Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Biology / Biology / July 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Reassortment maybe a technique that finds cures for many viral diseases, even the birdflu

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
a_plutonium@hotmail.com - 24 Jun 2006 10:40 GMT
I was thinking that probably Reassortment in viruses is not always bad
and harmful to humanity and that Reassortment could be used as a tool
to fight viruses. Perhaps through Reassortment we can biotech a virus
that kills other viruses. As far as I know, there are no viricides of a
virus going around and killing other viruses. But perhaps by
reassortment we can create such a virus that kills other viruses.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
lord_squark@tlen.pl - 10 Jul 2006 21:42 GMT
> I was thinking that probably Reassortment in viruses is not always bad
> and harmful to humanity and that Reassortment could be used as a tool
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Hi, as I understand Your problem correctly, viral activity is based on
contamination of >living< cell and usage of its metabolic activity:
DNA/RNA replication and translation to re-create albumins and other
products from viral DNA/RNA needed to compose new virus molecules.
Though I think it would be hard to constrain genetically modified
viruses to infect other viruses, because it would have no biological
sense. Yes, maybe virus can infect other virus, but without metabolic
activity it would be just aimless. Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe it's
quite good topic for a discussion :).

Lukasz Tarka, Poland (lord_squark@tlen.pl)
a_plutonium@hotmail.com - 11 Jul 2006 16:50 GMT
> > I was thinking that probably Reassortment in viruses is not always bad
> > and harmful to humanity and that Reassortment could be used as a tool
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Lukasz Tarka, Poland (lord_squark@tlen.pl)

Well I did not make myself clear with a methodology to be understood.
And thanks for the reply for it forces me to upgrade my thoughts and
provide a methodology.

As far as I know the world has *no* viricide where virus A destroys
virus B. But can such a viricide be engineered? I think so. And a
cancercide where virus C attacks specfically a specific cancer cell D.

Let me try to step through with a methodology of engineering a viricide
and a cancercide (virus that kills specific cancer cells and not normal
cells)

We have in a vial a virus E which we like to kill and in another vial
we have virus F which we hope and suspect can be turned into a killer
of E. We mix the two. We may have to add other ingredients whether
living substance or inorganic. Our aim is to end up with a killer of
virus E. So we play around and serendipity hope to end up with a
Reassortment whose end result is a killer of virus E

We have a culture of some form of human cancer we like to get rid of.
Take lung cancer cells and put into culture. Now we hunt for a virus G
which we hope has some qualities or abilities for which with many
changes of Reassortment will end up as a killer of lung cancer cells
but only lung cancer cells.

Alot of this is serendipity. But was not Penicillin blown in on a petri
dish discovered by serendipity. So these cultures for a cancercide and
viricide are going to take alot of time and alot of trial and error.
What I hope ends up is something that kills the specific virus or
cancer.

Perhaps the genomic string of protease, the string that cuts proteins
can be engineered into a virus so that when Virus H comes in contact
with virus I, it cuts it into pieces.

What I am doing is summarized as saying put a virus into a culture and
add a virus which we suspect can kill it and then play around with this
mix until we do find something good and interesting. Reassortment is
the key mechanism.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Lukasz Tarka - 11 Jul 2006 19:03 GMT
a_plutonium@hotmail.com napisal(a):
> > > I was thinking that probably Reassortment in viruses is not always bad
> > > and harmful to humanity and that Reassortment could be used as a tool
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Well, now it is somehow more clear. Now I understand your point of
view.

First of all, I don't think that designing virion infecting other
virion is possible, because - according to virus definition - viruses
are organic creature made of proteins and nucleic acid and has no cell
structure. They are able to reproduce by infecting LIVING cells. So
then, viruses are inexorable innercellular parasites reproducing by
using copying mechanism included in cells they infect. They contain
genetical material (RNA or DNA), but they demonstrate both living and
inanimate matter.

