4 ms·

Would be fascinated to hear how the hell they do this microbiologically. This study just seemed to strongly indicate they do it. I mean, as the consumER you'd

by ethbr0 4y ago

Would be fascinated to hear how the hell they do this microbiologically. This study just seemed to strongly indicate they do it. I mean, as the consumER you'd have to (a) be resistant to getting infected by the virus in the first place, (b) encapsulate the virus in a way it can't broach, (c) deactivate and decompose it into nutrients you can use, no? Which seems a tall order for something designed and continually evolving to breach your cell walls! Granted, Halteria ciliates don't appear to be the virus' primary target, so potentially lack necessary binding points / are impenetrable to them, but that seems like playing with fire. Or eating plankton if plankton were carnivorous and rapidly evolving... Although maybe it makes evolutionary sense if the Halteria:algae ratio is extremely low? I.e. it was never beneficial to target Halteria when more numerous food sources were colocated.

twic 4y ago
> deactivate and decompose it into nutrients you can use Viruses are just packages of protein, lipids, and nucleic acid, exactly like any other biological matter. It's not particularly surprising that enzymes which can digest bacteria (Halteria's usual food) can also digest viruses.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
I think from the article the viruses don’t target the ciliates at all but rather algae. That explains (a). I expect b and c are answerable with gradients and membrane mumbojumbo, but a programmer not a microbiologist. I actually like the study author am surprised that this hasn’t been observed before. I would have expected viruses are food for something - as it notes they’re little bundles of tasty proteins and useful elements.
echelon 4y ago
> lack necessary binding points Viruses need far more than binding points to make use of a cell. They need to handle attachment, penetration, uncoating, gene expression, replication, assembly, and release. Some of these may leverage host machinery, or sometimes the virus packs their own. If they use the host, they typically need to have greater flux kinetics than the host. If they're able to do this, there's a chance they resemble a virus that the host already knows how to deal with. In that case, they'll also need to outmaneuver any existing intracellular defenses. That's a lot of evolution that has to happen to fit your target.

by ethbr0 4y ago

twic 4y ago

> deactivate and decompose it into nutrients you can use Viruses are just packages of protein, lipids, and nucleic acid, exactly like any other biological matter. It's not particularly surprising that enzymes which can digest bacteria (Halteria's usual food) can also digest viruses.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

I think from the article the viruses don’t target the ciliates at all but rather algae. That explains (a). I expect b and c are answerable with gradients and membrane mumbojumbo, but a programmer not a microbiologist. I actually like the study author am surprised that this hasn’t been observed before. I would have expected viruses are food for something - as it notes they’re little bundles of tasty proteins and useful elements.

echelon 4y ago

> lack necessary binding points Viruses need far more than binding points to make use of a cell. They need to handle attachment, penetration, uncoating, gene expression, replication, assembly, and release. Some of these may leverage host machinery, or sometimes the virus packs their own. If they use the host, they typically need to have greater flux kinetics than the host. If they're able to do this, there's a chance they resemble a virus that the host already knows how to deal with. In that case, they'll also need to outmaneuver any existing intracellular defenses. That's a lot of evolution that has to happen to fit your target.