Scientists Discover Virus With No Recognizable Genes (sciencemag.org) 104
sciencehabit shares a report from Science Magazine: Viruses are some of the most mysterious organisms on Earth. They're among the world's tiniest lifeforms, and because none can survive and reproduce without a host, some scientists have questioned whether they should even be considered living things. Now, scientists have discovered one that has no recognizable genes, making it among the strangest of all known viruses. But how many viruses do we really know? Another group has just discovered thousands of new viruses hiding out in the tissues of dozens of animals. The finds speak to 'how much we still need to understand' about viruses, says one of the researchers, Jonatas Abrahao, a virologist at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte.
Abrahao made his discovery while hunting down giant viruses. These microbes -- some the size of bacteria -- were first discovered in amoebae in 2003. In a local artificial lake, he and his colleagues found not only new giant viruses, but also a virus that -- because of its small size -- was unlike most that infect in amoebae. They named it Yaravirus. (Yara is the "mother of waters" according to Indigenous Tupi-Guarani mythology.) Yaravirus's size wasn't the only thing weird about it. When the team sequenced its genome, none of its genes matched any scientists had come across before, the group reports on the bioRxiv preprint server.
Abrahao made his discovery while hunting down giant viruses. These microbes -- some the size of bacteria -- were first discovered in amoebae in 2003. In a local artificial lake, he and his colleagues found not only new giant viruses, but also a virus that -- because of its small size -- was unlike most that infect in amoebae. They named it Yaravirus. (Yara is the "mother of waters" according to Indigenous Tupi-Guarani mythology.) Yaravirus's size wasn't the only thing weird about it. When the team sequenced its genome, none of its genes matched any scientists had come across before, the group reports on the bioRxiv preprint server.
Obvious cause: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not necessarily, viruses are fragile, warm water kills them and I doubt they can survive a re-entry riding on an asteroid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Prions are proteins that replicates themselves. Examples are Kuru, Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis, and Cruetzfeldt-Jakob Disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you insist.
Stand still for a minute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obvious cause: (Score:5, Informative)
Also, prions don't replicate themselves, per se- they cause normal proteins to misfold like they have, so they assimilate, not replicate.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not claiming it has no detectable genes, it's saying it has no known genes.
Also, prions don't replicate themselves, per se- they cause normal proteins to misfold like they have, so they assimilate, not replicate.
Looks like nitpicking to me.
1) No known genes means they haven't managed to detect any.
2) "Prions are misfolded proteins with the ability to transmit their misfolded shape onto normal variants of the same protein." [wikipedia.org]
Creating new copies of themselves, regardless of the mechanism by which they do so, is replication.
They could use a Star Trek transporter to do it, for all I care. Replication is replication.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like nitpicking to me.
No, it doesn't. It looks like correcting misuse of words and possible some misconceptions on your part.
1) No known genes means they haven't managed to detect any.
No. It does not mean that. It means that the genome of these viruses are foreign. The genomic sequences of these pathogens have no matches in our database.
2) "Prions are misfolded proteins with the ability to transmit their misfolded shape onto normal variants of the same protein." [wikipedia.org]
You'll notice the lack of the word replicate.
This is because what it does is not replication.
Prions cause a misfolding of proteins- it does not produce an exact copy. This is why Mad Cow is transmissible. Even though our PrP genes differ from say, a co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They start out white, but you can spray-paint them orange and call it a tan if you want.
Re: (Score:2)
They start out white, but you can spray-paint them orange and call it a tan if you want.
TIL prions are from New Jersey.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Obvious cause: (Score:2)
...âmuch more likely that you'll run into some that are full of random useless junk...â
Also true of unreviewed papers on preprint services.
Re: (Score:2)
Viruses are no where near as fragile as that, and can handle warm water just fine.
Re: Obvious cause: (Score:1)
Like .... blood?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yah no...
You have no viable proof of concept for that declaration statement.
While we have lot's of proof that states, depending on the size of the
asteroid even if it's a rubble mass, the interior core won't exceed 12C
Friction is on the outer shell and it keeps peeling away, given a large
enough mass or the right entry, it should stay intact and cool in the center.
best example of this is: The re-entry failure of the space shuttle: a full
helmet was recovered with minor burns.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me turn that telescope so that you're looking down the right end.
What is your mechanism for launching a rock sample containing a virus from (say) Mars' surface to interplanetary space without significantly heating i
Re: (Score:2)
While you might be right,
and with a handle of " rock doctor " I'm going to give you the win. The launch with 99.9997% probability of killing everything still gives
0.0003% but that's a discussion with lot's of computer power to get the right type of impact with the most mass projected into space
and the right escape velocity...
The post I replied to was :
"I doubt they can survive a re-entry riding on an asteroid".
Your statement "if it was sterilised in the launch process" includes the " if " which is t
Re:Obvious cause: (Score:4, Interesting)
I was thinking that too, but if it were really aliens, I expect the mapping from codon to amino acid would be different, and therefore the virus would be non-viable.
Although I vaguely recall that Douglas Hofstadter was asked by one of his students whether this mapping really was arbitrary. Ah, here it is, top of p26: https://www.coursehero.com/tut... [coursehero.com]. Yes, the mapping is arbitrary; so there's no reason a sequence of alien RNA or DNA (if such exists) should map to the same sequence of amino acids that earthly biochemistry does. And given that, there's no reason a sequence of alien RNA/ DNA should create a protein that "does" anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for "panspermia", the idea that Earth's earliest forms of life might have been generated from extra-solar material that is widespread throughout the galaxy, if not the universe. There are various forms of the theories, but many involve the earliest life forms spreading successfully through interstellar space, even if only by happenstance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Obvious cause: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has the advantage of being closer that the other options as well.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the idea that life started more than once on Earth. Coming from pretty much the same environment, resources, etc, they'd probably be really similar.
Of course the most probably is simply that we've only scratched the surface on the viruses that exist, and this is from a line that diverged very early and no other related samples had been identified yet.
Re: (Score:2)
That is also a workable theory. I'm not clear it would explain how enough diversity would be found in contemporary samples, with so many billions of years to compete with each other and so few other samples found.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Panspermia were possible, then it is still hundreds of millions to billions of times more likely that life originated on Earth in less than a billion years after the agglomeration of the plan
Re: (Score:2)
Douglas Hofstadter has never asked an intelligent question his entire life.
Re: Obvious cause: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking that too, but if it were really aliens, I expect the mapping from codon to amino acid would be different, and therefore the virus would be non-viable.
Although I vaguely recall that Douglas Hofstadter was asked by one of his students whether this mapping really was arbitrary. Ah, here it is, top of p26: https://www.coursehero.com/tut... [coursehero.com]. Yes, the mapping is arbitrary; so there's no reason a sequence of alien RNA or DNA (if such exists) should map to the same sequence of amino acids that earthly biochemistry does. And given that, there's no reason a sequence of alien RNA/ DNA should create a protein that "does" anything.
Even on Earth the common mapping between codon and amino acid is not unique. Even the list of amino acids is not unique and some branches of life use a different set.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Obvious cause: the shitter (Score:2)
Viral novelty doesnâ(TM)t surprise Elodie Ghedin of New York University, who looks for viruses in wastewater and in respiratory systems. More than 95% of the viruses in sewage data have âoeno matches to reference genomes [in databases],â she says. Like Abrahão, she says, âoeWe seem to be discovering new viruses all the time.â /FTFA
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, resemblance to some reference genome (which would contain many genes) is different than not (approximately) matching any known genes at all. Disclaimer: I have a BS in zoology...from half a century ago. Which means I probably don't know what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
>> I have a BS in zoology...from half a century ago. Which means I probably don't know what I'm talking about
how I prefer to state things is :
my baseline theories are from 1960-70's, so first let's make sure we are on the right pages before we say incorrect ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Leeloo.
