Peer review files: https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/es...
Independent article covering it: https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/hiv-vaccine-can...
It's a positive step, but still a fair way off for humans.
That being said, I don't understand enough to parse this very buzzword heavy release. Is this fundamentally different than the every 6 month vaccine we have now and is a more traditional vaccine or is it just continuing on that trend?
So each turn, B-cells are presented with the latest version of the virus, they generate various antibodies to the various parts, and are graded at the end by how well the generated antibodies bind to the virus. The problem is that you have 1 million cells which bind strongly to the fake decoy targets and 1 cell which will bind not as strong to the real effective target. So this 1 cell never gets "promoted".
What this "germline targeting" multi-shot vaccine tries to do is to introduce a series of targets that stimulate that 1 in a million cell which will attack the right part of the HIV virus, so it gets "promoted", so if the real virus appears, the body will still go for the decoy targets, but will also generate a lot of these really effective 1 in a million cells, which got "promoted" previously by the vaccine.
To be more precise, you need to "guide" a lets call it B1 cell that all of us have in our repertoire to mutate into B2 then B3 than B4, because this B4 version will be capable of creating the right antibodies for HIV, the issue being that the intermediary states, B2, B3 are not naturally promoted so you very rarely get to the B4 state without this intervention.
If everyone was disciplined all the time in regard to everything, many problems in the world would simply not exist. But we live in reality where for whatever reason, people don't know to do something, or they do know and they're just not disciplined, or they make a mistake due to extenuating circumstances. And I would expect that the vast majority of people would oppose any idea of somehow punitively "dealing with" people who get some things wrong.
So I would say that it's very evidently not a practically solved problem, because if it were we wouldn't be looking to solve it still.
Within this reality, a vaccine is a great additional tool at solving the problem of preventing the spread of HIV.
It's an incredible system, and a product of probably a billion years of evolution since the first multicellular organisms had to protect themselves from infection.
The power of a vaccine is you can give it to adults and kids before they are sexually active and protect them, potentially, for the rest of their lives.
I'd also be curious to know if the combination of ART + the vaccine might cure someone of HIV. Which is also a pretty big deal.
We also have education and stigma. While within the LGBT community it is far more common to be open about status and taking prep and doxy (far from perfect though), it still feels like outside of that the conversations are not happening as much as they should.
Throw in doctors that are not being proactive about the conversation.
Right now it seems like having prep and doxy is largely considered only if you are engaged in "risky" behavior (not saying that in a judgmental way to be clear), instead of just being sexually active and protecting yourself. Money and investment alone won't fix that, that is a societal shift around how we talk about sex.
That is also before we get into the cost issues in many other countries just for those that do need it.
This is in the "interesting advancement" stage, not "promising treatment."
A vaccine is an objectively better solution than PrEP, just because of the time scale, PrEP needs discipline on a daily or x-monthly basis. A vaccine could last for years. Although, realistically, it's more likely to end up requiring yearly updates like COVID, because HIV is also a mutating son of a bitch.
I 100% agree that waiting for a vaccine is stupid beyond measure. The world should do both: make PrEP widely available AND keep funding vaccine research.
Paid off it did not.
I agree it is far off from something in humans but it's a giant leap. The way I see it is like sending Laika in space before we send humans. It's significant and promising of a future where humans might have a vaccine.
I’m more familiar with malaria, where the preventative medicines are currently more effective than the vaccines.
The answer to “are more tools really going to help” is always going to be “it depends.” Promising interventions sometimes fail entirely. If they statistically improve outcomes, that’s a win. Only occasionally is a disease entirely eradicated.
I would like to thank all the scientists who have dedicated all their hard work and ingenuity to eliminating the impact of cancer. Also, fuck cancer.
At the risk of derailing this conversation from the original topic, those two things are not remotely equivalent. There's no organized political movement trying to tell people that seat belts and speed limits are immoral, and you should only drive when you're willing to accept the responsibility that comes with the risks.
Of course, and for good reason. The ones who know for a fact they are right, might in fact be wrong or malicious.
This is why it's hard to make a 'super vaccine' for flu, becuase it takes many rounds of shots to retrain some people's immune systems once they've latched on to the wrong recipe for antibodies.
