Study finds why circumcision reduces female-to-male HIV transmissionAn Australian study has found that male HIV infection may occurthrough infection of cells on the inner surface of the foreskin andthe fraenulum of uncircumcised men. These areas contain HIV-susceptible Langerhans' cells close to the skin surface of the skin,and are protected with only a thin layer of keratin. The study'sfindings were published in the 13th July edition of AIDS.Up to 90% of the 18.7 million HIV-positive men in the world wereinfected through heterosexual intercourse. However, recentobservational and randomised controlled studies have found thatremoval of the foreskin by circumcision can reduce the risk of female-to-male transmission by around 65%.To establish which HIV-susceptible cells are the initial sites ofinfection, two investigators from Melbourne examined thin slices ofthe penises and foreskins of 38 HIV-negative men under themicroscope. They looked at nine penises obtained from men who haddied and whose bodies had been preserved less than 24 hourspreviously, as well as fresh foreskins removed from 21 living menundergoing circumcision and eight men who had died.Firstly, the investigators looked at the thickness of the layer ofkeratin on different parts of the penis, scoring thickness on a scaleof zero to five. They found that the inner surface of the foreskin,which is not exposed when the penis is flaccid, had a thinner keratinlayer than both the outer surface (1.8 vs. 3.3 units) and the `glans'or head of the penis (3.3 units; p < 0.05).Similarly, the fraenulum, the thin strip of flesh on the underside ofthe penis that connects the shaft to the head, had almost no keratinlayer. Keratin is a protein found in skin cells that forms a barrierto prevent HIV entering the body through the skin.They also looked at the distribution of cells that can be infectedwith HIV after using an antibody-based staining method. Although theLangerhans' cells were found at greatest density in the outerforeskin, these cells were closest to the surface of the skin in theinner surface of the foreskin and in the fraenulum. Langerhans' cellsare responsible for picking up disease-causing organisms and takingthem to the lymph nodes to inform the immune system, so they arethought to be a major route to HIV infection."Superficial Langerhans' cells on the inner aspect of the foreskinand fraenulum are poorly protected by keratin and thus could play animportant role in primary male infection," the investigators write."These findings provide a possible anatomical explanation for theepidemiologically observed protective effect of male circumcision."Other HIV-susceptible cells including dendritic cells, CD4 T-cellsand macrophages were only found in deeper layers of the skin, so areunlikely to be the route of HIV infection unless the skin is brokenor inflamed.The researchers explain that the inner surface of the foreskin isexposed to the outside and stretched when the penis is erect, thusputting it into direct contact with HIV-infected vaginal secretionsduring unprotected sex. However, they also point out that the cavityformed by the foreskin around the head of the penis could act as astore for HIV after sexual intercourse, extending the time for whichthe inner foreskin is exposed to the virus.The investigators also found that the urethra, the tube that carriesurine and semen, contained no keratin, while the opening of theurethra had very little. However, these areas of the penis containedvery few HIV-susceptible cells, so are unlikely to be routes for HIVinfection.Conversely, the outer surface of the foreskin and the glans containHIV-susceptible cells, but are protected by a thick layer of keratin.ReferenceMcCoombe SG et al. Potential HIV-1 target cells in the human penis.AIDS 20: 1491-1495, 2006.
-
Study finds why circumcision reduces female-to-mal
-
Interesting article. This is the only section I agree with though: In reply to:However, they also point out that the cavityformed by the foreskin around the head of the penis could act as astore for HIV after sexual intercourse, extending the time for whichthe inner foreskin is exposed to the virus.What the article fails to identify or explain, is that the circumcised penis still has a portion of inner foreskin remaining. In a circumcised penis, the brighter pink area that is above the circumcision scar and below the ridge of the glans, is inner foreskin. I'm sure it does keratinize from being exposed to the air so much, but it is still much thinner skin than the rest of the penis.
-
You posted a Yahoo article on the same subject here. I don't know what more people can say here that they didn't say there, in response to that article.By the way, you should have cited the source of the article you copied. I'm not sure whether this is the original source.I understand that you were circumcised for what was probably a very good reason (phimosis), but you seem to be on a mission to convince people (or yourself) that it's a really great thing in general. If you have promiscuous, unprotected sex, especially in Africa, being circumcised may reduce your chance of getting infected with HIV. But for most people in the West, the tradeoff is not a good one. As was said, a woman can have her breasts removed to prevent her from having to worry about breast cancer, but does that make sense for most women.
