Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Find New Way To Destroy Anthrax

Posted by michael on from the when-lysol-isn't-available dept.

t0rnt0pieces writes "Yahoo news is reporting a story about how scientists have discovered a new way to combat the anthrax bacteria, even if the strain is drug resistant. The method uses an enzyme from bacteriophages, virii which attack bacteria. The scientists say that this method could even be adapted to combat other virii. This truly looks to be a fantastic breakthrough in the treatment of drug-resistant bacterial infections."

70 comments

  1. Plural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The plural of virus is viruses.

    1. Re:Plural by Ian-K · · Score: 1

      In English, maybe. In Latin it's "virii".

      Anybody who's more fluent at latin is welcome to correct me. :-)

      Trian

      --
      I'm no longer fed up with MS Windows: I go rid of them :)
    2. Re:Plural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. It has no known plural usage in surviving latin texts. As the -1 reply to the top-level comment documents, the plural in english is viruses.

    3. Re:Plural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, I'll bite -- in Latin it would be 'virus', according to my Latin dictionary. The word virus in Latin means something like 'slime', and it's a group noun -- it has no plural. (Slime is kind of like that in English; we have a plural form for it, but it means something slightly different from the singular). Latin doesn't have a plural form.

      So we're free to make whatever plural we want -- it's only derived from a Latin word, it's not really related. I can handle any way people spell it, it's all readable.

      -Billy

  2. ARUGH!! PSEDUOSCIENCE EATING MY HEAD!!! by JabberWokky · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Dear Submittor:

    So, which is it? A method to kill bacteria or a method to kill viruses? You know the two are *totally different things*, right?!?!?!

    There is no cure for any virus. Never has been, and imo, there won't be in our lifetimes. The best thing we can do is bolster the human immune system before infection (vaccine) or after infection (ranging from simply getting rest to AZT cocktails that always remind me of Milkplus from A Clockwork Orange).

    Bacteria, however, can be beaten with a wide varity of medicines, from that trusty old blue moldy favorite, penecillin, to modern antibiotics.

    Now repeat after me: Anthrax is a bacteria. This article is about using virus style or derived tools to kill a bacteria. It has nothing to do with combatting viruses (or as you put it, virii). The two are totally different biological forms, like tapeworms and right whales.

    Arugh! Even CNN and AP can't get it right, so maybe I should be more forgiving. Maybe I should just blithely lump dogs, cats, sofas and trees into the same generic category and not worry about any sort of technical consideration, especially in a friggin' scientific article submission!!!

    Thank you, I have now vented. Bacteria != Viruses.

    --
    Evan (no reference)

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    1. Re:ARUGH!! PSEDUOSCIENCE EATING MY HEAD!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anthrax is a bacterium. Bacteria is the plural.

    2. Re:ARUGH!! PSEDUOSCIENCE EATING MY HEAD!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you expect when the submitter can't even spell "viruses" right?

    3. Re:ARUGH!! PSEDUOSCIENCE EATING MY HEAD!!! by hplasm · · Score: 1

      Anthraxes am bacteriumsii are the plurals. Of.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  3. Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by immanis · · Score: 2

    The human body is an ecosystem.

    Bad things happen when you introduce foreign living things into an ecosystem.

    A significant lesson could be learned from examining what the Cane Toad did to Australia as a good example of what happens when you do this.

    --

    best web host ever

    1. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      That'd be why they test it on animals first to see what happens.

    2. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by Jerf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One: An enzyme is not a living thing. Thus, it is also not a "foreign" living thing. A "foreign" thing it may be, but this is hardly unusual; your body manages to survive well despite the amazing array of foreign things it comes into contact with.

      Two: Your body is not an ecosystem. While some aspects may be modelled that way, it can not be completely reduced to an "ecosystem". You have conciousness and a will to live, and you can die, a binary "dead/alive" process that ecosystems can not be said to experience. (While we talk of killing ecosystems, ecosystems always change. The only truly dead ecosystem is the one that contains no life. The state of the ecosystem naturally changes over time; it may change to the point that we say its no longer the same ecosystem, but there's really no natural reason to say such things.)

      Thus, even accepting the fallacious point that this treatment consists of an induced viral infection, because we face the possibility of true death, it may make perfect sense to choose not-certain-(and-quite-unlikely-)death (this treatment) over certain death (anthrax), a choice embedded in an ethical system that has no real analogue in your ecosystem reduction. Thus the reduction is of no value.

      (On a final note, "Bad things happen when..." is an amazing, horrific oversimplification on just about every level. For instance, try a clear definition of "foreign". It's a hell of a lot harder then you may think. Just as a sampler, would it be "foriegn" to re-introduce the mammoth now into the Great Plains, even though it's now extinct? What about ten years after the extinction? That's just a sampler of the sampler, too; "bad things" do not always happen; more often, the 'foreign' transplantee just dies. Major havoc is the exception, rather then the rule. Proof of that on the body level is your continued existance despite exposure to all kinds of foreign life forms, some of which even get so far as causing you to get a "cold", a significant infection, yet not managing to kill you.)

    3. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by Orthanc_duo · · Score: 1

      NB: I'm a programmer not a biologist.

      Phage's are not a new means of treatment. They have been used against anti-biotic resistant bacteria in Georgia (the country.. not that place in the US) for some time. The phages cannot survive in humans thats why they are using an enzyme extracted from the phage in this case.
      I understand the actual phage can only kill bacteria at the surface.