I would caution against making an allusion to self control. It would be very cruel to act as if people who get a disease through no fault of their own could have avoided it, and most people who contract HIV could not. You may not have intended to make that allusion, but you did.
> So I would say that it's very evidently not a practically solved problem, because if it were we wouldn't be looking to solve it still.
This is obviously not what is meant by "practically solved problem". Everybody knows it is not actually solved.
HIV prevention is similar. We already have the tools. We have condoms. We have PrEP. Sure, a vaccine would be nice, but if someone is unwilling to go on PrEP, why would they suddenly be willing to get a vaccine?
Another tool isn't going to hurt, obviously. But it also isn't the #1 highest leverage place to be spending our time if the goal is to reduce HIV transmission. (It is, however, a great use of time to develop a vaccine if you're profit-motivated. HIV prevention is a massive business. 1 year of PrEP in the US costs $20-30k, although luckily ACA mandates $0 copay. I could imagine a $50k HIV vaccine being a blockbuster drug especially if ACA also mandates $0 copay - tons of money to be made! Ugh)
Edit: To be clear, I'm excited there's a promising vaccine. However, I am not getting my hopes up that a vaccine will magically cure all of the social/political issues getting in the way of a vaccine actually being widely distributed and administered.
I fully believe that HIV wouldn’t exist if PrEP had come out in the 80s when public hysteria was at an all-time high and the will to eradicate it was present.
> I'd also be curious to know if the combination of ART + the vaccine might cure someone of HIV. Which is also a pretty big deal.
"Cure" in the sense they could become indefinitely under detectable levels. It's worth noting that to really cure a person of HIV you'd need to remove all mutated cells.
Vaccines are the "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
Which countries are you talking about out of curiosity?
https://www.tumblr.com/squareallworthy/163790039847/everyone...
Condoms? They break. More frequently than you might think.
Truvada and Descovy are great and make a big difference, but they require either high adherence to taking pills daily or being able to plan ahead for 2-1-1 (for same-sex relations - it's effectiveness for heterosexual intercourse hasn't been determined).
Apretude and Lenacapavir obviously require getting to a doctor or someone who can give you the injection either every other month or twice a year, is expensive, and can be very painful for some days afterward. And, of course, they're expensive.
A vaccine is the only real option for dealing with HIV for good.
A vaccine is something you do once and PrEP is something you have to continue to do over time and get overcharged out the ass for the entire time and worry about if it will remain available in the future.
You mean the time the US admin was intentionally neglecting the epidemic because "it's a gay disease"? Why do you think Reagan would have done anything to ensure such a medication was easily available?
I agree that a vaccine is another game-changer, but it’s extremely important that we don’t spread misinformation about the efficacy and convenience of PrEP. In developed societies, it has already all but eliminated new transmissions among groups that were previously most at risk.
Most people want to believe they are in a monogamous relationship and thus not having risky sex - even though they are the one cheating. Either PReP needs to be more common, are people need to stop their risky sex activities (that they are not even admitting to).
But I guess that sex without condoms is worth it, right?
I distinctly remember Reagan cabinet members openly joking about all the people dying from it in WhiteHouse press briefing (basically Trump before Trump prototypes)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_HIV/AIDS
Now if they could just do this for me-cfs/long-covid and related auto-immune diseases (there are over eighty) without the 50 year timeline please
It's quite sad and difficult to read at times.
This is factually untrue.
Being poor does not equal a HIV transmission rate. There is no 1:1 correlation.
A single protected (condom) sexual act between a male and female averages somewhere around 0.1-0.5% chance of pregnancy, and during the fertile window it could still be around 1% or more even with a condom.
Chance of HIV from one act of unprotected vaginal sex with an HIV-positive partner: ~0.08% male-to-female.
The high HIV transmission rates are NOT correlated with wealth, but social behavior. Unprotected anal sex with many partners? High risk. Now, Africa - the practice of dry sex contributes a ton to HIV transmission. Cultural belief that a dry vagina increases pleasure, hence woman use sand, chalk or bleach to dry out their vaginas, massively increasing HIV risk. Needle sharing of drug users? High HIV risk.
Not a class issue, no reason to punch down on poor people. Poor people have agency and many do not infect themselves with HIV in the first place.
