3 ms·

It's gain of function if the virus gains any sort of function. Splicing two viruses that have different properties into one that shares at least some the proper

by Vecr 4y ago

It's gain of function if the virus gains any sort of function. Splicing two viruses that have different properties into one that shares at least some the properties from both, even if both of the original viruses are natural, is gain of function.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
That's not what what virologists mean when they say "gain of function." By that definition, almost all lab virology would be considered "gain-of-function." If you strictly regulated that, virtually all virology research would grind to a halt. The gain-of-function debate began in the 2010s over a specific set of experiments that were done on influenza. The term is used to describe changes that render a virus that has the potential to become a pandemic more virulent or more transmissive.
- peteradio 4y ago
  Sars-cov-2 is already a pandemic causing agent.
- COGlory 4y ago
  This is the correct answer. GoF has, and has had for years, a very narrow and specific meaning when applied to virology. This is not some arbitrary meaning, but rather is used by funding and regulatory agencies to evaluate risk. Gain of function as described, has to increase the virulence of a potential human pandemic-causing pathogen. To those who might counter that this definition needs to be changed: I don't disagree, but until it is, scientists are going to grade themselves on the scales they are given by the funding and regulatory agencies.
beebmam 4y ago
I'd recommend deleting or editing your comment. The actual definition of "gain-of-function" is quite easy to find if you want to take this matter seriously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain-of-function_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain-of-function_research
- Kranar 4y ago
  I'm no expert but it seems from the comments and the Wikipedia article you link to that OPs position isn't that far from the truth, certainly not so blatantly false that it warrants editing or deleting. The article you linked to says gain of function research is "medical research that genetically alters an organism in a way that may enhance the biological functions of gene products", which seems like a more technical way of saying what OP said. The example Wikipedia gives explicitly states specifies, and I quote, a "situation would be considered a gain-of-function experiment, as the virus did not previously have that function." The journal Nature states that gain of function is "GOF is a classic genetics term to describe mutations that give a gene, RNA or protein new abilities". Not much different from what OP stated, unless there is a nuance you wish to point out: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x NIH's website states gain of function (as well as loss of function) research is any selection process involving the alteration of a genotype in order to produce a corresponding change in phenotype: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579 That is a much more technical way of saying gain of function research is what happens when you modify genes to produce a change in phenotype, which is the technical term for the observable behavior and characteristics of an organism, ie. function. So anyhow, it's possible OP is wrong, Wikipedia is wrong, and a host of comments/sources are wrong, in fact it may very well be likely, but without a better source available it does seem like gain of function research is fairly open-ended research that attempts to modify an organism's genetics so as to add additional functions that it did not otherwise have.
- Vecr 4y ago
  I stand by my statement.

by Vecr 4y ago

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

That's not what what virologists mean when they say "gain of function." By that definition, almost all lab virology would be considered "gain-of-function." If you strictly regulated that, virtually all virology research would grind to a halt. The gain-of-function debate began in the 2010s over a specific set of experiments that were done on influenza. The term is used to describe changes that render a virus that has the potential to become a pandemic more virulent or more transmissive.

peteradio 4y ago
Sars-cov-2 is already a pandemic causing agent.
COGlory 4y ago
This is the correct answer. GoF has, and has had for years, a very narrow and specific meaning when applied to virology. This is not some arbitrary meaning, but rather is used by funding and regulatory agencies to evaluate risk. Gain of function as described, has to increase the virulence of a potential human pandemic-causing pathogen. To those who might counter that this definition needs to be changed: I don't disagree, but until it is, scientists are going to grade themselves on the scales they are given by the funding and regulatory agencies.

beebmam 4y ago

I'd recommend deleting or editing your comment. The actual definition of "gain-of-function" is quite easy to find if you want to take this matter seriously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain-of-function_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain-of-function_research

Kranar 4y ago
I'm no expert but it seems from the comments and the Wikipedia article you link to that OPs position isn't that far from the truth, certainly not so blatantly false that it warrants editing or deleting. The article you linked to says gain of function research is "medical research that genetically alters an organism in a way that may enhance the biological functions of gene products", which seems like a more technical way of saying what OP said. The example Wikipedia gives explicitly states specifies, and I quote, a "situation would be considered a gain-of-function experiment, as the virus did not previously have that function." The journal Nature states that gain of function is "GOF is a classic genetics term to describe mutations that give a gene, RNA or protein new abilities". Not much different from what OP stated, unless there is a nuance you wish to point out: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x NIH's website states gain of function (as well as loss of function) research is any selection process involving the alteration of a genotype in order to produce a corresponding change in phenotype: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579 That is a much more technical way of saying gain of function research is what happens when you modify genes to produce a change in phenotype, which is the technical term for the observable behavior and characteristics of an organism, ie. function. So anyhow, it's possible OP is wrong, Wikipedia is wrong, and a host of comments/sources are wrong, in fact it may very well be likely, but without a better source available it does seem like gain of function research is fairly open-ended research that attempts to modify an organism's genetics so as to add additional functions that it did not otherwise have.
Vecr 4y ago
I stand by my statement.