Are viruses alive?

This week I reported on the discovery of a small, 20-gene virus that infects the giant mimivirus. The smaller virus hijacks the mimivirus replication center and results in deformed mimiviruses (mimiviri?).

In a news article published with the paper in Nature, Jean-Michel Claverie, a virologist at CNRS UPR labs in Marseilles, France, said the fact that a virus can "get sick" is further evidence that viruses are alive.

Of course the definition of a virus has been a long-standing debate in microbiology. The fact that this tiny virus can essentially "make sick" another virus is indeed intriguing. But is it life? Is malfunction a sign of life?

--Andrea, Associate Editor at The Scientist

alive = organism:

Nature of Earth's organisms: temporary self-replicable constrained-energy genetic systems that support and maintain Earth's biosphere by maintenance of genes.

Every "self-replicable" genetic system has a unique package of essentials for replication...and viruses are not different in this respect than other organisms.

Dov Henis

The distinction of something being "alive" is a fuzzy one. While it's very interesting and cool that a virus can infect another virus, it doesn't change the fact that "life" operates across a spectrum. Classifying certain things as being alive/not-alive ignores (or oversimplifies) one of the beautiful, emergent continuums of our universe.

Prion's that clearly don't have most of the things we connect with live but the ability to cause disease are even more puzzling.

Any discussion of life quickly leads to problems like this one. Our unwillingness to to draw a clear a line on what is and isn't life as caused an endless debate with no answer. It is clearly in societies and the patients best interest to draw lines such as how many weeks early we should try to save a premature baby. Or how much a month of added life is worth to someone dying of cancer in a world that only has so much money to send on health care who it is spent on and how it s spent is important.

Or the religious ban in the USA on embryonic stem cell work as if some of the eggs that will be destroyed could somehow someday become a person. Also the ban on cloning human tissue is equally out of place it could be one of the best hopes for replacement tissue and possibly organs that don't give the recipient transplant disease from suppressing the immune system.

In the end it all depends on how life is defined. In the case of horses a contract for breeding a live foal isn't complete until the foal stands and nurses his mother unaided. If all life had a clear definition like that we might have a lot less friction in research.

gc

nullTS1019153 wrote:

alive = organism

Nature of Earth's organisms: temporary self-replicable constrained-energy genetic systems that support and maintain Earth's biosphere by maintenance of genes.

Dear AlecTS1043259 and GordonTS967223,

It would undoubtedly be interesting and instructive to learn what, in your opinion, is amiss in either one or both of the above two paras.

Respectfully,

Dov

nullTS1019153 wrote:alive = organism:
Every "self-replicable" genetic system has a unique package of essentials for replication...and viruses are not different in this respect than other organisms.

Viruses are not self-replicable, as they don't provide their own replication machinery. They are obligate intracellular parasites. Does this mean that they aren't alive? It depends on your definition of life. According to the definition you provide, they are not alive, and viruses are different in this respect. But, they do replicate (albeit via externally-encoded means), which illustrates the subtle and "shades-of-gray" nature of life.

I'd like to stray from the topic of viruses for a moment. As was mentioned above, what about prions? What about potential molecular machines which can self-replicate without "genes"? What about genetic information that is encoded in novel, artificial bases? If genes are simply a means of encoding information, is anything which replicates its information "alive"? Are computer viruses alive? Viruses are just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps the distinction between alive and not-alive may be useful for educational/legal/classification purposes, but the true nature of life is something much more subtle and beautiful. Indeed, notions and "boundaries" of what constitutes life may continue to be blurred with advancements in synthetic biology, machines that grow and multiply, and other self-replicating automata. "Life" is complex, ranged, and fascinating, in part because it defies strict classification.

nullTS1019153 wrote:
Every "self-replicable" genetic system has a unique package of essentials for replication...and viruses are not different in this respect than other organisms.
Dov Henis

- "Viruses are not self-replicable, as they don't provide their own replication machinery."?

They provide their replicating organisms, their genes community, the genome. Smart little buggers. Smarter than egg layers. Self-replicable in my book means that they, self, initiate and drive their own replication.

- With all respect, IMO prions are not relevant to this case.

Respectfully,

Dov

to be continued

It's neither who nor how many say, but what's being said and what's finally unequivocally found...