If there were a pill that'd block pregnancy for X years, given at the age of Y, then parents could enforce it and teen pregnancy would be solved (also it'd be very cruel but I'm just trying to make a point so bear with me).
Going back to our topic: People could also forget PrEP, be drunk and forget to wear a condom and so on. If this vaccine (or vaccine series) creates a somewhat permanent protection, it'd make a huge difference.
Also, I believe that we just DOGEd our only vehicle for distributing these to underdeveloped nations.
Because PrEP at even its best and most modern version requires an update every six months for life. If you're well-off and in SF or NYC or London that might be easy, but there's so many externalities such as:
- People who misjudge the risk they're at, so don't go on the meds in the first place
- People who live in regions where getting to a doctor even every six months is a challenge
- The six-month injection is extraordinarily expensive and a life-time treatment, for a disease you don't even have yet.
If instead it becomes a once-in-a-lifetime series of shot, like many other vaccines are already, we can start considering a path to extinguishing the disease, not just teaching people to live with it.
Then there's the financial savings of a series of three shots once vs a lifetime of them.
This whole "panic" seemed weird from the start, but once it becomes clear that it's from the lack of teen pregnancies it takes on an even creepier Epstein-like oddness.
"Gilead sells LEN at very high prices (over $28,000 per person per year in the US), severely restricts its supply to certain countries, and refuses to sell it directly to Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières"
Source: https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/campaigns/acces...
My argument is simply that new tools are great, but it's not what's going to solve the HIV problem. Distribution, cost, access, stigma, etc are the larger problems to deal with. (We need to solve all the reasons why people aren't using the existing tools)
Once it’s multi-drug resistant, if you’re poor then you get an incredibly depressing choice. Rich countries pay for expensive drug resistance testing.
Poor countries have to answer an impossible question. You either do nothing and see if they live, or you try to guess what drugs will work and give them those. However, if you’re wrong and the treatment doesn’t work then the risk that you’ve just made the strain immune to one or more of the drugs in that cocktail skyrockets.
They get asked to either do nothing, or do the best they can today knowing it will make tomorrow worse.
TB is also shockingly infectious, which is sad. You can at least take steps to dramatically reduce HIV risk, it’s much much harder to avoid TB.
If you're sure you don't want kids, or more kids, a bisalp, or bilateral salpingectomy (permanent birth control, removal of both fallopian tubes), is covered by Medicaid or ACA compliant private insurance in the US at 100% with no patient cost sharing as part of the Affordable Care Act federal statute. Doesn't apply to teens imho, but provides protection for 20-39 prime reproductive age cohort for those seeking it. It also decreases the risk of ovarian cancer by 42–77% (https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2018.61.5.542).
HIV PrEP in the short term is solved with a twice a year injectable (lenacapavir) until improved options become available (rapid deployment and robust availability of a vaccine given to as many at risk people as possible, as soon as possible). It can be provided for as little as $40/person (HN Search: lenacapavir - https://hn.algolia.com/?q=lenacapavir).
US Government Overhauls Teen Pregnancy Program to Focus on Marriage and Starting Families - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/22/us/politics/teen-pregnanc... | https://archive.today/ - July 22nd, 2026
Teen birth rates hit another historical low in 2025, CDC says - https://www.npr.org/2026/04/09/nx-s1-5777587/teen-birth-rate... - April 9th, 2026
Private Money Saves Colorado IUD Program As Fight Continues For Public Funding - https://kffhealthnews.org/health-industry/private-money-save... - August 27th, 2015
(with all of that context shared, all vaccines and medical protocols that improve quality of life, as well as defend and empower the human, are welcome and needed, as quickly as reasonable)
You may be thinking of STD tests and bloodwork that is done every 3-6 months depending on your risk level to ensure that you're still HIV negative and that your kidneys are functioning normally, as kidney issues is a rare but serious side effect, especially for Truvada.
Now, what I believe is correct is that most people on PrEP would love to have a vaccine instead of needing a daily pill or even 2-6 injections per year as long as they remain sexually active.
Condoms break. Partners lie. Shit happens.
It doesn’t take a lot for the risks to far outweigh any potential side effects. As far as I’m aware, every healthcare system in the developed world either recommends or enforces checkups after starting PrEP.
And doxycycline is a PEP treatment, not a PrEP treatment; respectfully you should probably take a step back from conversations where you obviously aren’t informed about the basics.
- people need to make the right decisions to take oral or injectable reverse transcriptase inhibitors
- people need to make the right decisions to take HIV vaccines
We are comparing two tools, not tools versus discipline.
In some ways these reverse transcriptase inhibitors are like a vaccine, in that they can be taken by people who don't have HIV, for protection.
They are inconvenient, requiring regular injections every few months or timing protocols for the oral versions.
An effective vaccine that lasts years would be much more convenient.
Without a HIV vaccine, the toolkit has a gaping lack; another tool is needed!
1. The drop is fertility is bad for society
2. The drop in teen pregnancy is good, despite it's contributions to 1
3. We should try to fix 1. without undoing 2.
That blanket statement I very much disagree with. Sure there are side effects but that is part of why you also get tested every 3 months for liver issues (not that it is the only side effect, but still).
Instead of it being a blanket statement it should be a conversation with your doctor about the pros and cons.
You can still get HIV even if not engaging in risky behavior. Same with people getting pregnant when they did not intend too.
I am thinking college kids that are still figuring out their sexuality and exploring new things. You're going to make mistakes so having a conversation about prep with your doctor is a really good idea.
Not speaking about LGBT related matters; Sex without condom is just like everything else - it depends on the person. For some people there is little to no difference. For others, wearing the condom removes all sensation, reducing the act to physical exercise. So is sex without condoms worth it? For some people, yes, it is.
They want married teen pregnancy. By their own admission.
Why haven't other countries stepped up to address this pressing need? I'm sure every other western nation could easily chip in collectively to cover the roughly $34B budget USAID had. Or do they just not care about these millions of people apparently sentenced to death?
Some of that table is already mitigated: we test blood for HIV, so transmission by blood transfusion is unlikely. Transmission by pregnancy is less likely simply because few women have HIV: 80% of new cases in the US are male, 20% female.
The real question is whether "having a conversation about prep with your doctor" is going to lead to someone caring enough to pursue a prophylactic course of medication when that same person doesn't care enough about his own health or others' to avoid risky sexual encounters. Is someone irresponsible enough to pursue causal, unprotected sex with random partners also likely to be responsible enough to visit a doctor proactively and comply with a prep regimen? Sure, it's a "really good idea," but a simpler and better idea is not to have random sex in the first place. A "really good idea" depends on a level of self-control that some people obviously lack.
The problem is money doesn't build supply lines overnight. Nor does it hire experts both locally and globally and get them there. Much of the data collected on patients by USAID can't just be handed over to another government for a myriad of privacy issues. Patients then have to know that their old clinic no longer exists and they have to go to a new one (is it in the same village anymore?). In the meantime viral counts go up, people get sick, infect their partners or newborn children. You can't just "pick it up later" without causing real harm.
> or do they not care
Do we not? Why can't we care, why is it now someone else's problem because Musk is still mad Mandela was let off of Robin Island?
Anecdotally, very much so - at least among the gay/MSM community.
The thing is, people generally quite like having sex. That comes with some level of risk, which can be mitigated in various different ways - and PrEP is one of those tools.
All humans engage in some level of risky behaviour; evidence suggests that moralising about “responsible behaviour” or “self control” is rarely effective at mitigating that risk.
Someone could be taking the necessary precautions and a mistake happens, a condom breaks, whatever. Someone could have sex with one person in their life and they got it from that person. I would not consider that "risky" in any real sense of the word.
Any sex carries some amount of risk, and the key is being risk aware and not assuming that just because you are not engaging in what is generally deemed "risky" that you are safe. Instead you should be having that conversation with your doctor and determining what your risk tolerance is.
That is where I disagree, how many people are positive that never considered themselves engaging in risky behavior.
To me it is very dangerous, and leads to the situation we are in now, to just say only even consider prep if you are engaging in risky behavior.
Yeah, me. What a wild statement to make. It’s a big world out there, my friend.
Yes because it is such a fantastic idea to just ignore that there is still a risk regardless of what we call "risky" sex just because it doesn't fit in your puritanical views of sex.
If someone can get HIV the first time they have sex than your entire argument is moot.
Just have the conversation with your doctor and protect yourself and stop trying to push your views on others.
