Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

It's still possible for resistances to appear, though. I know that there are herpes strands that are resistant to aciclovir, for instance, due to mutations in the replicative enzymes of the virus. Something simmilar could happen here, with alterations in dsRNA's structure which decreased DRACO's afinity for it.

(It's worth noting that resistances can come down if you stop (mis?)using the resisted drug)

(It's also worth noting that these people's screening method might produce more drug candidates down the way...)

[Max White]

From my understanding, viruses need to produce that RNA kind of like how animals need to consume oxygen.  Okay terrible terrible analogy but my point is this:  Adapting would kill them; the cure is antithetical to their basic biological nature.

Now I was under the impression that all living things needed to produce RNA. The anti-virus would need to be suited to only the virus RNA, not any accepted kingdom of life, or you just made a very potent poison indeed! And if it is tailor made for a virus signature, then in theory a visue could change it's signature enough to survive.

[Detonate]

Im just saying, this could be the cause of the eventual zombie apocalypse.

I thought that was that Nuvigil stuff... Which when I look back at the effects it can have it sounds a lot like that Russian "Crocodile" shit... Hmm...

Well, krokodil is a highly illegal and highly dangerous drug that causes severe damage to tissue, which can lead to amputation and horrible infections. If my understanding of what Nuvigil is, it's much different than that...

[ChairmanPoo]

From my understanding, viruses need to produce that RNA kind of like how animals need to consume oxygen.  Okay terrible terrible analogy but my point is this:  Adapting would kill them; the cure is antithetical to their basic biological nature.

Now I was under the impression that all living things needed to produce RNA. The anti-virus would need to be suited to only the virus RNA, not any accepted kingdom of life, or you just made a very potent poison indeed! And if it is tailor made for a virus signature, then in theory a visue could change it's signature enough to survive.

It only targets viral RNA, apparently. AFAIK (and according to the original article) double strand RNA is exclusive of viruses.

[Vector]

Yes, that's correct.

Wow.

[counting]

From my understanding, viruses need to produce that RNA kind of like how animals need to consume oxygen.  Okay terrible terrible analogy but my point is this:  Adapting would kill them; the cure is antithetical to their basic biological nature.

Now I was under the impression that all living things needed to produce RNA. The anti-virus would need to be suited to only the virus RNA, not any accepted kingdom of life, or you just made a very potent poison indeed! And if it is tailor made for a virus signature, then in theory a visue could change it's signature enough to survive.

It only targets viral RNA, apparently. AFAIK (and according to the original article) double strand RNA is exclusive of viruses.

But just some virus, not all.

[ChairmanPoo]

Most viruses have double- or single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) genomes and produce long dsRNA helices during transcription and replication; the remainder of viruses have DNA genomes and typically produce long dsRNA via symmetrical transcription

Even if there are viruses that don't use dsRNA at all, or were resistant for whatever reason, this thing has proven to be effective against quite a few of them

We have created DRACOs and shown that they are nontoxic in 11 mammalian cell types and effective against 15 different viruses, including dengue flavivirus, Amapari and Tacaribe arenaviruses, Guama bunyavirus, and H1N1 influenza.

[ed boy]

I'm confused about this super-virus stuff.

Here is how I understand it currently:
-Viruses reproduce
-As they reproduce, there are minor mutations.
-When a mutated virus reproduces, the product viruses tend to retain the mutation
-There are some mutations in the viruses that make the virus resistant to modern medecine
-If medecine is introduced, most of the viruses will be killed by it
-However, some of the virus population will be resistant, and survive
-This surviving population will reproduce
-The resultant virus colony will be resistant to that medecine

The above seems to be given as a reason for being frugal with medecine. However, I have a problem. Whether or not any single instance of the virus posesses the necessary mutation is determined before the medecine is given. If the mutation does not exist in a colony of virus, it will be wiped out. If the mutation does exist, then the resistant survivors will reproduce. However, if the medecine is not applied, there still exists a reproducing virus that has the mutation. The total population of the virus that is resistant will continue to grow whether or not the medecine is applied. All the medecine does is minimize the non-resistant virus population. Surely there is therefore no bad side for lots of medecine - the resistant population will grow as it would otherwise, and the non-resistant population would be minimized.

[counting]

Most viruses have double- or single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) genomes and produce long dsRNA helices during transcription and replication; the remainder of viruses have DNA genomes and typically produce long dsRNA via symmetrical transcription

Even if there are viruses that don't use dsRNA at all, or were resistant for whatever reason, this thing has proven to be effective against quite a few of them

We have created DRACOs and shown that they are nontoxic in 11 mammalian cell types and effective against 15 different viruses, including dengue flavivirus, Amapari and Tacaribe arenaviruses, Guama bunyavirus, and H1N1 influenza.

