Slashdot Mirror
The Role of Retroviruses in Human Evolution
mhackarbie writes "The current edition of the New Yorker magazine has up a story about endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of humans and other species. Although researchers have known about such non-functional retroviral 'fossils' in the human genome for some time, the large amount of recent genomic data underscores just how pervasive they are, in a compelling tale that involves humans, their primate cousins, and a variety of viral invaders. Some researchers are even bringing back non-functional viral remnants from the dead by fixing their broken genes."
Zombie viruses, huh? Now might be a good time to take stock in really tiny shotguns.
Obviously if enough individuals survived with cells reproducing its DNA containing the retrovirus for it to become a species-wide "fossil" it was either not very harmful or possibly even beneficial to our ancestors. You might be able to make the case that perhaps we have since lost the ability to combat these retroviruses, but then we must consider the possibility that in some individuals these portions of dormant virus data have been reactivate naturally. If this has occurred and we are indeed now ill equipt to fight it, then it would have been observed as some disease and possibly classified as a genetic disorder. Who knows, by reactivating these, we have discover the cause, and subsequently the cure (as obviously we naturally beat it once) to some terrible genetic malady!
Demented But Determined.
See the thing about retroviruses is that once they work their way into the genome, they begin to do wack things. They predispose the person to wear bell bottom geans, listen to funk music, wear tube socks, and any number of out of fashion things. They begin to force the person to speak in archaic manners, eg "Thou hast been up intowards my grill!" So I think it's safe to say that we need to eliminate retroviruses as a mechanism of mutation. There comes a time to let certain things go.
How do we know the the retrovirus genome didn't originate with the hosts themselves? Did these viruses evolve truly independently, or might they have started out as fragments of genetic code from some larger organism which somehow escaped and became self-sufficient?
In other words, when we look at the human genome and say, "This is riddled with retroviruses!" is it not possible that the retroviruses were actually there all along, and only later became able to leave the parent cell and operate independently?
Are retroviruses actually just chunks of "rebel DNA" from our own genome, or possibly from some other species?
What you're describing is probably possible, but for any given stretch of DNA encoding the right polymerases, it's a lot more likely that it's a retrovirus that lost the ability to leave the cell than that it's a transposon that gained that ability and then lost it again.
Is what I meant to say.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Are viruses even alive in the first place?
Either way, lawyers die, which shows there is no downside meddling in genetic engineering.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
Such viruses may be responsible for the Cambrian Explosion. A new kind of virus may have helped "share good ideas" like eyes, nervous systems, enzymes, etc. between different species of early animals. This may have propelled evolution by allowing life to mix and match instead of each branch having to reinvent stuff from scratch.
Table-ized A.I.
"Viruses and aberrant prion proteins are often considered replicators rather than forms of life, a distinction warranted because they cannot reproduce without very specialized substrates such as host cells or proteins, respectively.."
Life
that have emergence of HERVs at the core of their plotlines are Darwin's Radio and Darwin's Children, by Greg Bear. Good reads, both.
Umbrella Corporation unavailable for comment.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
If it was never alive in the first place?
Scientists still debate if viruses meet the definition of life as we know it. I'm certainly not qualified to render an opinion on the matter; I just think it's fascinating how viruses occupy this gray area between our definitions of living and non-living.
Here's a PDF of a SciAm article about this very debate, written by the Director of Virus Research at UC Irvine.
Natural selection is a general principle that applies to anything that reproduces -- things that reproduce well will continue to exist and spread, and when variation occurs, those variants that are best equipped to survive and reproduce successfully in a given environment will come to dominate the population. This has even been applied to ideas in the greatly overhyped meme theory.
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
While that might seem a valid comparison it unfortunately wrong on to points
1. The role of your bacteria in your gut is not to prevent bad bacteria from living there but to help with digestion. However since bacteria on your skin do have this competition role I'll accept it as a valid point.