Re: (Score:2)
Extraterrestrial origin.
I'm not sure if you're just trying to crack a joke here (not a long enough comment to make your intentions clear) or not, but I'll presume not and pose a question. If an extraterrestrial life form made it to earth, why would it need to be based on nucleic and amino acids as we understand them? If life were to evolve on another planet why would it necessarily evolve the way it evolved here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because nucleic and amino acid formation is the most probable form given chemistry and physics?
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't immediately think "aliens!" when you read the summary you're probably in league with the aliens.
Re: (Score:2)
People often confuse the lizard people of being space aliens, because they life in space and use flying saucers, but they're actually from Earth and their biggest cities are underneath the mantle.
Re: (Score:1)
Giorgio Tsoukalos, is that you? Well, maybe not. Still, it is a quite effective argument. I don't understand X, hence aliens.
Re: (Score:2)
Space bacteria, reasonable. Some say probable.
Space viruses? No. Highly unlikely to be a real thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Having no recognisable genes doesn't prove a lack of common origin, though it does open the possibility. It could be a fragment of some other virus that turned out to be viable on its own. Ot it could be a wholly engineered virus, of course, and then it would be as you say. But we can't know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Only one successful one, possibly others that died out but all life on Earth seems to be related and descended from one common ancestor. Another abiogenesis event would probably use different nucleic and amino acids then the limited number that life as we know it uses. There are a lot of potential nucleic and amino acids that would be just as suitable for life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Likely there were lots of various nucleic and amino acids, some just varying in chirality (handiness). Unluckily all we're left with are educated guesses for now. Perhaps we'll find something interesting on other planets.
Re: (Score:1)
"X happened -exactly one time-" looks incredibly conceptually awkward as a naturalistic stance.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Abiogenesis probably happened lots and lots of times. The question is really: how many times did abiogenesis occur and evolve a lineage that was balanced or unique enough to coexist with other lineages from abiogenesis events?
Re: (Score:1)
One? So that common ancestry can be correct?
This is getting repetitive.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap. You can't even take someone agreeing with you with grace.
Re: Common ancestry is an unarguable fact of biolo (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Happened very rarely, as in only a few times in our galaxy, is a possibility. Unluckily with our current data, there's no way to know more then the fact that all life on Earth seems related, as in descended from a common ancestor but even that is questionable due to horizontal gene transfer.
Personally I'm hoping to live long enough for more data to be accumulated from places like Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What is possible is that only once did a successful Abiogenesis event happen. Other events might have been hit by a meteorite or had a volcano happen or just not been as well adapted. Without a time machine, it's all conjecture.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there is always the question of would we even recognize it if we found it?
Either it could be so alien we wouldn't know it was life, or we already found it, but had no idea it was from a different abiogenesis event.
If the latter is the case, perhaps viruses themselves are from a Second Genesis.
But that's just wild speculation without anything to back it up, it's just a what if kind of thing to think about.
Re: (Score:1)
Consistent with Nature's analysis here [nature.com], which basically concludes "probably".
It is important whether there's common ancestry or not. And I'm annoyed I was taught it was certain, and it was not.
Virii could easily have evolved more than once. (Score:5, Informative)
Common ancestry is an unarguable fact of biology ... Except, obviously, everywhere, it isn't.
Virii are strictly dependent on the underlying biology for their existence. They're machines for transferring genetic information from one cell to another, carrying enough genetic payload to build the parts of themselves that don't already exist in their target.
The underlying biology is quite complex. It's not surprising that it only happened once, at least on this planet (perhaps because it ate the resources needed for another occurrence), with all examples evolved from a common ancestor.
Virii parasitizing it, on the other hand, are a minor development on top of, and dependent on, the existing mechanisms within it - with some of their unique "extras" possibly derived from existing mechanisms of the underlying biology as well. It wouldn't be all that surprising if there were several, independent, geneses of such gene-transfer systems, each of which forms the "primordial viral 'cell'" for the start of a new tree of evolution.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
with all examples evolved from a common ancestor.