      Orthanc

    4. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Yes because a rat's body behaves just the same as mine.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    5. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Test animals - rats, pigs, primates - are chosen for their similarity (in some ways) to humans. After the animal tests come limited human tests. It's not as if they just start using it on everyone, for goodness sake.

    6. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by DrSkwid · · Score: 2

      in some ways

      Lucky for them they lack self awareness and don't suffer pain.

      It's odd how other species are so close to us that they make ideal test candidates and yet far enough away from us that this is considered acceptable.

      I've got a new claw hammer and I want to test it for vivisector injuring capabilities, know where I can find any?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    7. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Sacrificing a tiny number of animals in order to cure diseases that cause suffering for millions of humans is bad, then?

      The idiocy of your argument amazes me.

    8. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      vivisection isn't the only way.

      The shallowness of your argument is no surprise to me.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    9. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Two: Your body is not an ecosystem.'
      'you can die, a binary "dead/alive" process that ecosystems can not be said to experience.'
      'The only truly dead ecosystem is the one that contains no life.'

      Dead people contain life, doctors disagree about when 'death' occurs, but in general conclude that it is at the point at which the cohesion of the system can no longer be maintained. You are making a lot of noise about things you don't understand.

      'You have conciousness and a will to live'
      Show me one, and I'll give you a bannana, monkey.

    10. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      How, then, do you suggest testing anti-viral drugs before doing widespread human trials?

    11. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Here's a link from a quick search I did detailing how to test anti-viral drugs without animals

      http://www.phenosense.com/people/331.html

      When animal testing is mandatory alternatives are nto sought. While animals are regarded by people like you as walking test chambers then progresss is difficult.

      The advancement of knowledge requires an open mind. Sounds like you've failrd that simple test.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    12. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, that kind of testing only shows the effect on the virus itself - not its possible side effects on the rest of the organism. It'd be like testing shampoo only on hair samples, selling it, and then - oh shit - finding out that it burns peoples' skin off.

    13. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      I find this quote amusingly relevant:

      "That's one thing the leadership of PETA has in common with their precious salamanders, an inability to think." [?]

    14. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, I'm no expert personally but who to trust?

      how a about a german doctor :

      "Vivisection is barbaric, useless, and a hindrance to scientific progress. I learned how to operate from other surgeons. It's the only way, and every good surgeon knows that."
      - Dr. Werner Hartinger, 1988, surgeon of thirty years, President of German League of Doctors Against Vivisection (GLDAV).

      or maybe an American

      "Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to double-talk in technical jargon...The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything - no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system which will 'prove' a point....The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."
      - Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY.

      Or maybe someone close to your field of study

      "Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it."

      Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine.

      Will that do?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    15. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's unlucky that all the pro-vivisection people got the brains

      http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk

      From: imgonakillu67@hotmail.com
      Date: 22 Jan 2001
      I agree to ripping out your throat. Any1 who thinks an animals life is
      as inportant as a humans deserves to have "his" (:)), balls hacked
      off with an ice pick! Ha ha. If i saw any of u [deleted] protesting
      i would lob an half ender of ya [deleted] head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Yours respectfully (HA)

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    16. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Everyone knows there are fanatics on both sides. I could easily find a similar rabid e-mail from the opposing side.

    17. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      so why quote the anti-PETA?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    18. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      'cause it applied to the point - you posted a "solution" to animal testing that wasn't properly thought out - it can't replace testing.

    19. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by DrSkwid · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry but I think that's a lie.

      "I find this quote amusingly relevant:"

      You just wanted to try and insult me somehow.

      But what you have failed to discuss is that animals have consiousness and self awareness. They feel pain and suffering and yet your solution to less suffering is to inflict more of it.

      The only argument you can come up with in favour of it is that shampoo might burn.

      I'm quite happy to contend that the primary motivation for pharmacuetical and cosmetic companies is not to benefit humankind but to seprarate it from it's money and that in the ruthless persuit of this goal they are likely to rush products to market that will injure and maybe kill members of the public. As some sort of barrier to this market govts. introduced mandatory animal testing. Yet the system doesn't work. They lie and cheat to get products to market and if the drugs fail in the regulated markets then they you may well find them on sale in India or Malaysia or Mexico. So the people doing the testing, for our "protection" can't even be trusted. Heck they even try to kill us.

      "According to 1989 US EPA data, Hoechst Celanese was one of the leading releasers in the USA of known or suspected carcinogens."

      YET animal testing is not in and of itself necessary to develop such products. A point which is conceeded and acknowledged by many eminent doctors around the world.

      Maybe you missed the quotes so I'll pop one in again and see if you can ignore it once more :

      "Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it."

      Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine.

      We don't need a solution to animal testing.
      We just need to stop doing it.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    20. Re:Using a Virus to Destroy Bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps I should mention another important consideration. Anthrax bacterium do not kill the host directly, and thus, their removal will not necessarily cure the patient. The bacteria produce a toxin which poisons the host. By the time symptoms have shown, there is usually too much toxin in the body for the host to survive. This treatment could work if you catch it early enough, but it will definitely not work once a foothold has been gained.

  4. Antiviral medications... by rjh · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... Look into Amantadine or its ilk, which are effective drugs for the treatment of influenza.

    There aren't many antiviral drugs, and the ones we have are not especially effective, but it's incorrect to say antivirals don't exist.

