No. I just couldn't pass it. 
It's Chemokine Receptor 5, but the other CCR is cooler...
ACTUALLY...
The Chemokine receptor is required in conjunction with an additional T-cell receptor for HIV to infect a cell. We don't actually know what the chemokine receptor on T-cells is actually used for though, since people born without them (a predominantly Caucasian european population) seem to have no ill effects and are completely immune to the effects of the HIV virus (they are still carriers). There were a number of researchers who did some seriously cool work around the chemokine receptor a number of years back, but antiretrovrial drugs have been more and more promising and most of the funding for HIV research has gone to them and preventative measures.
TRIM22 sounds almost like a form of natural RNAi, disrupting a protein synthesis process and preventing viral assembly. Alternatively, it might preferentially bind a key component of the HIV viral package and prevent assembly. Either way, we're looking at a gene that has the potential to seriously drop the viral load if used in conjunction with antiretroviral drugs.
The big problem, as I said before, is gene therapy. It's a very unreliable science at this point, and frankly it is only approved for use in patients which already have a death sentence and it is literally a last hope (gene therapy works wonderfully for adding a gene, but it has a nasty side-effect of causing cancer in many of the patients).
Most modern gene therapy uses targetted insertion through an adenovirus variant, and inserts non-randomly into a pre-selected block of inactive DNA, so the old problems of retroviral insertion are no longer an issue - we can rather easily circumvent that. The trick isn't producing a transgenic cell (with the new gene); the trick is getting that stem cell back into the bone marrow and causing it to propagate and take over main T-cell production without giving the patient cancer.
Now, if it were me and I had the choice between taking modern HIV-inhibitors orally (and the side effects are dramatically decreasing with each new generation), or a chance to survive the HIV virus but still carry it plus the possibility of cancer, I'd be taking the drugs. In a Western nation, the prognosis for an HIV+ individual isn't all that much worse than a normal healthy adult.
We actually have the means right now to cure HIV+ people of the effects of the virus; the problem is, its too expensive and far too risky. What we're looking for is a method, like RNAi, where we can administer a drug orally that will effectively stop the virus in its tracks.
And yes, I am a huge geek. But then again, I have a B.Sc in Molecular Genetics so really what do you expect =)
