3 ms·
I know enough about viruses to know that they're not alive by any meaningful definition, but not enough to understand how this use of 'live virus' is used in th
by Jedd 6y ago
I know enough about viruses to know that they're not alive by any meaningful definition, but not enough to understand how this use of 'live virus' is used in these kinds of studies.
I'm assuming it means a full, viable string of RNA, rather than (presumably harmless) fragments of same -- and the fragments we're finding being described here are definitely non-viable. Is that roughly right?
- flobosg 6y ago“Live” in this context seems to mean “active”.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoLive means that it is readable by the ribosome.
- svara 6y agoWhether viruses are alive or not is purely a matter of definition. Alive in this context means that it can infect host cells and replicate. Contrary to what the sibling posts say, that doesn't just require intact viral RNA, which by itself is not infectious, but an intact viral assembly, i.e in this case a lipid hull with various accessory proteins, such as the nucleocapsid that packs the RNA and the spike protein that binds to host cells.