    1. Re:Antiviral medications... by JabberWokky · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Oh, they exist, certainly, but from the day you get a virus, to the day you die, that virus potentially inhabits your body. Generally you have the acute phase (with one, Chicken Pox, in another, a low grade flu like experience), and then later a secondary reaction (Chicken Pox leads to shingles, and that low grade flu is from HIV, which leads to AIDS). Viruses stick around. Basically, while there are antiviral medications that aim to slow the replication of viral bodies, they don't cure, and they don't affect the long term effects of viral infection. Much like a diamond, herpies is forever.

      Basically, what you call antivirals really just lessen aspects of the viruses life cycle in the body. I'm not aware of anything that can actually "cure", i.e., remove a virus, from a host. I've long since ceased following the medical publications, though - there may be cutting edge research that has had some nice breakthroughs, but I haven't heard of any, and I follow the general medical press with quite an interest, followinug the interesing bits back to the source.

      --
      Evan (no reference, but I almost put in a bit about Captain Trips)

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    2. Re:Antiviral medications... by rjh · · Score: 2

      but from the day you get a virus, to the day you die, that virus potentially inhabits your body.

      What's your point? Every human being is a colony of thousands of different unique bacteria. From the day you catch strep throat to the day you die, there are strep bacteria living somewhere on your skin. Just counting the number of different Escheria coli bacteria living in your gut would push me past Slashdot's space limitation. Just counting the number of different helpful, necessary bacteria would make me go on for paragraphs and paragraphs.

      Sure, bacteria and viruses are with you for life. What's your point? That's why we acquire immunities.

  5. They still around? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Anthrax pretty much died off in the 80's along with the rest of those thrash metal bands.

    1. Re:They still around? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that comment was so fucking lame you ACed it so as not to risk bitch slap. That was gay.

  6. There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.... by oobeleck · · Score: 2
    So you eat bateria to kill a virus. (I thought viruses merged with your DNA...).
    But then you will probably have a reaction to the bacteria.
    Sooooo then they will give you a drug to fight the reaction.
    But then the drug will cause strange side effects.
    They will give you other drugs to fight the effects of the side effects.
    Thus giving you MORE side effects. (I am beginning to see a nasty pattern here...)
    So then you will probably get sick of this and try herbal remedies to ease the side effects.
    That won't work so you will take up drinking which will destroy you liver and give you heart disease...
    This will necessitate MORE drugs.
    (Repeat previous steps.)
    In the end you will still die anyways...
    At least it will keep you busy on the way though, eh?

    1. Re:There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just in case you were wondering, oobeleck, a retrovirus merges with your DNA, a regular virus just sits inside your nucleui and replicates using the same enzymes that transcribe your DNA, but does not actually merge with your DNA.

      Though my genetics knowledge is about 5 years old and rarely used, so if anyone has any corrections, feel free!

    2. Re:There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.... by RML · · Score: 1

      > So you eat bateria to kill a virus. (I thought viruses merged with your DNA...).

      If you had actually read the article you would notice that it's the other way around. Viruses kill bacteria all the time, but you can't "kill" a virus because it's not clear they're even alive.

      --
      Human/Ranger/Zangband
    3. Re:There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.... by gene_tailor · · Score: 1

      >So you eat bateria to kill a virus.
      No, actually you get an injection with a purified enzyme from a type of virus, that kills the bacteria. Anthrax is a bacterial species.

      >(I thought viruses merged with your DNA...).
      That's only retroviruses. In this case the target of the virus is the bacteria, so if it were going to integrate into any DNA it would be the bacterial DNA. But, this bacteriophage is not a retrovirus, and only the purified lysin protein is being used, not the whole virus.

      --
      It also occurs to me that if one was drowning, yelling "Help! I'm drowning and I lost my bikini top" would probably be m
    4. Re:There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought viruses merged with your DNA...
      been watching too much X files have we?

      It's only the case with Alien engineered Viruses.. they merge with our DNA to quickly convert us to their specifications in order to do a harvest (Havent you watched Signs yet?) they want us for a food source and as we are.... welll we dont taste very good.... they are trying to slowly turn us into.....

      BOLOGNA! Yes! HAHAHAHAHAHAH! You will become tasty BOLOGNA!

      so that is your answer... If you want to really understand something... try looking it up in a microbiological manual or textbook.... not on the internet or from SCI-FI.

  7. The only thing I'd worry about this would be.. by pedro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some bright guy might attempt to engineer a broad spectrum bacteriophage, which would, of course, shut down our entire foodchain.
    That would be bad.
    If I was George W., I'd be much more concerned about stuff like this emanating from Iraq than nasty gasses and stuff.
    After all, we're talking Doomsday weapon here...
    Total climate change, and utter devastation with but one tiny twiddle of a genetic code.
    I pray that these guys have thought this through..

    --
    Brak: What's THAT?
    Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
    1. Re:The only thing I'd worry about this would be.. by RML · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If a broad spectrum bacteriophage was possible, the possibility of it never happening by random mutation is approximately 0.00000000% (viruses mutate very quickly, and there are lots and lots and lots of them). And if it happened, being able to infect all bacteria would be such a terrific advantage that it would already have overrun the planet. So the fact that no such virus has wiped out the foodchain yet is a good reason to think that it's impossible.