Also, there is a problem in viruses size. Maybe virus can infect other
virus, but they should differ much in its size (ex. herpes- and
parvoviruses). Next, note that adsorbtion of virus is possible only
through recognizing a specific receptor on the surface of cell
plasmalemma by virus protein (receptor-binding protein). Even if we
create a virion with ability to recognize other virial receptor and to
adsorb on the surface of virial capsid and even if it would insert its
own DNA/RNA material in "infected virus", without metabolic acitivity
nothing will happen. Some viruses in their capsid contain some enzymes
like reversed transcriptase, but it doesn't really change the
impossibility of an occurrence you want to induct or observe.

Second case is what you said about viruses infecting for example only
cells of human cancer. It is generally one of the main developed and
researched method of curing cancer. I am talking of course about gene
therapy. This method (in vivo) consists of inserting genetical material
in the cancer cell that would bring out the apoptosis ( planned, often
inducted cell death). In this case are user viral vectors - viral
molecule (capsid, protein border) desituted of its infecting activity.
That means, dna/rna of this virus contains only sequentions needed to
recontruct virus' capsomeres and genes you want to be inserted to
cancer cell (sequentions inducting the apoptosis).

Note that I am not a virusologist and can be wrong, but I wanted to
explain this problem as good as I can. Forgive my - sometimes -
terrible english.
a_plutonium@hotmail.com - 12 Jul 2006 08:05 GMT
(snip)

> Well, now it is somehow more clear. Now I understand your point of
> view.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> are organic creature made of proteins and nucleic acid and has no cell
> structure. They are able to reproduce by infecting LIVING cells. So

Yes, I agree, but no-one has ever done an exhaustive and detailed
experiment of taking every known virus and culturing them and then
pairing each of them together to see if any kill its pair mate. For
example, putting the HIV virus together with Influenza A virus. Do they
get along with one another or does one kill the other.

Let us say the world has 2,000 viruses. Culture every one of them. Then
pair them up and see if some bizarre unexpected result occurs such as
one killing another virus. There just maybe a possibility of creating a
virus that eats other viruses.

Perhaps the world has no such viricide as yet because we have not done
such an experiment to coax and urge a virus to Reassort itself to
becoming a killer of other viruses.

> then, viruses are inexorable innercellular parasites reproducing by
> using copying mechanism included in cells they infect. They contain
> genetical material (RNA or DNA), but they demonstrate both living and
> inanimate matter.

Well it maybe the case that virus Q kills other viruses just by some
interaction or stops other viruses from reproducing. Perhaps the 1918
Spanish flu was stopped due to the large prescence of some other virus
by 1918. Maybe what stops viral pandemics is the rise of another virus
that suppresses the once dominant virus. Perhaps that is why birdflu
sort of lay low from 1918 to 2006 because of the presence of some other
rising star virus. Perhaps most viruses emit some molecule which
suppresses other viruses.

Perhaps viruses in their lifecycle of infecting a host emit and shed
parts of their anatomy which inhibits other viruses. Much like black
walnut trees emit a herbicide juglone which thwarts the growth of other
plants nearby. So maybe viruses emit molecules that are viral
suppressants..

> Also, there is a problem in viruses size. Maybe virus can infect other
> virus, but they should differ much in its size (ex. herpes- and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> like reversed transcriptase, but it doesn't really change the
> impossibility of an occurrence you want to induct or observe.

I was thinking along the lines of how white blood cells attack and kill
a virus. They sometimes cut apart the virus. Or they surround and
engulf the virus. Now we find the genomic sequence that cuts apart a
virus in the white blood cell and we attempt to Reassort this sequence
of cutting apart into a virus. We sort of graft the cutting or
engulfing into a species of virus in hopes that the new virus will go
around attacking other viruses and kill them.

I do not much care for a virus killer to reproduce itself. All I want
is the trait of killing other viruses.

> Second case is what you said about viruses infecting for example only
> cells of human cancer. It is generally one of the main developed and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> recontruct virus' capsomeres and genes you want to be inserted to
> cancer cell (sequentions inducting the apoptosis).

I am mainly looking to see if any virus kills or inhibits other
viruses. I believe there has been little to no study as to the
behaviour of interactions of all the known viruses when paired in one
culture. Whether any virus kills or causes the other paired virus to go
dormant.