This is such a simple thing to say, talk to your doctor. Thats it. If doing so stops one person who is not engaging in anything that we would deem being risky from getting HIV, that is a win. There is nothing in your world that would stop someone who is having sex with someone that maybe they have been going on several dates, from getting HIV from that person if a mistake happens.
And yet, you seem to think that we are saying that you should be going to an orgy every other day.
Oh and let's not ignore that there are monogamous couples that one may have HIV and they need to also protect themselves.
It... was, until Musk dismantled USAID and Congress defunded PEPFAR.
So many comments by people who have never stepped foot out the Global North making wild assumptions.
PEP remains largely free in SSA post-USAID/PEPFAR cuts.
1. Know you were exposed (many many many people don't know they're HIV+)
2. Have the means to go to a clinic within 72 hours
3. Have the social capacity to go to the clinic safely (in many parts of Sub Saharan Africa doing so would insult your partner)
PEP is an emergency drug, not a prevention at all.

LJI Professor and Chief Scientific Officer Shane Crotty, Ph.D.
LA JOLLA, CA—A new HIV vaccine developed by La Jolla Institute for Immunology (LJI), Scripps Research scientists, and IAVI has the potential to protect humans from developing HIV infection and AIDS. This HIV vaccine is the first to generate a high number of “broadly neutralizing,” virus-fighting antibodies in primates.
“This feels like a huge success,” says LJI Professor and Chief Scientific Officer Shane Crotty, Ph.D., who co-led the research with Scripps Research Professor William Schief, Ph.D. “We constructed a successful vaccine from the ground up, which required a deep understanding of the immune system.”
This groundbreaking research, published in Nature, is the result of 14 years of collaboration between La Jolla Institute for Immunology and Scripps Research, as part of the Scripps Consortium for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Development (CHAVD). “This has been one of those Apollo moon mission-type projects, where there is an exceptional goal and the team has to accomplish a myriad of discoveries and inventions along the way,” says Crotty.
The new vaccine works by intervening in a process called B cell maturation. B cells make antibodies. Like many immune cells, B cells have an early “naive” stage before they are ready to make antibodies. B cells start to mature once they get the signal that a pathogen, such as a virus, is trying to attack. B cells see pieces of that pathogen’s molecular structure and start producing antibodies that can bind to that structure and halt infection.
It can take a little while for B cells to find the right “bullseye” on a pathogen. But B cells keep trying. As they mature, B cells tweak their antibody production, refining antibody structures to bind to a pathogen in just the right, vulnerable spots.
Scientists describe B cell development as a training process or bootcamp. In most cases, the body is left with a well-honed B cell army.
HIV is hard to beat because it doesn’t give B cells a chance to develop effective antibodies. The first problem is that HIV disguises itself from the immune system. The virus is wrapped in an ever-shifting cloak of sugar molecules, called glycans. This lets HIV sneak undetected past human cells, which are also covered in glycans.
The second big problem is that HIV mutates very quickly. “The worldwide diversity of HIV mutations is extraordinary. Even the diversity within one individual person living with HIV is dramatic,” says LJI Instructor Patrick Madden, Ph.D., who served as study co-first author with Jon Steichen, Ph.D., an institute investigator at Scripps Research.
The third problem is that HIV changes its shape when it infects human cells. Even if B cells get a glimpse of its viral structure—snap!—the structure changes.
Taken together, these problems rarely give B cells a chance to hone their antibody responses against HIV. Even if a B cell manages to make neutralizing antibodies, the virus can mutate or change its shape, rendering those antibodies useless.

LJI Instructor Patrick Madden, Ph.D.
The LJI and Scripps Research teams spent years hunting for “broadly neutralizing” antibodies that can actually bind to HIV and recognize key viral structures, even if the rest of the virus mutates. These antibodies are very, very rare, but they can be found in blood samples from a small number of people living with HIV.
An effective HIV vaccine would need to prompt the immune system to make these same broadly neutralizing antibodies. “How could we flip the whole immune response on its head so the rare responses become the common responses? That was a critical challenge we faced,” says Crotty.
It was time to go back to B cell bootcamp. The scientists studied what made the HIV-fighting B cells special. Then they reversed the process to see exactly how those B cells matured. By looking back at the maturation process, the researchers could track how the B cells changed when they saw specific pieces of the HIV structure.