      --
      Human/Ranger/Zangband
    2. Re:The only thing I'd worry about this would be.. by gene_tailor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Some bright guy might attempt to engineer a broad spectrum bacteriophage

      You'll be reassured to know that phages have exquisite specificity for their targets-- according to the Nature article:
      "High-affinity binding (the affinity constant Ka = 3-6 10X^8, similar to affinity-matured antibodies) is directed towards species- or strain-specific cell-wall carbohydrates".
      So creating a broad-specificity phage would be like making a broad-specifity antibody-- kind of a contradiction in terms.

      --
      It also occurs to me that if one was drowning, yelling "Help! I'm drowning and I lost my bikini top" would probably be m
    3. Re:The only thing I'd worry about this would be.. by lovebyte · · Score: 1

      If I was Bush, I'd be much more concerned about stuff like this emanating from Iraq than nasty gasses and stuff.
      If were Gearge W. I'd be more concerned about stuff like this emanating from American right wing extremists like the previous anthrax scare!

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    4. Re:The only thing I'd worry about this would be.. by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      If you were actually George W., though, you'd probably be much more concerned about what pants to put on for the "big TV speech sitting at my desk," or maybe (but very doubtful) concerned with pre-reading the speech your writers wrote so you don't fumble on two of the "big words" they always put in, like you did with the last one (darn speech writers). You certainly wouldn't be concerned about the bacteriowhatsits, because they're probably just made up anyhow.

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    5. Re:The only thing I'd worry about this would be.. by pedro · · Score: 2

      >the possibility of it never happening by random mutation is approximately 0.00000000%

      ITYM 'ever happening' :)
      You'll have to concede, however, that such a mutation would quickly snuff out it's own source of propagation. Locally, at least.
      Hence, we have a *Possible* genetic configuration, that nature has weeded out as nonviable, and has not repeated in further mutations.
      This does NOT mean that we, as humans, cannot reintroduce it, or something similar.
      Think of DNA as an OS with various levels of API's and I think you'll get what I mean.

      --
      Brak: What's THAT?
      Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
    6. Re:The only thing I'd worry about this would be.. by pedro · · Score: 2

      A deliberately designed phage that is focused on low level functions and vulnerabilities of the DNA (DNA is a state machine.. think hacking) could easily hijack the internal processes of a bacterium, since they are ALL based on a universal tech foundation.
      What the guys in the article were doing was getting really close to using an enzyme (think packet) to transmit information to a virus (crude processor) so as to press it into service so as to accomplish a task.
      This idea is so cool that I'm peeing myself.
      Hope this helps.

      --
      Brak: What's THAT?
      Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
    7. Re:The only thing I'd worry about this would be.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DNA is not a state machine in so many ways. First, DNA is just information, the actual translation of DNA (code) into product is carried out by ribosomes. Biological operation is massively parallel and can deal with cellular replication errors without having them all hard-coded. A vast majority of cellular mechanisms actually regulate both DNA transcription and mRNA translation, and remember this is all in parallel, too. Another basic flaw in your analogy is that virtually nothing in cellular systems is "hard coded" in any sense humans understand. Enzymes fold and operate because of very complex physical properties and chemical reactions. Lastly, if DNA was a state machine as you claim, there shouldn't be any problem at all understanding virtually all of cellular operation, human development, and the nature human intelligence.

  8. "Virii" by RML · · Score: 4, Funny

    Of course it's spelled right. When in doubt, consult this handy chart:

    SINGLE PLURAL
    bonus bonii
    bus bii
    campus campii
    chorus chorii
    genius geniii
    plus plii
    virus virii
    walrus walrii

    --
    Human/Ranger/Zangband
  9. Tomato! tomah-to. by capnjack41 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Ok ok, I'll let the "virii" slide, even though it is "viruses" (to be honest, I wasn't sure myself). That issue's been beaten to death anyway!

    What's interesting to note is that, in addition to fighting the anthrax itself, this method is also useful in detecting the spores (below is a snippet of the article which wasn't mentioned in the article summary...it's all in the yahoo! article link):

    Fischetti said that the enzyme had another potential use: detection of small numbers of anthrax spores. When PlyG destroys an anthrax bacterium, the cell releases a substance that can be detected with the help of a fluorescent agent and a hand-held device.

    1. Re:Tomato! tomah-to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Fuck you penislips. Anthrax isnt a virus. and the plural form of virus is VIRUSES. Piss off kitten cake fuckstick bitch motherfucker with your snarky asslicking butthole fuckmouth.


      What's the Plural of `Virus'?What's the Plural of `Virus'? The plural of virus is neither viri nor virii, nor even vira nor virora. It is quite simply viruses, irrespective of context. Here's why.
      Sections in this document:

      English Inflections [slashdot.org]
      Classical Inflections [slashdot.org] and References [slashdot.org]
      Journey Into the Fourth Declension [slashdot.org] (new)
      Other Latin Resources [slashdot.org]
      ASM News [slashdot.org]
      ASM News Update [slashdot.org] (new)
      Footnotes [slashdot.org]
      English Inflections First off, the OED [oed.com] gives nothing but viruses for the plural. Here's its abbreviated entry:

      Etymology: a. L. virus slimy liquid, poison, offensive odour or taste. Hence also Fr., Sp., Pg. virus.
      1 Venom, such as is emitted by a poisonous animal. Also fig.

