Slashdot Mirror
Viruses the New Condiment
Lip writes to tell us that a new bacteria killing virus has been deemed safe by the FDA as a food additive for ready-to-eat meats. These bacteriophages are designed to kill a common microbe (Listeria monocytogenes bacteria) to which hundreds of
deaths every year have been attributed. From the article: "The viruses are grown in a preparation of the very bacteria they kill, and then purified. The FDA had concerns that the virus preparation potentially could contain toxic residues associated with the bacteria. However, testing did not reveal the presence of such residues, which in small quantities likely wouldn't cause health problems anyway, the FDA said."
This is very cool. I remember the Russians were working on killing bacterial infections in people (Tuberculosis, Leprosy, even Flesh eating disease) with Phages. That was in the 70s. It's about time someone came up with something successful.
By the way these are completely harmless to humans, in fact to all plants and animals. The phage is a very simple virus with a small genome that gets injected into the bacterium and does the standard virus things (hijacks the host's systems to replicate itself a billion times). The cell explodes, releasing billions more phages. These phages have been our tools for a long time in biology, we use them to move genes around, for making libraries of genes, all sorts of neato stuff. There's little we don't know about them, so they're a good candidate for this task. There is no way these can make the leap from infecting bacteria to infecting higher organisms, any more than a plant could suddenly start walking around.
I could think of a few things that are possible, for example if it mutated enough to find our host bacteria a good target then that might cause problems, but again, very doubtful.
What's more, a virus whose survival strategy is to infect bacteria doesn't really gain anything from trying to infect animal cells. When was the last time we had any infection, with or without human intervention, that made such an enourmous leap? Hell, it's hard enough for disease organisms to jump from one similar species of animal to another, let alone from bacteria to animals. Even examples like bird flu are going from one large, warm blooded animal to another.
I'd actually think it more likely that the bacteriophages would go after the bacteria living in our digestive system, which would likely cause many of the same problems that a round of antibiotics does - ie, diarhea - but which is also simple to cure by recolonizing your intestines with those same bacteria (no colonizing your colon jokes please). So the cure for the bacteriophage run amok B-movie style would be... yogurt actually.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Ever had strong antibiotics? One of the bits of advice they give you is to eat stuff like yogurt once you're done the treatment.
The reason for this is that antibiotics will kill off your own symbiotic bacteria in addition to the infection they're supposed to cure. However, replacing those same intestianal bacteria is incredibly easy with the right foodstuffs.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
probably not... viruses are often host specific. They have to attach to specific receptors to enter the cell. So as long as the bacteria in our digestive tract do not share the surface proteins with Listeria, the bacteriophage will only tarcet Listeria.
Viruses don't have cells. They're basically just genetic material in a protein shell that go off to reprogram other cells. It would be impossible to "infect" another virus.
There are ways other viruses can co-infect a cell and piggy-back onto another virus's replication cycle for it's own use, or even disrupt the other virus's replication because of it. Problem is HIV is a retrovirus, which also means it doesn't actively replicate all the time and can integrate into your own genes. That's why an infected person can survive for years with a very low HIV count and relatively symptom free until the viruses essential reactivates.
No, just "yeast" would suffice (and be more precise).
Bacteriophages are VERY specialized. They can't penetrate into animal (or plant) cells because they are too large for it, and they can't use their injection system because animal cell walls are dense as bacterial cell walls.
Actually, bacteriophages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage) are the smallest syringes in nature, and they actually have proteins that store the energy needed for injection of genetic material through the cellular wall!
Phage therapy is a very real alternative to antibiotics. In fact it is already used with much success: my cousin was treated with phage therapy after a chemical burn complicated by kidney infection (strong antibiotics would have destroyed his kidneys).
First of all, I hope to GOD you're being sarcastic.
... well, nearly always! [...]
If you're not, however, I'd like to point out that the GPP is, indeed, correct.
From Dictionary.com
Effect
tr.v. effected, effecting, effects
1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.
3. To bring about. See Usage Note at affect1.
(e.g. "The Senator was afraid that the new policy would effect higher oil prices.")
Also, effect is often seen as a noun, meaning (among other things) a result. For example: "The Senator was afraid that the new policy would have detrimental effects on the oil industry."
On the other hand:
Affect
tr.v. affected, affecting, affects
1. To have an influence on or effect a change in: Inflation affects the buying power of the dollar.
2. To act on the emotions of; touch or move.
3. To attack or infect, as a disease: Rheumatic fever can affect the heart.
(e.g. "The Senator was afraid that the new policy would adversely affect the oil prices, dragging them higher.")
Affect is rarely used as a noun, although it is much more commonly seen as a verb. Affect as a verb: "The man had a strange brand of body language that lent him an odd affect."
If you don't believe me:
Usage note from dictionary.com:
"Usage Note: Affect and effect have no senses in common. As a verb affect is most commonly used in the sense of "to influence" (how smoking affects health). Effect means "to bring about or execute": layoffs designed to effect savings. Thus the sentence These measures may affect savings could imply that the measures may reduce savings that have already been realized, whereas These measures may effect savings implies that the measures will cause new savings to come about."
Usage note from wikipedia.com:
"Do not confuse affect with effect. The former is used to convey the influence over existing ideas, emotions and entities; the latter indicates the manifestation of new or original ideas or entities. For example, "...new governing coalitions during these realigning periods have EFFECTED major changes in governmental institutions" indicates that major changes were made as a result of new governing coalitions, while "...new governing coalitions during these realigning periods have AFFECTED major changes in governmental institutions" indicates that before new governing coalitions, major changes were in place, and that the new governing coalitions had some influence over these existing changes."
Usage note from Write101.com:
"The easiest way to distinguish the two is to remember that affect is a verb (well, nearly always a verb) and effect is a noun
When affect is pronounced [uh FEKT] and accented on the final syllable, it's a verb meaning "to have an influence on."
eg Nothing they did, could affect my decision to go to the beach.
Occasionally, very occasionally, the word is used as a noun (it means a feeling or emotion, as distinguished from thought or action, or a strong feeling having active consequences) and the accent is on the first syllable [AFF ekt]. This is a term that is reserved for psychiatry and psychology:
eg In hysteria, the affect is sometimes entirely dissociated, sometimes transferred to another than the original idea.
Effect is most usually a noun and it means the result of some action or the power to produce a result. The noun is pronounced [uh FEKT] :
eg The effect of the bushfire was clearly visible.
eg The soothing music had an immediate effect on the wild beast.
This can also be a verb and it means to bring into existence, to produce a result (pronounced [ee FEKT]}"
Hopefully, that should convince you.
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums