The Role of Retroviruses in Human Evolution 133
mhackarbie writes "The current edition of the New Yorker magazine has up a story about endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of humans and other species. Although researchers have known about such non-functional retroviral 'fossils' in the human genome for some time, the large amount of recent genomic data underscores just how pervasive they are, in a compelling tale that involves humans, their primate cousins, and a variety of viral invaders. Some researchers are even bringing back non-functional viral remnants from the dead by fixing their broken genes."
Re:Oh no! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Two SciFi novels I recommend (Score:5, Informative)
Can you bring a virus back from the dead... (Score:4, Informative)
Scientists still debate [wikipedia.org] if viruses meet the definition of life as we know it. I'm certainly not qualified to render an opinion on the matter; I just think it's fascinating how viruses occupy this gray area between our definitions of living and non-living.
Here's a PDF of a SciAm article about this very debate [uvm.edu], written by the Director of Virus Research at UC Irvine.
Re:Reactivated retroviruses (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cambrian explosion? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Informative)
These are NOT active viruses, they're leftover bits that got swept up and tossed in the stew pot back when you were a monkey, shrew, fish, bacteria, or whatever. Most of the junk in your DNA has been put to some use, even if just to mark another section as not used. They can be used to trace evolution, by looking to see who's got what bits.
Re:excellent article (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh no! (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, that is pretty much false. About 2% of our DNA does anything to encode for protein. As a reference, the article states that about 8% of our DNA is relegated to fossil viruses (much of this bulk being redundant copies of the same of very similar viruses.)