      2 Path. a A morbid principle or poisonous substance produced in the body as the result of some disease, esp. one capable of being introduced into other persons or animals by inoculations or otherwise and of developing the same disease in them. Now superseded by the next sense.

      b Pl. viruses. An infectious organism that is usu. submicroscopic, can multiply only inside certain living host cells (in many cases causing disease) and is now understood to be a non-cellular structure lacking any intrinsic metabolism and usually comprising a DNA or RNA core inside a protein coat (see also quot. 1977). [ Formerly referred to as filterable viruses, their first distinguishing characteristic being the ability to pass through filters that retained bacteria. ]

      Other sources that support viruses include Birchfield (n Fowler :-) in Modern English Usage [train4publishing.co.uk] (3rd Edition), and also the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language [train4publishing.co.uk]. Classical Inflections While one would hope that the authoritative sources cited above would suffice, some writers prefer to maintain the classical inflections on some English words, particularly in technical writing. For example, conflicting indexes/indices and minimums/minima are both easily found, depending on the intended audience and use. In that case, what's the classical plural of virus?
      The simple answer is that there wasn't one. The longer answer follows.

      Writers who, searching for a fancy plural to virus, incorrectly write *viri are doubtless blindly applying an overreaching -us => -i rule. This mis-inflects many words. For example, status and hiatus only change the length of the final vowel; genus goes to genera; corpus goes to corpora. Others are even worse if this rule is mis-applied, like syllabus, caucus, octopus, mandamus, and rebus.

      Anyway, Latin already had a word viri, but it was the nominative plural not of virus (slime, poison, or venom), but of vir (man), which as it turns out is also a 2nd declension noun. I do not believe that writers of English who write viri are intentionally speaking of men. And although there actually is a viri form for virus, it's the genitive singular[1] [slashdot.org], not the nominative plural. And we certainly don't grab for genitive singulars for the plurals when we've started out with a nominative. Such hanky panky would certainly get you talked about, and probably your hand slapped as well.

      This apparently invariant use of virus as a genitive singular may also imply that it's 4th declension, as some scholars [slashdot.org] believe.

      Those confused souls who write *virii are tacitly positing the existence of the non-word *virius, and declining it as though it were like filius. It's true that l/r are both linguals that sometimes get interchanged, and that f/v are just a change in voicing[2] [slashdot.org], but that's just reaching. *Virii is still completely silly, so don't do that; otherwise, everyone will know you're just a blathering script kiddie.

      The crucial problem here is that, classically speaking, there appears to be no recorded use of virus in the plural. It was a 2nd declension noun ending in -us, which is rather common, but it was also a neuter, which is rather rare. I could only come up with three such 2nd declension neuters: virus [tufts.edu] (some poison), pelagus [tufts.edu] (the sea, usually poetically), and vulgus [tufts.edu] (the crowd). None appear to admit plurals. Perhaps this is because they are mass nouns, not count nouns. [3] [slashdot.org]

      One citation below wonders whether these -us 2nd declension neuters might have inflected -us => -ora, the way the 3rd declension's neuter plurals for tempus and corpus do. There's really not any support for that notion--that I could find at least. If so, that would end up producing *virora. Most other citations think that these plurals just never happened at all, or that if they did, they didn't jump declensions. Perhaps they were invariant as they oddly are for the vocative and accusative cases. In any event, *virora does not fit comfortably in the mouth of an English speaker, which is a good reason to avoid it.[4] [slashdot.org]

      Another theory holds that virus, if it was a 2nd declension neuter, must go to *vira in the plural as do its -um neuter brethren in the 2nd declension. However, that assumes that it works like a -um form, not as a -us form does. And it really seems to do neither. If it were a -us form (again, as a 2nd declension nominative), then its vocative would have to be *vire; but it's really only virus. You also expect an accusative form *viros, but that too is missing; it's still just virus in the accusative. And if it were a -um form, then its vocative would have to be *virum. But it's not--here again, it's only virus. (Vocative examples of virus are not particularly common. Apparently the Romans seldom addressed their slime in a personal fashion. :-)

      So what we have here is something of a mixed or invariant declension. Trying to find a plural for something that didn't take a plural (possibly because it was not a count but a mass noun), or at least, one for which no plural is classically attested, is a fruitless endeavour. Best to stick with English and use viruses. Journey Into the Fourth Declension Some scholars, includining Gavin Betts, believe that virus pertained not to the second declension, but to the fourth one. Here is an example or two that support[5] [slashdot.org] Betts and dispute the 2nd declension theory. The first is classical, from Ammianus [geocities.com]:

      qui ut coluber copia virus exuberans natorum
      That seems to be using virus as a genitive, which contradicts the assertion that it's 2nd declension, which would have lead to viri, and supports the 4th declension position. This was brought to my attention by Andreas Waschbuesch [mailto], who went on to write:
      Just another note: You must not forget that Ammian's native tongue was Greek, not Latin - so it's (very hypothetical!) possible he understood virus as a so called accusativus respectus and copia as adverbial expression. (A more common phenomenon in Greek.) exuberare was combined that way with lucrum and there was a tendency to use non-transitive verbs in a (active) transitive way - like anhelare or spumare in late antiquity's Latin as well. (The pseudo-Ciceronian Rhetorica ad Herennium's fourth book is an outstanding exception with its usage of anhelans et spumans in the passage about the denarratio and the following example IF one dates it to 80 a.Chr.n. ...) But - to make a conclusion - it's not classical at all to use the form viri(i), because there isn't any genitive-singular- or nominative-plural-form (*) viri found in the whole Latin literature up to the first century p.Chr.n. as far as PHI-CD-Rom can tell :-)
      This recent letter [slashdot.org] also supports the fourth declension point of view. Of course, even if virus really turns out to have been in the fourth declension, we'll still have vulgus, pelagus, and cetus as irregular -us neuters in the second declension. Let's blame it all on the Greeks. References
      Here's what other sources have to say about this matter:

      alt.usage.english FAQ [ccp14.ac.uk] Not all Latin words ending in -us had plurals in -i. Apparatus, cantus, coitus, hiatus, impetus, Jesus, nexus, plexus, prospectus, and status were 4th declension in Latin, and had plurals in -us with a long `u'. Corpus, genus, and opus were 3rd declension, with plurals corpora, genera, and opera. Virus is not attested in the plural in Latin, and is of a rare form (2nd declension neuter in -us) that makes it debatable what the Latin plural would have been; the only plural in English is viruses. Omnibus and rebus were not nominative nouns in Latin. Ignoramus was not a noun in Latin.

