4 ms·
Retroviruses and our coexistence with them is fascinating to me. Fun fact: "About 8 percent of human DNA comes from viruses inserted into our genomes in the di
by chrisma0 6y ago
Retroviruses and our coexistence with them is fascinating to me.
Fun fact: "About 8 percent of human DNA comes from viruses inserted into our genomes in the distant past, in many cases into the genomes of our pre-human ancestors millions of years ago."
https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/genes-%E2%80%98fossil%E2%80%99-virus-human-dna-found-be-active https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/genes-%E2%80%98fossil%E2%80%99-...
Endogenous retrovirus Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
- vbezhenar 6y agoJust a wild thought: if aliens wanted to change a genome of some species, what are the chances they would construct viruses to do that? AFAIK CRISP uses something similar.
- irjustin 6y agoAh is that what's in the black goo?
- remram 6y agoThat would probably only work if it gave the altered species a significant advantage (or if you had a system to detect and penalize/eliminate individuals depending on their genome, at scale).
- koeng 6y agoOr you gene drive them.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- klyrs 6y agoAt this point in time, do you really think that viruses are incapable of sweeping the globe and infecting a significant fraction of humanity, if they don't provide a benefit to the host?
- remram 6y agoThe parent was more specific and asked about changing a species's genome. Infecting everyone does not lead to a change in genome if they die (or fight it off). Assuming a low percent of the infected get their genome changed or produce offspring with altered genome, those don't take over.
- kridsdale1 6y agoThey don't need to provide a benefit. They only need to not reduce fertility.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- studiecomput 6y agoAnother wild thought: Is it possible that the solution for harmful retroviruses, like HIV, are retroviruses itself? If retroviruses can overwrite or fuse with our DNA, can't we overwrite it back by making a retrovirus ourselves? I'm not familiar with this topic at all, but it's super interesting.
- matheusmoreira 6y agoThe problem with pathological viruses is they take over the cells themselves and make them fabricate more viruses until they burst. In these cases there is no living cell left to reprogram. In the case of HIV it's even worse since it targers certain immune cells. It will eventually kill most of them if it's allowed to replicate unchecked, crippling its host's immune response.
- kridsdale1 6y agoPathological viral infection feels like an infinite loop. The CPU is a dumb machine doing its job to decode and execute instructions, until it bursts in to flames. The ribosome likewise transforms amino acids in to proteins as directed by RNA until the cell is destroyed.
- matheusmoreira 6y agoYes. Ribosomes are dumb machines. They have no authentication mechanism. The RNA randomly gets near the ribosome, interacts with it and the result is a whole new protein. It doesn't know whether the RNA was translated from cellular or viral DNA. In the case of cellular DNA, the ribosome makes useful proteins that helps the cell perform its function. In the case of viral DNA, the ribosome makes viral proteins which eventually get assembled into a new copy of the virus. Viruses aren't actual living beings, they're just self-replicating structures. They are capable of injecting genetic material into other cells in order to get them to make more copies of themselves. > Pathological viral infection feels like an infinite loop. The same logic could be applied to biochemistry in general. It's not 100% accurate but it is a lot of fun to think about it in those terms. It's also fun to think about programming in biochemical terms! I wrote about this in the past: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21562716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21562716