-
Jesus juped up fuck oh dear, hasnt this been beat to death in the other thread you did a bit ago? or the ones before that?what do you get out of it ?do you perform circumcisions and revenues are low?what the hell do you keep making new threads with the same info for? you havent posted anythign new, its the same shit over and over and overff, if your going to fcontinue posting new threads atleast give different information and for once something with some sound base to it instead of just soe assholes opinion in a shitty situation with no real control or scientific soundness behind it.
-
dear stevea-you seem to misunderstand alot of suff. I didn't write this story. I signed up to news alerts on the subject of circumcision and they send them to me. that's all. this is a new study, and a new piece of evidence about the relation between circumcision status and hiv.
-
I'm not sure how much stuff I don't understand, but I understood that you didn't write the story. The fact that I found it elsewhere on the Web and provided a link should have clued you into that.
If you copy someone else's work, it's proper to cite the source, even if you're not actually claiming it as your own.
What new points does this article raise that the one you cited a few weeks ago did not? Are you claiming that this study invalidates the replies to the other thread? I don't think so. But all you did was quote the story without comment, so all we can do is guess what your point is.
Given your posts, and the subject that they concentrate on, I don't think it would be unfair to call you an advocate for circumcision. I don't recall your ever saying anything not in favor of it. I'm glad it's worked out so well for you, but that doesn't mean that it's perfect in all aspects for everyone.
-
And once again we come to the almost perfect solution to HIV, use a condom.
-
I think it's pretty well established that intact males have a higher chance of getting infected with anything for that matter. I'm not disputing that. Do you advocate that everyone in the world start getting circumcised? What I don't understand is what you want to say? You keep posting this stuff but say nothing. If you slut arond and don't use protection, you risk being infected circumcised or not.
-
SteveA wrote:
"What new points does this article raise that the one you cited a few weeks ago did not? Are you claiming that this study invalidates the replies to the other thread? I don't think so."the difference between the 2 stories is that the second one is further proof of the first. the first story says that its been observed that circumcision reduces the transmission of hiv, the second one tells you why.
Im not saying anyone else should get circumcised because I like it, but the extreme anti-circumcision attitude on a2a is also scaring guys who have real serious problems and need circumcision. Ive been imd by several who thank me for giving the other side.
Im not having any kids very soon hopefully but when I do, Ill take this hiv info into account. I read they think a hiv vaccine might be only 80% effective and circumcision seems to be almost as effective. of course everybody should use condoms but there are times when alot of guys dont or they can also break. Id rather have max protection for times like that and would probably want my son to. -
In reply to:further proof of the firstA bit of a nit: neither story is "proof" of anything. That word generally does not belong in a scientific context. However, there is good evidence that having a foreskin makes a man somewhat more vulnerable to certain infections_.It may look like I'm parsing words here, but the words are important. There is evidence that a foreskin likely makes it more likely to pick up an infection_, if one is having sex with an infected person. The article itself does not answer the question of whether that means it's worthwhile to preemtively remove the foreskin.The rate of breast_cancer in women is much higher than the rate of HIV_infection in the U.S. Should women preemptively remove their breasts? Isn't the logic the same?In reply to:but the extreme anti-circumcision attitude on a2a is also scaring guys who have real serious problems and need circumcision. Ive been imd by several who thank me for giving the other side.There are people who have posted about tight foreskin, and who have been advised to try stretching. There have been people who have clear symptoms of phimosis, and who have been advised to see a urologist. The medical community is rather tilted toward removing foreskins. It seems fair that people should be presented the idea that the foreskin serves some purpose, and some thought should go into it's disposition.Really, if someone wants to get circumcised, it's their own business. If they have phimosis that won't respond to any other treatment, then certainly they should get circumcised. But if they want to start a debate on the idea of circumcision in general, they will find people who strongly support the idea that the foreskin does serve a useful purpose.In reply to:Im not having any kids very soon hopefully but when I do, Ill take this hiv_ info into account. I read they think a hiv vaccine might be only 80% effective and circumcision seems to be almost as effective. of course everybody should use condoms but there are times when alot of guys dont or they can also break. Id rather have max protection for times like that and would probably want my son to.Would your son be having sex as a child? No? Then, given that there are differing points of view, why don't you let your son make his own decision?
-
In reply to:I read they think a hiv vaccine might be only 80% effective and circumcision seems to be almost as effective. of course everybody should use condoms but there are times when alot of guys dont or they can also break. Id rather have max protection for times like that and would probably want my son to Yes, but circumcision is not protection against HIV. A condom is protection. Safe sex is protection. Circumcision is simply theorized to maybe reduce the infection RATE of HIV in certain countries. That's not protection. Would you bet your life on it?