      [...] classical plurals [...] [ilhawaii.net] What is the plural of virus? This neuter in Latin lacked a plural; it would presumably [disputable -tchrist ] have been virora like corpora, the plural of neuter corpus. (Like corpora, virora would be stressed on its initial syllable. As indicated earlier, *corpi would be as outlandish--as far beyond the pale--as *rhinoceri and *octopi.)

      Latin had several declensions containing neuter, feminine, and masculine words ending in -us; the plurals are different in each one. Incidentally, the singular of mores (pronounced `moh-rehs') is mos, with the same change of `s' to `r' between vowels heard in corpus : corpora and in genus : genera.

      Allen and Greenough [tufts.edu] The authors at the cited reference point out the follwoing:

      Many Greek nouns retain their original gender: as, arctus (F.), the Polar Bear; methodus (F.), method.
      a. The following in -us are Neuter; their accusative (as with all neuters) is the same as the nominative: pelagus, sea; virus, poison; vulgus (rarely M.), the crowd. They are not found in the plural, except pelagus, which has a rare nominative and accusative plural pelage.

      NOTE.--The nominative plural neuter cete, sea monsters, occurs; the nominative singular cetus occurs in Vitruvius.

      Whether this leading would lead to ?vire, however, is unclear, since virus does not appear to be of Greek extraction.
      Latin inflections [erols.com] And for those who just can't get enough, try this. It is a bunch of inflection tables, more complete than I've seen elsewhere. For a good time, figure out the nominative plural of venus is. Hint: it's not veni. ASM News Apparently this question is `in the air'. The following is from the June 1999 issue of ASM News by the American Society for Microbiology, sent it by Jim Sandoz. /* Begin Excerpt */

      Numerous Latin words have been taken over into the modern scientific vocabulary, most without difficulty. The Latin word virus, however, presents a minor but interesting problem, if one wishes to express a phrase such as Index of Viruses in its Latin form. By analogy with other nouns, one would expect the normal Latin equivalent to be Index Virorum. The difficulty stems from the fact that the Latin noun virus is defective, i.e. does not have a full set of case--forms, singular and plural. The Roman grammarian Priscian (fl. 500 A.D.) states that some claim the word is indeclinable (i.e., has only one form for all the cases in the singular); others, apparently more accurately, that it is declined in the singular according to the second declension neuter and cite two passages from the poet Lucretius in substantiation. All of the ancient grammarians are in agreement, however, that the word is used in the singular only, which indeed appears to be true, for no plural forms are attested in extant Latin works.
      In antiquity the word virus had not yet acquired, of course, its current scientific meaning; rather it denoted something like toxicity, venom, a poisonous, deleterious, or unpleasant agent or principle, or poison in the abstract or general sense. (The first meaning given for this word, a slimy liquid, slime, in the most widely used Latin-English dictionaries is inaccurate; the error has been corrected in the more recent Oxford Latin Dictionary.) Nouns denoting entities that are countable pluralize (book, books); nouns denoting noncountable entities do not (except under special circumstances) pluralize (air, mood, valor). The term virus in antiquity appears to have belonged to the latter category, hence the nonexistence of plural forms.

      When the word was taken over into modern languages and acquired its current scientific meaning, it changed categories and denoted a countable entity. The modern languages which have adopted the word each pluralize it in their own fashion (e.g., Eng. viruses, Germ. Viren; French and Italian do not distinguish in form between singular and plural, virus). But what to do in neo-Latin, which normally is subject to the rules and constraints of classical Latin?

      W. T. Steam in his manual on botanical Latin (Botanical Latin, Newton Abbey, 2nd ed., 1973) gives what would be the normal plural forms of such a second declension neuter noun: nominative vira, genitive virorum, without, however, indicating his authority for those forms. It may be observed that in Latin as in other languages when the plural of noncountable nouns does occur, it generally denotes various kinds of the entity (e.g., wine, honey, oil). Steam may have applied this principle to virus in order to meet the requirements of modern scientific terminology. If Latin had continued to be the common international language of scholars and scientists at the time that viruses were first identified, it appears likely that it would have generated the forms adduced by Steam.

      Robert J. Smutny /* End Excerpt */
      ASM News Update The following letter recently appeared in ASM News, from Ton E. van den Bogaard. (Formatting added.)

