MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL 4 HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL

INFECTIOUS DISEASE UNIT

Department of Medicine

Mailing Address:
Massachusetts General Hospital
Fruit Street, Boston, Mass. 02114
Telephone:
Area Code: 617 - 726-3812

April 19, 1985

Max Essex, DVM, PhD.
Department of Cancer Biology
Harvard School of Public Health
665 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA 02115

Dear Max:

Thanks for your letter requesting opinions regarding human

retrovirus terminology. To me, the most sensible approach would be to
call the three identified viruses Human Retroviruses 1, 2, and 3. The
reasons for this are many:

1. It would allow subsequent retroviruses to be sequentially
   named and avoid the nonsense that has occurred with other
  viruses. For example Coxsackie and ECHO viruses, ridiculous
  names, have now been replaced by enterovirus 69, 70, etc.

2. Current names are all unsatisfactory. None of the three

isolated viruses is completely T-lymphotropic (HTLV-I
replcates in endothelial cells, HTLV-I11 replicates in
monocytes, certain B cells, and CNS cells of undefined types).
LAV is totally inappropriate and ARV is unnecessarily
pejoritive.
syndromes in addition to AIDS (acute mono syndrome,
thrombocytopenia, encephalopathy), thus ARV is inappropriate.

The virus can apparantly cause many other

3.

It would avoid priority claims.  All know that both the Gallo
and Montagnier groups deserve great credit, so why bother with
a nomenclature conflict? Without doubt the worst solution of
all would be the compromise HTLV-III/LAV.

I don't see any reasons not to use the HRV 1, 2, 3, terminology,

and many reasons why it is preferable to other suggestions. I hope
these opinions are helpful.

Best wishes.

Sincerely yours,

Martin S. Hirsch, M.D.

MSH/ j s

cc: Harold E. Varmus, M.D.