4 ms·

Do these ebola outbreaks give the virus substantially more opportunity to evolve? Or is that not a significant risk?

fredgrott 7y ago
not sure as its slightly different in packaging say from AIDS which does in fact evolve variants in an infected human(reason why the vaccine cure took so long to find).
- chimeracoder 7y ago
  > not sure as its slightly different in packaging say from AIDS which does in fact evolve variants in an infected human(reason why the vaccine cure took so long to find). AIDS does not evolve variants. HIV, which is a virus, can evolve. There is neither a vaccine nor a cure for HIV.
HarryHirsch 7y ago
They do: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580494/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580494/ But the jury is still out on what evolutionary processes are ongoing. Is the virus adapting to its new host and consequently evolving more slowly, or is it quickly developing increased transmissibility? It's not quite clear.
- unknowable 7y ago
  I'd argue that there's no way to know such a thing in the moment, and the reason for that is because you're observing a living thing learn and discover facts about the best way to survive. It's an open ended scenario. The organism could learn a robust survival method that helps it survive more efficiently, without making it more lethal. It could learn nothing at all. It could learn to be less lethal but more transmissible. It could learn to spread to other organisms, or whatever opportunity proves advantageous. It's possible we could notice pathways that represent doomsday hazards long before it would be possible for an organism to naturally evolve into a new version of itself. With that, we might focus on adaptations that never appear, yet cannot be ignored. Like watching for a robber that never robs us. It's probably only worth worrying about robberies when it looks like we have a robber on our hands. And right now, we're observing an awfully effective robber in action, right now.
- phkahler 7y ago
  The best evolutionary path from virus point of view is to reduce lethality so the host can spread it longer. I thought I read that HIV did something similar and used to be more deadly - even without modern treatment. Problem with Ebola is that its transmission among humans is via the same thing that kills humans.
  - HarryHirsch 7y ago
    It depends on the environment. Mortality of cholera is high (~ 60 % if untreated), but by spreading abundantly the bacterium finds a supply of new victims. I seem to remember a study from ages ago where they compared strains of HIV from South Africa and Japan. Condom usage in South Africa is low, so the virus evolved to develop a high viral load quickly. In Japan the opposite was true, condom usage was high, the strains that caused the victim to die early became extinct.

not sure as its slightly different in packaging say from AIDS which does in fact evolve variants in an infected human(reason why the vaccine cure took so long to find).

chimeracoder 7y ago
> not sure as its slightly different in packaging say from AIDS which does in fact evolve variants in an infected human(reason why the vaccine cure took so long to find). AIDS does not evolve variants. HIV, which is a virus, can evolve. There is neither a vaccine nor a cure for HIV.

HarryHirsch 7y ago

They do: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580494/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580494/ But the jury is still out on what evolutionary processes are ongoing. Is the virus adapting to its new host and consequently evolving more slowly, or is it quickly developing increased transmissibility? It's not quite clear.

unknowable 7y ago
I'd argue that there's no way to know such a thing in the moment, and the reason for that is because you're observing a living thing learn and discover facts about the best way to survive. It's an open ended scenario. The organism could learn a robust survival method that helps it survive more efficiently, without making it more lethal. It could learn nothing at all. It could learn to be less lethal but more transmissible. It could learn to spread to other organisms, or whatever opportunity proves advantageous. It's possible we could notice pathways that represent doomsday hazards long before it would be possible for an organism to naturally evolve into a new version of itself. With that, we might focus on adaptations that never appear, yet cannot be ignored. Like watching for a robber that never robs us. It's probably only worth worrying about robberies when it looks like we have a robber on our hands. And right now, we're observing an awfully effective robber in action, right now.
phkahler 7y ago
The best evolutionary path from virus point of view is to reduce lethality so the host can spread it longer. I thought I read that HIV did something similar and used to be more deadly - even without modern treatment. Problem with Ebola is that its transmission among humans is via the same thing that kills humans.
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  It depends on the environment. Mortality of cholera is high (~ 60 % if untreated), but by spreading abundantly the bacterium finds a supply of new victims. I seem to remember a study from ages ago where they compared strains of HIV from South Africa and Japan. Condom usage in South Africa is low, so the virus evolved to develop a high viral load quickly. In Japan the opposite was true, condom usage was high, the strains that caused the victim to die early became extinct.