      On the Presence of a Plural of the Latin Noun "Virus"
      With interest I read the contribution `On the Absence of a Plural of the Latin Noun ``Virus''' in the June 1999 ASM News, p. 388, by Robert J. Smutny. However, according to my Latin grammar, one of the very few books of my gymnasium (high school) days that is still up to date, the plural of the noun virus in Latin is, like the plural nowadays used for virus in Romance languages (e.g., Italian and French), also virus. The Latin noun virus does not belong to the second declension group but, like the noun fructus, meaning fruit or piece of fruit, belongs to a group of Latin words that is declined according to the fourth declension. Hence, two pieces of fruit is in Latin duo fructus and two viruses would be duo virus. According to the fourth declension the plural genitive of virus in Latin is viruum and therefore an Index of Viruses is in Latin an Index Viruum. Virorum is the plural genitive of the Latin noun vir (second declension) meaning man or husband. Consequently an Index Virorum would indicate a list of husbands or men.

      Moreover, because the noun virus belongs to the fourth declension group the study of viruses should have been called virulogy and people practicing that science virulogists. My former professor in virology at veterinary school consequently called himself a virulogist and he lectured virulogy. I am afraid that these words have become extinct since he died.

      It is important to realize that Latin and Greek derived expressions in biomedical English have been coined by scientists for convenience and not by scholars based on classical grammar. The old Romans might have said to these scientists modulating their language: ``Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas,'' which means freely translated: ``Despite your lack of knowledge, still appreciated.''

      Ton E. van den Bogaard
      University Maastricht, the Netherlands

      Other Latin Resources One textbook I'd like to recommend Gavin Betts's Teach Yourself Latin, which you can look up on Amazon [amazon.com] if you'd like. No, I don't believe in kickbacks.
      Here are some Web resources: The Perseus Project [tufts.edu] Read Caesar, Catullus, Cicero, Hirtius, Horace, Livy, Ovid, Plautus, Servius, and Vergil, plus quite a bit of other useful material. For example, you can look up virus [tufts.edu] for a definition and forms, or find its citations [tufts.edu] in literature. Here's one by Vergil [tufts.edu].

      Latin Textbook: Wheelock's Latin (HTML) [cuhk.edu.hk] Wonderful on-line course notes designed as a study aid for those without formal grammar/linguistics training. Note that `the entire zip archive' he advertises isn't really complete, and so I used these commands to pull in and view the whole thing locally: % cd /tmp % wget -r -l2 http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Wheelock-Lat in/ % netscape /tmp/humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Wheelock-Latin /index.html

      The Classics Page [patriot.net] Innumerable links, including some to on-line interactive exercises and to various dictionaries.

      Transcriptio Nuntiorum Hebdomadalis [www.yle.fi] Read your daily news--in Latin! Also contains sound files for the radio version whence it was transcribed. I'm sure glad that we now write FAQ instead of interrogata usitatissima. :-)

      De Meditatione [rr.com] Various Latin snippets and sound clips. Footnotes [1] One examble of an invariant genitive form of virus is attested in Ammianus [geocities.com], which reads: qui ut coluber copia virus exuberans natorum. See the original for details. [2] Well, in English; in Latin it probably wasn't, as their `v' was likely more akin to the intervocalic `v' in today's Spanish, a sound with no equivalent in English but which is often perceived as a `w'. To be even more technical, an English `v' is a voiced labial-dental fricative. An intervocalic Spanish `v' (or `b') such as in aves, is a voiced bilabial fricative, usually represented in IPA as a lower-case Greek beta. [3] Some budding Romance philologist should go research a possible connection between the neuter conceptual nouns versus the gendered discrete ones in asturianu [asturies.org], the only extant Romance tongue with anything aproximating neuter nouns [asturies.org] (I'm not counting the nominalized adjectives of Spanish such as lo difcil, since these aren't really nouns the way the so-called nomes de xneru neutru (de materia) are in asturianu.) a [4] The word virora actually appears to exist, but as some sort of South American tree. [5] Yes, I hated this sentence, too. It takes the singular verb "is" because the singular "an example" is the closer of the two elements in the disjunction, but likewise, "support" should be in the plural because the closer thing to it is now "two", which is obviously nonsingular. I think only a rewrite would be tolerable. Silly rules.

      Sections in this document:

      English Inflections [slashdot.org]
      Classical Inflections [slashdot.org] and References [slashdot.org]
      Other Latin Resources [slashdot.org]
      ASM News [slashdot.org]
      Footnotes [slashdot.org]
      O tempora, o mores! Senatus haec intellegit. consul videt; hic tamen vivit. Vivit? immo vero etiam in senatum venit, fit publici consilii particeps, notat et designat oculis ad caedem unum quemque nostrum.

      Cicero [utexas.edu], Oratio in Catilinam Prima [utexas.edu], 2
  10. Can somebody explain? by Alethes · · Score: 1

    Biology and Pharmacology being weak points for me, can somebody briefly (is that possible?) explain how these viruses know the difference between bad bacteria and good bacteria or any other good cell in the human body? Also, is there a chance that there is a necessary bacteria we don't know about in the human body that could be destroyed with this virus creating even worse problems than Anthrax? It appears that this particular application using PlyG is Anthrax-specific, but as they expand this techonolgy, I wonder about strange reactions, especially considering what somebody else said about viruses never leaving the human body.

    1. Re:Can somebody explain? by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 1

      Well I don't work with virii myself but they really don't tell "good" cells from "bad" cells so much as they just float about until they bump into something. All cells express a multitude of different proteins on their surfaces and these differ by cell species. Virii can recognize one or a small subset of cell membrane proteins as both the virus and the cell membrane proteins have specific shapes/charges/whathaveyou, forming a complex with the virus stuck to the side of the cell. The virus is either engulfed by the cell or "injects" its DNA/RNA into the cell which is now basically screwed.

