatting things you could clean up, and there were a few questions that occurred to me while I was reading you might want to consider addressing. You can add all of your subsections to the contents page, if you want, by adding more = signs in the code (i.e. ===What is gene therapy?===). Also, all of the names of your genes should be italicized, unless discussing the protein product (http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/pages/scientific-nomenclature.htm).

There were a few things I was hoping you could elaborate on a little more. For instance, at the beginning you mention that viral agents are only one method of gene therapy for cell transformation. It might be helpful to be explicit about other methods in order to show that lentiviral vectors are the most promising route. You mention in the introduction as well that lentiviruses can be used to target virus or host genes to confer resistance. What sort of host genes allow viral entry? Are they transporters with other roles for the human cells? Are these genes essential or would there be an impact in knocking them down? In your overview of lentiviral vectors, you mention that HIV-1 can bud out when the cell's environment becomes unfavorable, such as during times of stress. Are there other times the virus would be induced to bud out? You also mention the current lentiviruses are the third generation, and you mention a couple of improvements over previous models, such as the Tet-On Tet-Off system. I'm wondering if you could provide a little bit more about the progression from the first to the current lentiviral vectors? Finally, there was one sentence in the "development of HIV-1 as a gene therapy agent" where you say "Any antibiotic in the tetracycline can be used to control gene expression, with doxycycline being the most common antibiotic used", and I'm wondering if you meant "tetracycline family".

Overall, I think everything was really clear and interesting! All of my comments are things that you have already included but I found particularly interesting, so it might be helpful to elaborate slightly on those sections. Great job!

(Hildy Joseph)

Comments

Audrey, your report is very descriptive and I enjoyed reading about lentiviral vectors and their incorporation into gene therapy practices (a subject which I previously didn't know much about).

The structure of your page is well organized and it follows a progression that is understandable and interesting. The only suggestions I have are regarding the concluding section. As I read it, I found myself curious about some of the points you touched on in that paragraph. Namely, the public's reaction and opinion of gene therapy as a mechanism for overcoming disease. While it's not as relevant to the rest of your report, the interaction between this growing field and the general population is something I would like to know more about in the paper's conclusion. Maybe just including a few more sentences on public opinion of HIV-derived lentiviral vectors and how more current research is combatting significant doubts? Also, did you come across any studies since the work you reported by Anderson et al (2009)? I'm curious about more current studies.

Overall, I think your page is very well done!

(Ali Stamatoiu)