My own personal experience with 'prions' was in the early 1950s, when I demonstrated induction of Crazy Chick by niacin-tryptophane imbalance diets...and traced it, then, in my mind to energy-balance-favored factors in the process of folding proteins...

But, again, with due respect, the issue here is viruses, with 'genetic material'...

Respectfully,

Dov

Let me put a different perspective here. Whether or not viruses are capable of causing disease, or capable of self-replication is immaterial. The primary goal of any organism is to sustain its own kind by reproduction. In that respect viruses are very successful. In a broader sense, aren't all organisms dependent on each other for their survival? Perhaps the most relevant question we should be asking is whether life forms are intelligent. In my opinion DNA and RNA are the two most intelligent molecules. So, any biological entity that uses DNA or RNA as template for their replication and survival are alive. Only living creatures can have intelligence so that they can adapt to changing environments, outsmart other organisms and of course try to dominate their surroundings under demanding conditions.

Regards
S. Ambady

I have an idea viruses are not alive. Virus = not organism. A virus is particle without the machinery to replicate. Virus occuring due to a chemical process by radiation on the living tissue. Its multiplication / proliferation is influenced by the on-going radiation intensity. If the effects of radiation are terminated, viruses will automatically stop multiplication / proliferation. The main causal factor is ultraviolet radiation / UV. For example, the interaction UV on air will produce ozone, that cause flu viruses. The various kinds of viruses are determined by the local radiation which naturally exist on its surrounding. The size of virus about 100 - 200 nm, it is same with the UV wavelength. I think, the idea viruses are not alive and viruses are caused by radiation, maybe can explain where does virus come from and how does virus spread. The higher rates virus spread on Africa sub-Sahara, and the higher rates virus infected to black men than white men, maybe are evidences that viruses not alive. That's all are the natural phenomenon. But ......I also realize that actually the human mind is very limited. There are something that cannot be reached by the human mind, let's consider that the human eyes can see something only on the wavelength coverage 300 -700 nm.

All my best,
GatotS

Life what a question. As we go further into science there are new discoveries on a daily basis. We need to stay open to the sub-categories of life that is to be formed in the future. Religion and science can be hundreds of years apart. Galileo's discoveries are just being acknowledged by the Pope this year when he apologized and said "we made some mistakes about science," only 350+ years later. The discoveries we make today and the benefits may not be acknowledged by the religious right for hundreds of years. As scientist's we will face extreme prejudices from religion, as we advance the human species and condition.

Just now I read from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, about Influenza : Influenza, commonly known as flu, is an infectious disease of birds and mammals .............Typically influenza is transmitted from infected mammals through the air by coughs or sneezes, creating aerosols containing the virus, and from infected birds through their droppings. I'm terribly sorry. I don't think so. Flu is transmitted from infected mammals through the air by coughs or sneezes ?? Not true. UV + Oxygen in the air = ozone ...............by chemical process in the living tissue = Flu viruses. I'm sorry, on my idea all kinds of viruses are caused by radiation, and ......viruses not alive.

All my best,
GatotS

I used to consider viruses as non-living parasitic organisms.

The main strike against viruses are that they are not self-sufficient.

They do not possess their own cellular machinery (or indeed a cell) to manufacture replicants.

Aside: Prions are an annoying bunch. They bypass the whole shebangs by operationg OUTSIDE of cellular machinery. They catalyse other proteins into turning into copies of itself. I think there is an old school Dr Who episode (Tom Baker FTW) with a human-parasite like this.

Now, even before this news, I have been more steady to recognise viruses as being "alive" in a more common sense.

Viruses do share many common features of living creatures - genetic basis of information, use of cellular machinery (even if its not their own) to produce copies of itself, and a capacity for these offspring to have genetic variation, allowing evolution.

As much as Dov H spews wackaloonery - the concept of a "genetic organism" being a base unit of life might start to catch on in a more wider sense.

Prions, by not being genetic, and not actually using cellular machinery, still fail at being "alive".

The Essence of Science-Informed Humanistic Western Culture

Michael, you popped into my postings with super confidence in your scientific (mis)comprehension of life, then popped out to do some homework, and now you return. You popped in with bad manners, and now you pop back with worse manners. I am tempted to apply an unkind adjective to your personality, but I refrain. You might still improve also your manners...