      If PlyG is truly anthrax-specific then it might also work on other closely related bacteria, but it seems unlikely that we would be in symbiosis with it. Another thing to remember is that we take antibiotics all the time with little or no ill effect so PlyG probably wouldn't be any worse.

    2. Re:Can somebody explain? by gene_tailor · · Score: 2, Informative

      See the "the only thing I'd worry about.." thread for more on this... Basically the way this phage enzyme binds to its target bacterium surface molecule is the same sort of very very specific "3D lock and key" fit that an antibody has for its target molecule. The original Nature article is not very well explained by Yahoonews, but the scientists did testing, and the PlyG did not bind at all to several closely-related (Bacillus) bacteria, though it did bind to one that is almost identical to anthrax. Humans aren't the normal place these bacteria are found, so it's extremely unlikely that any "normal" bacteria could be targetted by this.

      I'm trying to think of a non-biology comparison here... uh, how about thinking of the recognition of a bacterium by the phage enzyme in terms of cryptography -- the phage has a key to get into this particular bacterial species, but it's really unlikely that the same key would work on any other type of bacteria.

      Oh, and viruses leave the body all the time, eg folks pick up cold viruses from other people's sneezes.

      --
      It also occurs to me that if one was drowning, yelling "Help! I'm drowning and I lost my bikini top" would probably be m
  11. now we need a way.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To combat Winger and Poison!

    heheheh shut up beavis.. Anthrax rocks

  12. Links to the Nature articles concerned by mcockerill · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you have a subscription to Nature, you can get a rather more accurate summary in this News and Views piece.

    The research article itself is here.

  13. Perhaps reading by j_w_d · · Score: 2

    the original article would help, or perhaps carefully reading the original post. The poster is incorrect about spelling the plural of "virus" as "virii" but did accurately restate from the article that The method uses an enzyme from bacteriophages, virii which attack bacteria. .

    Ignoring the spelling blunder, the poster has offered a portion the original article's gist. There was no mix-up of bacteria and viruses.

    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
    1. Re:Perhaps reading by JabberWokky · · Score: 2
      From the submittor: "The method uses an enzyme from bacteriophages, virii which attack bacteria. The scientists say that this method could even be adapted to combat other virii."

      Where in the article does it say that this method combats any virus? PlyG lysin, if I interpret it correctly, destroys the bacteria by shredding the cell membrane. A virus does not have a cell membrane, nor is there anything in the article that would lead someone to think that this could be used to treat a virus, or "combat other virii".

      Perhaps *you* should read the article and submission again.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    2. Re:Perhaps reading by j_w_d · · Score: 2

      You are quite correct. I read the article first and "read" what I expected in the OP. Mea culpa.

      --
      ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
    3. Re:Perhaps reading by JabberWokky · · Score: 2
      No problem - I'm actually quite easy going about spelling mistakes or errors due to quick reading or simple insufficient knowledge. The bacteria/virus misuse issue has just become a massive personal pet peeve since anthrax became a major news item. Time, AP, CNN and other news sources have science and medical editors who should spot egregious errors. I even saw one story on the BBC that made the mistake. Slashdot just happens to be the one place where I can vent about the rampant equivelence of the two terms in the media and thus in common usage. :)

      --
      Evan (no reference)

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    4. Re:Perhaps reading by j_w_d · · Score: 2

      Slashdot just happens to be the one place where I can vent about the rampant equivelence of the two terms in the media and thus in common usage. :)

      Same here. Too many cranks in the family.

      --
      ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  14. Here's one for mail by The_Guv'na · · Score: 1

    I just iron all my mail. Use a trouser press if you have loads.

    If it's from a government agency I also make a point of chucking it in the microwave just to take care of any nanotech surveilance devices. I'm serious about stopping "them" tracking me in any way!

    I've made a mess of more than a few credit/debit/store cards though. :(

    Ali

    --
    Ph33r m3!!!
    1. Re:Here's one for mail by baddie540 · · Score: 1

      that sounds pretty stupid.. they're are two different things...

  15. oh not by zdzichu · · Score: 1

    you mean that there is new way to destroy my anthrax.ds.pg.gda.pl? Please not, it's very peaceful pentium 90 with 80GiB of discs...

    --
    :wq
  16. yes there is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > There is no cure for any virus.

    norton antivirus seems to work well for me. :-)

  17. Re:Plural - you are right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever modded the parent down as a troll is a complete idiot.

  18. The new way to destroy anthrax is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to ship it via UPS, instead of using the US Mail.

  19. I submitted this as well, only with more info by guttentag · · Score: 2
    A More Effective Method of Detecting and Killing Anthrax

    Scientists at Rockefeller University in New York announced today in the journal Nature that a protein used by a bacteriophage (a virus that kills bacteria) can be used to quickly detect and kill anthrax. Last year, it took days to check a building for anthrax spores, but this method of causing the bacteria's cell wall to burst and yield an easily-detectible dye would cut the uncertainty to a period of minutes. It can also be used in a drug to kill strains of anthrax that have grown resistant to antibiotics. Rockefeller University has additional info, and the NYTimes has an article.

    The Nature article also mentions an interesting tidbit about a difference between Western and Russian medicine: "Such 'phage therapy' is routine in Russia - the concept is over 80 years old - but was ousted by antibiotics in the West." A nice reminder that ignoring one approach in favor of another can have disastrous results."