So it claims. And I don't know why it won't affect the eukaryote. (no toxic? I highly suspicious, think of how important mRNA is in cellular functions). And since dsRNA virus are so vastly existed in a lot of living things include plants and fungi, even in bacteria. When you remove something at such fundamental level, there bound to be some serious consequence. (Like identify an enemy because instead of 1 pair of hands, but they have 2 right, or 2 left. There should be serious consequence when something mixed up and killing "everything with a hand", you will kill everyone, it's as effective as it's dangerous).

But I'll ask my brother for what he think, he is a doctor. @@

[ChairmanPoo]

I'm confused about this super-virus stuff.

Here is how I understand it currently:
-Viruses reproduce
-As they reproduce, there are minor mutations.
-When a mutated virus reproduces, the product viruses tend to retain the mutation
-There are some mutations in the viruses that make the virus resistant to modern medecine
-If medecine is introduced, most of the viruses will be killed by it
-However, some of the virus population will be resistant, and survive
-This surviving population will reproduce
-The resultant virus colony will be resistant to that medecine

The above seems to be given as a reason for being frugal with medecine. However, I have a problem. Whether or not any single instance of the virus posesses the necessary mutation is determined before the medecine is given. If the mutation does not exist in a colony of virus, it will be wiped out. If the mutation does exist, then the resistant survivors will reproduce. However, if the medecine is not applied, there still exists a reproducing virus that has the mutation. The total population of the virus that is resistant will continue to grow whether or not the medecine is applied. All the medecine does is minimize the non-resistant virus population. Surely there is therefore no bad side for lots of medecine - the resistant population will grow as it would otherwise, and the non-resistant population would be minimized.

No, because you're eliminating the resistant' virus competition. And often resistance mechanisms are a disadvantage when the substance is not present. That's why when you are frugal with antibiotics (eg in Scandinavia nowadays) resistances go down. Also, bear in mind that resistances can appear spontaneously via mutation in colonies in which they did not exist previously. This is particularily true of viruses as their enzymes are very error prone -AIDS', for instance, misplaces one base out of each ten, IIRC-.

(This is quite simplified, as the subject is more complex than that -for instance, as you might guess, resistances are not a "yes or no" matter, there are degrees-, but I think it clears that up)

no toxic? I highly suspicious, think of how important mRNA is in cellular functions

As the article says,  it's double strand RNA. Exclusive to viruses. It doesn't affect human RNA strands.
Edit: apparently siRNA is double strand too. It might interfere with that, assuming it's not singular to viral dsRNA


Anyway, as it has been hammered on for quite a bit, it's too early to start making milkmaid accounts, but for what the article says it does seem an interesting candidate for further work.

But I'll ask my brother for what he think, he is a doctor. @@

Sshh, don't say that! MSH hates doctors, don't you know?!?!

[sonerohi]

Chairman, don't be an ass to MSH.

Regarding the subject matter of virii, I have little knowledge in the field. I am dimly recalling from a de-railed Biology class that normally, the resistant viruses trade off for slower reproduction, and some become resistant without slowing reproduction, and that anti-viral stuff usually doesn't manage to kill the fast resisters, thereby making them so much more likely to murder us. 

[GlyphGryph]

Viruses are a lot less likely to share resistant DNA than bacteria though, aren't they?

[Grimshot]

I just want to say that this is awesome. So, so awesome.

[kaijyuu]

Concerning adaptive immunity:

We come up with new drugs faster than bacteria or viruses evolve to combat them. Yes, they have a good chance of evolving to be resistant to our drugs, but then we just come up with a new one. It's a race we're ahead on... most of the time.


Brains adapt faster than DNA.

[counting]

But I'll ask my brother for what he think, he is a doctor. @@

Sshh, don't say that! MSH hates doctors, don't you know?!?!

Actually, I almost became a doctor. But I choose not to . But I do however feel that it's too early to tell any practical application. Whether it's dangerous or not, I think it is, but I don't know what real doctor will say. And I myself don't like hospital either. (After some long hospital days after surgeries).

But when it comes to life and death, modern hospital do save more lives than all combined before 1900. And doctors are like mechanics of the human body, can't always be right (a lot of time they are wrong, they are also human you know), but you better hope they do. Medical research is another matter though. They are often over excited before anything concrete, because they need founds.