The team discovered that B cells matured to make broadly neutralizing antibodies after they got an early look at parts of HIV’s outer “envelope” protein. Because these viral sites sparked an immune response, scientists would call them “antigens.”
An effective HIV vaccine would likely need to include models of these antigens. The antigens would work like mugshots of America’s most wanted. If B cells saw those antigens early and often, they would get really good at recognizing and even neutralizing HIV. “We were trying to mimic the progression of those neutralizing antibodies,” says Madden.
In a feat of molecular engineering, the Schief Lab developed vaccine molecules that resembled the real HIV antigens. The scientists then worked with Emory National Primate Research Center, to test this potential HIV vaccine in a non-human primate species called rhesus macaques.
The researchers first administered a “priming” vaccine meant to activate each animal’s naive B cells. The animals then received a series of “shepherding” booster shots to help their B cells develop along the right path.
“This series of vaccinations will guide, or ‘walk’, a B cell from its naive state to its broadly neutralizing state,” says Madden.
This new type of vaccine approach is called “germline targeting” because it targets naive B cells in their “germline” or naive form, before they begin their training process.
The scientists found that around 44 percent of the animals went on to produce broadly neutralizing antibodies against HIV in their blood. These antibodies were impressively abundant.
“We succeeded in taking ultra-rare antibody responses and turning them into common responses by the end of the vaccination process,” adds Crotty. In other research recently published, they reported a new strategy to accelerate related vaccine antibody responses [See Nature Immunology paper].
The team didn’t test whether these antibodies could prevent infection, but it’s significant that these antibodies could be found in the blood, where they could encounter and potentially block HIV.
The Crotty Lab plans to investigate how they might change the booster shot regimen to make the HIV vaccine even more effective. “It was incredible to get those results, but of course we’d like to see a response in 100 percent of the animals,” says Madden.
Importantly, the antibodies found in the animal subjects resembled the exact kinds of broadly neutralizing antibodies seen in those rare humans who made their own neutralizing antibodies. It’s clear that our immune systems can make these powerful antibodies, given the right training.
“We believe this vaccine approach is even more likely to succeed in humans, because of the immunogenetics,” Crotty says.
The priming immunogen used in this study was evaluated in humans in the HVTN 144 trial and is currently being tested in the Phase 1 trial IAVI G004. IAVI, Scripps Research, the HIV Vaccine Trials Network, and partners are now advancing plans to further evaluate the full immunization regimen in a future human clinical study.
Additional authors of the study, “Vaccination elicits HIV broadly neutralizing antibodies in primates,” include Claudia T. Flynn, Swastik Phulera, Monolina Shil, Oleksandr Kalyuzhniy, Alessia Liguori, Carolyne Kifude, Leigh M. Sewall, Christopher A. Cottrell, Krystal M. Ma, Sabyasachi Baboo, Jolene K. Diedrich, Katherine McKenney, Allan C. deCamp, Diane G. Carnathan, Ivy Phung, Parham Ramezani-Rad, Ester Marina-Zárate, Brian Freeman, Zhenfei Xie, Jeong Hyun Lee, Troy Sincomb, Nicole Phelps, Danny Lu, Diana Goodwin, Ryan Tingle, Yumiko Adachi, Nushin Alavi, Jenny Tran, Andy S. Tran, Alyne Nascimento, Catherine Sovie, Daniel L. V. Bader, Hannah Voic, Xiaoya Zhou, Grace Pixton, Agnes Walsh, Mariane B. Melo, Torben Schiffner, Facundo D. Batista, Dennis R. Burton, Darrell J. Irvine, James C. Paulson, John R. Yates III, Gabriel Ozorowski, Andrew B. Ward, Guido Silvestri.
This work was supported by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), of the National Institutes of Health, through grant UM1 Al100663 to the Scripps Center for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Immunology and Immunogen Discovery (CHAVI-ID), grant UM1 AI144462 to the Scripps Consortium for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Development (CHAVD), P51 OD011132 to Emory National Primate Research Center, and R01 AI113867; by the Gates Foundation under the Collaboration for AIDS Vaccine Discovery (NAC INV-007522, INV-008813, INV-034657, and INV-064772), via the IAVI Neutralizing Antibody Center (NAC); and by the National Institute of Health grant S10OD025052.