And by using Reassortment, I believe this technique allows us to create
viruses that do just about anything we want. So a virus that kills only
specific cancer cells would be a generalization of the viricide. And
the fact that the viricide or cancercide cannot reproduce itself is a
bonus in that we can control it better.

> Note that I am not a virusologist and can be wrong, but I wanted to
> explain this problem as good as I can. Forgive my - sometimes -
> terrible english.

Your english is very good.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
blount7@gmail.com - 19 Jul 2006 08:23 GMT
> (snip)
> >
[quoted text clipped - 97 lines]
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

T virus, G virus? and I just started playing Resident Evil 2 recently!
lol! Anyway, I agree that there has been very little research on virus
interaction in one single culture.

>"Well it maybe the case that virus Q kills other viruses just by some interaction or stops other viruses from reproducing."

I think this is the most plausible way that a virus killing virus would
go about killing other viruses. Interfering with thier reproduction,
the most vital function.

Here is a link about above stated virus vs. cancer techniques.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/medicine/2ab7c4522fa84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Good points, all around! I think your on to something.
a_plutonium@hotmail.com - 19 Jul 2006 20:50 GMT
(snipped to save space)

> T virus, G virus? and I just started playing Resident Evil 2 recently!
> lol! Anyway, I agree that there has been very little research on virus
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Good points, all around! I think your on to something.

Good reference site. So they call this techniqe virotherapy.

--- quoting in parts some of the above website ---
Biotechnology
Can a Virus Kill Cancer?
Genetic engineers are turning nasty, infectious microbes into smart
treatments for a deadly disease

By Joshua Tomkins  April 2005

In February, researchers at UCLA announced a clash of the titans,
biochemically speaking: They turned one of the great scourges of
humankind-HIV-into a hunter of another: cancer. In tests on mice
afflicted with metastatic melanoma, a modified strain of HIV invaded
cancer cells without infecting the rodents with AIDS. Around the same
time, researchers at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, announced
similar results after engineering the measles virus to seek and destroy
cancerous tumors while leaving healthy tissue unscathed.

The close timing of these breakthroughs speaks to the flurry of
activity in the field of virotherapy, which exploits the tendency of
viruses to attack cancer cells in a pitched battle that cancer often
loses. With preliminary studies showing many of these viruses to be
safe for humans, several universities and biotech firms are now
conducting clinical trials of virotherapy.

As radical as it sounds, the idea of turning viruses loose on cancer
actually predates the genetic technology that now fuels it. During the
1950s, scientists proved that adenovirus, a version of the common cold
bug, was mildly effective against cervical cancer. But research was
abandoned as chemotherapy gained prominence, and virotherapy was
resurrected only after a study published in the journal Science in 1991
showed that a virus could be genetically modified to invade a tumor
without inflicting disease.

(snipped)

Likewise, the HIV strain in the UCLA melanoma study was targeted, and
researchers have since tailored it to seek and destroy prostate and
melanoma cancers. "Basically, we put different hooks on the virus so
it can hold on to different molecules," says Irvin S.Y. Chen,
director of the UCLA AIDS Institute.

(snipped)

--- end quoting in parts ---

I wanted to include some of the history of this technique. History is
important in understanding.

As the poster also reasserted my claim that researchers have never
really delved into the issue of virus to other viral interactions. We
simply have little knowledge on this and are mostly in the dark.

What would happen if we create a huge massive culture and added every
known virus into this culture. Would one virus emerge as the conqueror
virus. Would one virus produce some sort of suppressant that kills or
stagnates all other viruses. Is there a virus that acts like penicillin
to other viruses. Our knowledge and understanding of viral interactions
is crude and primitive.

We are missing many answers as to why the 1918 birdflu virus
disappeared or stagnated for the past 90 years and is just recently
emerged. Could it be that some other virus in the past 90 year interval
suppressed birdflu? Perhaps some common cold virus suppresses H5N1.

I note that some males in Vietnam are immune to H5N1. Could it be that
this person has some other virus in his body that confers that
immunity. Perhaps some hepatitis virus or some other virus confers
immunity to H5N1.

If that is true in part or whole, we need to find out about this as the
most important defense and weapon to use on H5N1 to stop it from going
pandemic.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.