Why they brought it back as OB-002 is they figured
Post# of 154479
(Total Views: 585)
Posted On: 07/28/2019 12:28:19 AM
Why they brought it back as OB-002 is they figured even if they couldn't make it in the main marketplace they could develop a niche as a rectal/vaginal topical gel.
It would do nothing to combat HIV at the surface, they must be hoping the absorption rate is high enough just below the surface to do some immediate blocking.
As far as cancer or other indications OB-002 acts as a gp120 blocker like maraviroc so expect some of the same side effects.
In fact OB-002's action may be due mainly to it's wider blockade of the T-cell.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2369...chemokines
It would do nothing to combat HIV at the surface, they must be hoping the absorption rate is high enough just below the surface to do some immediate blocking.
As far as cancer or other indications OB-002 acts as a gp120 blocker like maraviroc so expect some of the same side effects.
In fact OB-002's action may be due mainly to it's wider blockade of the T-cell.
Quote:
A number of CCR5 chemokine analogs with improved antiviral potency have been identified, including N-terminally modified RANTES analogs with agonist [aminooxypentane (AOP)-, PSC-or 6P4-RANTES] or antagonist features (5P12- or 2P3-RANTES),which represent promising molecules as topical microbicides (18,22). Although the enhanced potency of agonist analogs can be explained in terms of their increased capacity to induce CCR5 down-regulation (23), the inhibitory mechanism of antagonist analogs, which neither activate G protein signaling nor induce re-ceptor down-regulation, is more elusive. It was speculated that it might involve increased steric blockade of CCR5, but competition binding assays using labeled CCL4 as a tracer did not show any significant increase in CCR5 binding affinity
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2369...chemokines
(2)
(0)