Live data from Hacker News

New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

npr.org

51–60 of 135 posts

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#51
post #15
post #2

I think an alien looking at life on earth might find it very peculiar that so many of our life forms split into 2 independent parts that are unable to reproduce unless they match up with a partner of the opposite "sex". This is no stranger than that -- but it's fascinating to us who haven't encountered it before. The "sex" thing turns out to have big advantages: mostly that it allows for faster evolution by allowing…

Might be strange that we have sexes. Might also be strange that we only have 2 sexes. Many plants have two different generational types (haploid and diploid). Meaning each "generation" alternates between two different organism types. Fungi have both sexual and assexual reproduction [2]. But their sexual reproduction occurs when two cells directly fuse and then undergo meiosis into haploid spores instead of a diploid…

> Many plants have two different generational types (haploid and diploid).

For the vast majority of plants, these are not physically separate organisms. The key difference here is that the haploid cells of the plant can themselves undergo mitosis, which animal gametes cannot do. Since we generally consider cells with different genetics to be different individuals, we speak of plants as having alternation of generations.

For the most part however, the haploid cells live in the diploid organism or vice versa, depending on which branch of the kingdom you're considering. It's not like botanists run tests on a particular specimen to determine its ploidy. For any given species, we know what the ploidy of the individual is. For example, flowering plants are all diploid. If you find a flowering plant, the individual has two sets of chromosomes, but somewhere in its tissues there is a haploid cell (descended from the parent) that is undergoing meiosis, and is thus a separate organism.

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#52

All I can think about after reading that is how to create some set of logic gates for data transfer. What if different combinations of the parts of a virus could be formed into different actual viruses and produce a single new output variant. For Example, you could combine 00, 01, 11, 10 and then the two part virus would output the result of a NAND operation. We could have naturally occurring computations in nature.…

That's a CPU with a built-in fan.

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#53

All I can think about after reading that is how to create some set of logic gates for data transfer. What if different combinations of the parts of a virus could be formed into different actual viruses and produce a single new output variant. For Example, you could combine 00, 01, 11, 10 and then the two part virus would output the result of a NAND operation. We could have naturally occurring computations in nature.…

How would you order the operations?

That's where encoding in in RNA would be important, think about just a monotomically incrementing clock tick from one virus generation to the next, two cells would only merge if they had the same clock.

I basically know nothing about what's possible in RNA/DNA, but my understanding is that RNA can be used to adjust DNA, which could essentially increment a clock tick.

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#54

Why if instead of spending money researching the diseases that mosquitos could transmit to humans on the future we spend all that money into figuring out a way to exterminate all mosquitos from the surface of earth once and for all? As someone who lives on a tropical country and had have both Dengue and Chikungunya I can attest mosquitos are pure evil, and there are several researchs suggesting they serve no purpose…

The how already exists (genetic engineering) but it will probably never be done due to political reasons.

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#55
post #46

Why if instead of spending money researching the diseases that mosquitos could transmit to humans on the future we spend all that money into figuring out a way to exterminate all mosquitos from the surface of earth once and for all? As someone who lives on a tropical country and had have both Dengue and Chikungunya I can attest mosquitos are pure evil, and there are several researchs suggesting they serve no purpose…

We generally arent trying to cure diseases. I mean, individual researchers want to find cures (e.g. the dedicated clinician who went to med school because her mother had breast cancer, the passionate hacker who eschewed private buses and free lunches at some startup to work at a research institute) Generally though, the pressure of the overall system is to make as much money as possible. If you cure someone's disease…

Does anyone actually make the conscious decision to avoid curing diseases because of its limited profitability?

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#56
How is this different from the hepatitis D virus? Hepatitis D isn't complete, and can only propagate if there is a hepatitis B infection. In other words, you can only get hepatitis D if you already have the hepatitis B virus, and then it makes things worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_D

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#57
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exterminating all mosquitoes could doom the animals that eat them. Birds, insects, spiders, salamanders, lizards and frogs could lose their primary food source. Wiping out a large part of the ecology could be a disaster.

Although I remember reading somewhere that mosquitos have a negative footprint on ecology. There's definitely a ton of research at the moment on mosquito control. There was another article on HN a few years ago on a device that tracks and kills mosquitos w/ tiny lasers that can't harm humans. Apologize for lack of source, I'll try and dig them up. EDIT: found it! wasn't too hard to find haha. And it seems other repli…

What does "negative footprint" mean?

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#58

Why if instead of spending money researching the diseases that mosquitos could transmit to humans on the future we spend all that money into figuring out a way to exterminate all mosquitos from the surface of earth once and for all? As someone who lives on a tropical country and had have both Dengue and Chikungunya I can attest mosquitos are pure evil, and there are several researchs suggesting they serve no purpose…

The how already exists (genetic engineering) but it will probably never be done due to political reasons.

Political? Or just money? Obviously politics exist around the way govt spends money, but are you suggesting some more sinister than that?

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#59
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We generally arent trying to cure diseases. I mean, individual researchers want to find cures (e.g. the dedicated clinician who went to med school because her mother had breast cancer, the passionate hacker who eschewed private buses and free lunches at some startup to work at a research institute) Generally though, the pressure of the overall system is to make as much money as possible. If you cure someone's disease…

Does anyone actually make the conscious decision to avoid curing diseases because of its limited profitability?

It's just, "How business is done" and it's rarely if ever questioned.

Re: New Virus Breaks the Rules of Infection

#60
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We generally arent trying to cure diseases. I mean, individual researchers want to find cures (e.g. the dedicated clinician who went to med school because her mother had breast cancer, the passionate hacker who eschewed private buses and free lunches at some startup to work at a research institute) Generally though, the pressure of the overall system is to make as much money as possible. If you cure someone's disease…

Does anyone actually make the conscious decision to avoid curing diseases because of its limited profitability?

Doubtful one person, but a board of directors choosing where to maintain, increase, or reduce investment does. And their legal fiduciary duty is to maximize profits. That is the system's design right there.
Post reply on HN