By what means are you determining this? Statistical analysis? Cladistics?
By whatever means you are developing this conclusion, what would you consider the signature of design, in the direct and simple sense, of human genetic design? Would your methodology have a means, given raw genetic data, of identifying that?
Re:Virii could easily have evolved more than once. (Score:5, Informative)
Wiki has an article on it, basically cladistics as there are about 355 genes shared by all known life though there is an argument for horizontal gene transfer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Humans are genetically not much different then all the other eukaryotes and not much more different then the other domains with no sign of design besides success of random patterns.
Re: (Score:1)
no sign of design besides success of random patterns.
"Success of random patterns" seems very subjective here. Sequences of bytes in a software application look very random, it's the success of the program that means they aren't.
Again, how would you detect "signs of design"? What is the signature. It's unquestionable there is design, and the notion that "all life can be explained without reference to design" is -directly false- because at minimum, such life exists, and we did it. What would a cladistics analysis reveal there, that isn't the case for th
Re: (Score:3)
Success of random patterns is not subjective.
Success of random patterns is determined by the environmental circumstances. There the outcome of the random pattern either positively contributes to procreation, increasing the likelihood for it to be passed on; doesn't hinder procreation, where it may also be passed on; or hinders procreation where it's less likely to be passed on.
As a result you have an emergence of successfully random patterns given simila
Re: (Score:1)
What is this design thing you keep rambling about?
Not rambling, directly and logically demonstrating the facts.
Similarly, then, a random sequence of bytes in a software program can be expected to produce useful results, without the necessity of design. Well, no, false.
Your view is unfalsifiable though, since any behavior meets the success criterion you have, as long as the behavior is behavior.
Cladistic analysis not satisfying your demands does not provide sufficient support your design hypothesis.
Not -my- demands, -the- demands of reaching clear demonstration, per, say, Nature [nature.com], which concludes essentially "probably". Nice attempt at a Science By Intim
Re: (Score:1)
Look at deep learning, where the 'random sequences of bytes' are produced by a process that is modeled on the principles of evolution. And it works with amazing success.
Of course you'll argue that we designed that framework, right? Well, yeah we did. Hence your theistic evolution is hypothetically possible. of course. And most self respecting scientists being agnostic won't deny that. Because they know they can't disprove i
Re: (Score:1)
Look at deep learning, where the 'random sequences of bytes' are produced by a process that is modeled on the principles of evolution.
"Deep learning", and all genetic algorithms, are designed.
Yes, your demands. You build a strawman around that little part that doesn't perfectly line up with what YOU demand from it.
No, I didn't. And again, it isn't my demand. It's the demand placed by logic for accomplishing demonstrating common ancestry.
You contrast Darwinism with your theistic evolution and pretend like these are the only two options (false dichotomy)
Did no such thing. I said you have a position, and I have a position. That's two. There are many more.
If you want to strengthen the case for theistic evolution then come up with phenomenon that can't possibly be explained by alternatives than some Intelligent Design.
Sure. All supposed randomly produced biological systems that aren't stepwise survivable. There are many, for the specifics you can review the extensive biochemical analyses of, say, Professor Behe. Though, you won't
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
But what the hell.
You gave yourself away the moment you contrasted Darwinism with exactly one other line of hypotheses - design. All while there's numerous other possibilities that neither are exactly Darwinism nor 'design' hypotheses. It's that choice, that YOU made, which gives you away.
You're not looking
Re: (Score:1)
If a -core postulate-, the -mainstream premise- of naturalistic evolution, of common ancestry, when discussed is to you a "Straw Man", then your objection here says a lot more about yo
Re: (Score:2)
And it appears to be specifically about your faith. Because there's so many other faiths that concern themselves with creation and evolution, which are usually conveniently ignored by your types while pretending present a "balanced" view.
Which is a sign of your insecurity in accepting the facts, because you feel the need to defend what you believe in.
Maybe your theistic evolution in its many possible variatio
Re: (Score:1)
b) Tick, tock.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if there was a designer, they were sure shitty at it, as in worse then a 2 year old. So we're left with a choice, a really shitty designer or random successes. Of course there is always the Catholic view that the starting conditions were designed to enable randomness to succeed. As it is untestable there isn't much point in considering that much.
Re: (Score:1)
As for the rest, feel free to opt-out. Well, actually there's no "opt", evolution will just eliminate you with no uncertainty.
I'll be enjoying a wider metaphysical context, and experimenting with selection mechanisms with respect to what you leave behind.
Re: (Score:2)
No evolution is not optimal, it is just good enough. Consider eyes, evolution has come up with perhaps a dozen types from those first photo sensitive nerve cells, they all have good points and bad points. Human eyes are pretty good yet the Octopuses eyes, while very similar through convergent evolution are superiour in many ways such as no blind spot but ours are good enough.
There's also paths that evolution can't take as part of the path is very sub-optimal whereas a designer could take that path and those
Re: (Score:1)
"Good enough" is literally the maximum quality you can reference, because that's the best that can exist in your notion of reality. You -aren't- able to evaluate tradeoffs, like eye type, given the ecology in which they exist, even nearly as accurately as e
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
as there are about 355 genes shared by all known life
You should inform the authors of this article!
Re: (Score:2)
Viruses aren't considered to be life.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The plural of virus is viruses.
Even if there was a plural in old Latin (there wasn't, since it was used uncountable), it wouldn't be virii.
And on a semi-related note: the plural of octopus is octopuses, not octopi(i). The old Greek plural would be octopodes.
As In No Genes Presently in the Database (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the title was ambiguous, and my first interpretation was the wrong one: no genes.
Re: (Score:2)
While the (clickbait) practice is questionable in itself the intention is that you read the actual article (and generate ad revenue for the host).
So still, don't be one of those many dumbasses who jumps to conclusions after just reading the headline and proceed to post in the comment section (perhaps unwittingly) creating a strawman thread. I'm not accusing you of doing this, but there's more than
Now if they would only discover me (Score:1, Interesting)
Recognizable is not the right word here (Score:5, Informative)
Obligatory (Score:1)
"This is Major Manchek calling a wildfire." (Score:1, Troll)
"Lifeform"? (Score:3)
Last I checked, a virus is a piece of genome with a wrapper. Not alive in any sense at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists are still debating it.
No Recognizable Genes (Score:1)
Eyes without a face... [youtube.com]
Bullsh*t Title (Score:2)
"Scientists Discover Virus With No Recognizable Genes"
Except that 10% of its genome, 6 genes, (FTFA) "had distant homologs in public databases: an exonuclease/recombinase, a packaging-ATPase, a bifunctional DNA primase/polymerase and three hypothetical proteins"
To make things even less sensationalist: viruses like these are discovered all the time, just about everywhere.
No recognizable? (Score:2)
The virus is wearing a mask so that it doesn't get infected by a corona-virus.
I don't know a thing (Score:2)
The more I think I know, the more I know that I know nothing. ( I don't know who said it, but I would thank them for saying something so true )
I love science, it provides a kinda warm blanket of mystery and never failing to give me awe.
it's discovery's like this that give me hope for the rest of the human race.
I look forward to the next discovery
Paper says otherwise (Score:1)
Giant virus (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I see a giant tree in Britain, does that mean that because America has Giant Sequoias and Amazonia has Giant Teaks, then the tree I see in Scotland is a Seaquak or a Teoia?
If there is a common thing betwee
Clickbait title .... (Score:1)
Viral novelty doesn’t surprise Elodie Ghedin of New York University, who looks for viruses in wastewater and in respiratory systems. More than 95% of the viruses in sewage data have “no matches to reference genomes [in databases],” she says. Like Abrahão, she says, “We seem to be discovering new viruses all the time.”
Re: (Score:3)
Then it probably wouldn't infect humans. Just amoebas.