3 ms·

"93 percent of pandoraviruses' 2,500 genes cannot be traced back to any known lineage in nature. In other words, they are completely alien to us." Is this as s

"93 percent of pandoraviruses' 2,500 genes cannot be traced back to any known lineage in nature. In other words, they are completely alien to us." Is this as significant as it sounds? Did they just find life that may have origins different than anything else on earth?

FrankenPC 13y ago
Either that or it randomizes it's genetics so much that it is more like a random seed generator. The Darwinian god bug.
- quasque 13y ago
  Many types of viruses[1] are like this by virtue of their high replication rate and RNA's poor error correction while copying (in comparison to DNA). It's one of the reasons why anti-viral therapy can be so tricky in viruses like HIV, as it's such a rapidly moving target. As as analogy to computer viruses and other malware, the effect is very much like the polymorphic program code found in some of these, albeit not going as far as to derive new functionality as biological mutations can, through the combination of mutation and selection. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_quasispecies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_quasispecies
quasque 13y ago
No it doesn't imply anything about origins of life - but the lack of any homologous sequences in known species (including other viruses) that have been sequenced does illustrate the vast gaps in the totality of genetic data collected and indexed so far.
- dnautics 13y ago
  exactly. The DNA database definitely suffers from the streetlight effect.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
Absolutely, there are 2,500 genes that we didn't know about. Now it could be that if any one of these genes shows up in any of the "known" lineages (as it might if a retro-virus carrying it injected it) that it causes the host to die before reproducing. It could be that they are pandemics waiting to happen, it could be that they are code for additional eyeballs. The challenge is that we do not yet (as far as I can ascertain) have a way to looking at a gene and identifying all of the effects that gene has on a cell or an organism. What we have are organisms with genes, that we are 'debugging by printf' by essentially commenting them out and seeing what happens. Once our knowledge base flips, and we understand genetics at a information/programmatic level, we would be able to evaluate these 2500 genes and see if there is anything useful here.
- Zikes 13y ago
  93% of 2500 genes, so ~2325 we didn't know about.
- minor_nitwit 13y ago
  In a a way Evolution itself is debugging by printf. It's actually even more basic - trial and error all the way down.
- JoachimS 13y ago
  That is actually very interesting. How well would our (in)ability to parse what code (SW) does without actually running it transcend to genes. STA for genes? Are genes Turing Complete. ;-)

FrankenPC 13y ago

Either that or it randomizes it's genetics so much that it is more like a random seed generator. The Darwinian god bug.

quasque 13y ago
Many types of viruses[1] are like this by virtue of their high replication rate and RNA's poor error correction while copying (in comparison to DNA). It's one of the reasons why anti-viral therapy can be so tricky in viruses like HIV, as it's such a rapidly moving target. As as analogy to computer viruses and other malware, the effect is very much like the polymorphic program code found in some of these, albeit not going as far as to derive new functionality as biological mutations can, through the combination of mutation and selection. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_quasispecies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_quasispecies

quasque 13y ago

No it doesn't imply anything about origins of life - but the lack of any homologous sequences in known species (including other viruses) that have been sequenced does illustrate the vast gaps in the totality of genetic data collected and indexed so far.

dnautics 13y ago
exactly. The DNA database definitely suffers from the streetlight effect.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

Absolutely, there are 2,500 genes that we didn't know about. Now it could be that if any one of these genes shows up in any of the "known" lineages (as it might if a retro-virus carrying it injected it) that it causes the host to die before reproducing. It could be that they are pandemics waiting to happen, it could be that they are code for additional eyeballs. The challenge is that we do not yet (as far as I can ascertain) have a way to looking at a gene and identifying all of the effects that gene has on a cell or an organism. What we have are organisms with genes, that we are 'debugging by printf' by essentially commenting them out and seeing what happens. Once our knowledge base flips, and we understand genetics at a information/programmatic level, we would be able to evaluate these 2500 genes and see if there is anything useful here.

Zikes 13y ago
93% of 2500 genes, so ~2325 we didn't know about.
minor_nitwit 13y ago
In a a way Evolution itself is debugging by printf. It's actually even more basic - trial and error all the way down.
JoachimS 13y ago
That is actually very interesting. How well would our (in)ability to parse what code (SW) does without actually running it transcend to genes. STA for genes? Are genes Turing Complete. ;-)