2. Viruses come, ursurp the mechanisms of the cell to make it produce copies, and then kill the cell to move on (in most cases). Hence using "good" viruses isn't going to make the bad viruses go away. What has happened with the "good" viruses is that they were once bad, but as part of their attack on a cell they merged their rna into our dna which become deactivated and over time changed into a new and positive role.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Unfortunately viruses don't compete directly in that potentially harmless way . . . HIV's niche is in your T cells (and others), reproducing itself until the cell explodes. Viruses don't really prey on each other (they are simple RNA injection machines that parasitically use the replication mechanisms of cells they infect for reproduction. The only way for another virus to block it is to just kill all the potential target cells first (not so helpful) or to infect them with counter-RNA that neutralizes that of HIV. The problem with the second is that unless it's also doing dangerous things to you, that helper virus isn't going to be able to spread in order to combat the HIV. It's just not the same as gut bacteria - they take up residence on the limited available real estate, do some digesting of the food you helpfully provide, and defend their turf from unwanted invaders while managing their own reproduction and such, whereas viruses are hijackers by nature.
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
If we "fix that part where they're drug resistant", it would make no difference, unless we could eliminate those viruses in the first place. It's like trying to populate the world with only mice that were more likely to get caught in traps. It would only be possible if we could eliminate all the mice in the world, and then introduce these 'dumb' mice into the wild. What's the point of repopulating the world with dumb mice if we didn't want mice in the first place?
Second of all, if you read the article, you would know how the researchers 'fixed' the 'broken' viruses:
The team took ten versions of that virus (we carry more than thirty) and compared the thousands of nucleotides in the genetic sequence of each version. They were almost identical, but where they differed the researchers selected the nucleotides that appeared most frequently. That permitted them to piece together a working replica of the extinct retrovirus. "If you have a person with a lethal defect in the heart,'' Bieniasz explained, "and another with a lethal defect in the kidney, you could make one healthy person by transplanting the respective organs. That is what we did.Lastly, and not that it will necessarily assuage your fears, but a species that carries an endogenous retrovirus in its genome is far less likely to be infected by that virus. Some developmental biologists employ a well-characterized and naturally occurring chicken retrovirus, engineering it to misexpress a normal chicken gene of their choice. This way, they can see what happens if they express that gene everywhere within a developing organ, as opposed to the normal expression of the gene only within a small population of cells within that organ. (As an example, they are studying gene X, which plays a role in bone development, and is only expressed in cells that will become bone cells. They make a chicken retrovirus that also expresses gene X, and infect the wing of a developing chicken. Now all the cells in the wing express gene X, and not just those that were going to become bone cells.) In order to do this, these researchers must use eggs from chickens that do not carry endogenous copies of this virus in their genome. Eggs from chickens that carry endogenous copies of this naturally-occurring retrovirus in their genome are far less susceptible to infection by the engineered virus, and therefore are not experimentally useful. Such endogenous retrovirus-free chickens were specially bred.
Sure, there are always potential risks from any type of science. But it is important to know how risky something is, and weigh that versus the potential benefits.
Active viruses aren't typically transmitted as part of a person's DNA, as that would involve an usurped sperm or egg cell. As you imply, those cells don't reproduce themselves, so they don't make good homes for a virus, which would break them anyway. There is fluid exchange involved in reproductive (and most other) sex, and they do get around that way, since they tend to be floating around your body soon after they've gotten into one cell.
These are NOT active viruses, they're leftover bits that got swept up and tossed in the stew pot back when you were a monkey, shrew, fish, bacteria, or whatever. Most of the junk in your DNA has been put to some use, even if just to mark another section as not used. They can be used to trace evolution, by looking to see who's got what bits.
Here's your sig.
There is a book out this year that seems related to this discussion, called Survival of the Sickest by Sharon Moalem, a medical student with PhD.'s in neurogenetics and evolutionary biology. He writes this book in a conversational style fairly understandable for general audiences. I recall his describing endogenous retroviruses in the human genome and reverse transcriptase as a mechanism. His main argument seems to be that a number of hereditary diseases like sickle cell anemia, diabetes, and hemachromatosis (a problem in regulating iron absorption) are hereditary because they conveyed some advantage to survival in the past, such as resistance to bubonic plague or malaria. He also touches on research in non-coding DNA and transposons ('jumping genes') and epigenetics (on variables affecting whether genes show up actively in the phenotype or remain dormant in the genotype.) I found the book in Orange County Public Library. A website: http://www.survivalofthesickestthebook.com/ has excerpts,reviews, and the author's blog. Johnathan Prince, a professional writer, is listed as co-author, presumably helping to make the book understandable to general readers. That includes me, and I found it fascinating and educational.