STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305 o (415) 497-5715

STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Depurtment of Medicine
Drwrron of Infectrour Drreurer

July 2, 1985

Harold E. Varmus, h4.D.
Department of Microbiology and

University of California, San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 94143

Immunology

Dear Harold:

I received your letter asking for suggestions in naming the AIDS retrovirus.

                                              My
thoughts are that the ideal name should follow the retrovirus naming system that includes a
natural host designation (in this case human) and a disease designation (in this case AIDS,
assuming that it is not premature to consider this virus to be an etiologic factor in AIDS).
For viruses with no known associated disease, some other term descriptive of notable
biological behavior such as a striking tissue tropism (e.g. deer kidney virus) or interference
with a well known virus (e.g. RIF) have been appropriately used. Under this rule human T4
- cell (or T helper cell, T lymphopathic or T lymphotropic) virus might be used but any OT
these would be less good, in my opinion, than human AIDS virus. This virus appears to infect
several cell types in addition to T4 cells and it may even produce disease by infecting other
cells (e.g. brain cells) but the apparent T4 cell preference and destruction are biologically
striking and this tropism could be referred to as in the above suggestions.

  There are many accepted retrovirus names that do not follow these rules including
many which contain the names of the virus discoverers. In my opinion these names are less
good and such a name should not be considered for this virus.  hlost of those virus names
appear to be early designations, often invented by the virus discoverer, and they became so
ingrained in the literature and in scientists' minds that they could not be easily changed.  As
you suggest, this is a potential problem with this virus. However, the first designated name,
lymphadenopathy associated virus or -3 LAV while understandable before the association with
AIDS, it now seems not at all appropriate and it would be unfortunate if this became the
accepted name. Human lymphotropic -- virus 111 (HTLV 111) in my view has better possibilities
but I feel strongly that this name with the designation 111 erroneously suggests more
relatedness to HTLV I and HTLV I1 than just a common natural host. Evidence is
accumulating that the AIDS virus may be genetically or evolutionarily (based on nucleotide
sequence, gene organization, and virion structure) quite different from HTLV I and I1 so that
HTLV I11 is to me an undesirable name. Dropping 111 from the name would makea more
acceptable name (HTLV) except that HTLV is alreaTy used for HTLV I and 11, and if this
name is retained for HTLV I and 11, HTLV is inappropriate for the AIDS virus for the reasons
suggested above. AIDS related virus or ARV is a name that could be applied to ChIV, HSV,
HBV and many other viruses commonly found in AIDS patients and this name should not be
considered in my opinion for the AIDS virus.

  Since at least 3 different names for this virus are now being used in the literature,
none of the three has yet displaced the other two and all have significant drawbacks, I would
think that all could be replaced by a new name that is generally acceptable to the scientific
community working with the virus. My preference would be human AIDS virus (HAV) despite
the problem of the letter designation being the same as that used for hepatitis A virus.  This
would not bethe first example of two viruses with the same initials. Still better might be to
change the name AIDS to something more appropriate in view of current knowledge (if AIDS
is a virus disease, then a variety of more specific and better names are possible) in which
case the appropriate virus name would not be HAV.

Sincerely yours,

William S. Robinson, M.D.
Professor of Medicine

2