I do not care if my "concept of a genetic organism" "might start to catch" or not. I also do not care if or how the "scientific establishment's guilds' literature" notices my concepts or not. I am convinced that I have reached not merely a "concept of a genetic organism" but a comprehensive integral worldview and definition and a crystallized framework image of the essence of a science-informed humanistic Western culture. At my age and with my this comprehension it makes no difference to me if or to what extent my concepts are being "caught". It is not how many and/or who agree with my concepts that interests me, but what are the science-based arguments that might refute or improve it. I would be sincerely obliged and grateful to learn of such arguments and would do best to assess them.

Dov Henis

GatotICN000313487 wrote:my idea all kinds of viruses are caused by radiation, and ......viruses not alive.

Could you explain this further?

nullTS1019153 wrote:
I do not care if my "concept of a genetic organism" "might start to catch" or not.

Who says its your concept?

Where is the "super confidence" really coming from ... hmmm?

Bring more to the table then whining about the scientific establishment and grandoise hand-waving about age-d wisdom and something might actual present that is worth discussing.

bye bye, pipsqueak...

Dov

SELF-PROVING CONCEPT

Justification or denial to a certain theory is best proven by self-proving concept. The self-proving concept was first presented by Aristotle in the 3^rd Century BC. Such a concept was also strongly held by Einstein, in which he was reluctant to accept a non self-proving theory.
Many theories of physics exposed at the beginning of the 20^th century were self-proving, such as Mass Relativity of Einstein. And so was the experiment on Photoelectric Effects conducted by Einstein, as a support to the Quantum Theory presented by Max Planck in 1900 that had been self-proven, it even produced the most admired technology at present " Information Technology ".

Whereas the General Relativity of Einstein related to the non-absolute time concept had also been self-proven. For instance, the non-absolute time concept had been largely applied in the Astronomic discipline. All Astronomic calculations related to the time, including the procedure in determining the position at sea by using the items in the sky as reference is carried based on non-absolute time calculation. For example the calculation of time based on GHA ( Greenwich Hour Angle ), LHA ( Local Hour Angle ), SHA ( Siderial Hour Angle ), and the like. Such calculation require high accuracy, since the difference of just ' one second ' may cause the position of calculation output deviate tens of miles.
This frequently and always becomes beautiful joke of the new enrolled sailor cadets. Their ship has already sailed peacefully tens of miles away from ashore, but the ship position according to the result of their astronomic calculation still indicates the position coordinate in land ..............

GatotICN000313487

To MichaelTS863182 :

As already been known, the radiation photons constitute a pack of discrete energy from light or electromagnetic wave. Its biological impacts can cause the gene mutation, and in my opinion .....resulting a certain toxic particle ( molecular parasite or toxic organic compound ? ), which is then identified as a type of virus.

For example, some villages in Brazil and in India are built accidentally on the land containing a great amount of Thorium element. Also, the water from several wells and mineral springs in Italy, Australia and in many other parts contain of million times regular radioactive. Researches have been performed in such places, and it is found out that the growing speed of cancer is tremendously high.

Beside Thorium, the esteemed gas of radioactive is discovered and named : Radon ( 222^Rn ). Radon and output of its disintegration transmit the alpha particles, and it has been analyzed that it becomes the prominent cause of lung cancer for the mine workers.

Basically, Radon is a very compacted gas and contained in ground, rocks or water. Once Radom releases from the ground, this gas tends to be trapped inside the house or building. Therefore, the more compacted the building is, the bigger chance to have the Radon gas trapped.

Ironically, crushing the rocks to be used as building materials means releasing Radon gas trapped inside the rocks. Not to be counted yet the release of Radon gas due to the expansion of the land and rocks caused by the global warming in earth.

In my opinion, a number of viruses : Smallpox, Influenza, Human T-cell leukemia, Human Papillomavirus ( HPV ), HTLV 1, HTLV 2 and many other( all viruses ).......including HIV/AIDS Viruses .......are caused by radiation. I am quite sure for Smallpox, Influenza and AIDS Viruses : the main causal factor is Ultra Violet ( UV ). In my opinion : The origin of viruses is Radiation.

The other factor for AIDS Viruses, I predict : Radon, and the Risk Group : which have the characteristic to absorb the UV, Although they were using condoms, still they make their bodies as an UV absorbent.

I'm sorry. If I'm wrong, nothing is lost.

GatotICN000313487