'Virus-eater' discovered in Antarctic lake(nature.com)
nature.com
'Virus-eater' discovered in Antarctic lake
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110328/full/news.2011.188.html
6 comments
I think one of the key blockers would be the fear that the designers don't fully make sure that the virophages damages only the target cells and doesn't decide to munch on more useful parts of our internal ecosystem when its intended food supply runs out (or if it mutates).
Even if they have created something that definitely won't have adverse side effects (which isn't actually possible, I know, but bare with me on this for a second) they still have to convince the General Public that it is safe which could be an expensive PR job. Joe Schmo has seen too many zombie-virus movies and/or puts too much trust in things like Prince Commudgen's uninformed ramblings about grey goo, to trust anything they don't understand. Don't get me wrong: a fistful or few of such distrust is healthy for society, but from a commercial point of view it is just a potentially expensive problem to overcome.
They would also hit the nutty god botherer problem: this might only be a virus (and a modification of one, not the creation of one from scratch) but it could be seen as creating new life, something only the bi-polar sky fairy is permitted to dabble in.
And back to the impossibility of creating something that definitely won't have side effects for the patient and those around them: the companies need to be sure that the potential clean-up costs (i.e. litigation) or more than covered by the guaranteed profits - otherwise it is just safer to stick with the current treatment/business model, at least while it is turning a good profit.
(A quick note on my use of "nutty god botherer" and "bi-polar sky fairy" as they have caused heated discussion before: the many religious people I know, and I presume other otherwise sensible ones, take those as facetious jokey definitions (i.e. as they are intended) - the people who get offended by this sort of thing tend to be people I don't mind offending!)
Even if they have created something that definitely won't have adverse side effects (which isn't actually possible, I know, but bare with me on this for a second) they still have to convince the General Public that it is safe which could be an expensive PR job. Joe Schmo has seen too many zombie-virus movies and/or puts too much trust in things like Prince Commudgen's uninformed ramblings about grey goo, to trust anything they don't understand. Don't get me wrong: a fistful or few of such distrust is healthy for society, but from a commercial point of view it is just a potentially expensive problem to overcome.
They would also hit the nutty god botherer problem: this might only be a virus (and a modification of one, not the creation of one from scratch) but it could be seen as creating new life, something only the bi-polar sky fairy is permitted to dabble in.
And back to the impossibility of creating something that definitely won't have side effects for the patient and those around them: the companies need to be sure that the potential clean-up costs (i.e. litigation) or more than covered by the guaranteed profits - otherwise it is just safer to stick with the current treatment/business model, at least while it is turning a good profit.
(A quick note on my use of "nutty god botherer" and "bi-polar sky fairy" as they have caused heated discussion before: the many religious people I know, and I presume other otherwise sensible ones, take those as facetious jokey definitions (i.e. as they are intended) - the people who get offended by this sort of thing tend to be people I don't mind offending!)
> and obviously pharma companies have no interest in
> advancing macrophage treatments.
Some speculate that drug companies don't bother working on cures because it's far more profitable to sell perpetual treatments.
Would anybody be interested in one-time multibillion dollars profit-making opportunities?
What prevent such formation of profit-making opportunities?
What prevent such formation of profit-making opportunities?
There is an insane amount of money in drugs. Some of this money can be used to erect barriers to entry against such profit seekers. I don't know that that's the case, but it could be speculated at least.
Three things: regulations, regulations, regulations.
Sorry, I meant bacteriophage treatment.
Argh, my comment is incredibly confused... partly because I wrote it at 1am after a long day.
Macrophage = bacteriophage, and they attack bacteria, not viruses. The point I was actually trying to make is that bacteriophage treatments haven't really caught on in the west because it's expensive and time consuming - you have to create a specific line of bacteriophages for a specific bacteria, which is much more difficult than just using broad-spectrum antibiotics. I wonder if virophages, as a potential avenue for treatment, will run into the same issues... I suppose the difference here is that we don't yet have good treatments for many different types of viral infection.
Macrophage = bacteriophage, and they attack bacteria, not viruses. The point I was actually trying to make is that bacteriophage treatments haven't really caught on in the west because it's expensive and time consuming - you have to create a specific line of bacteriophages for a specific bacteria, which is much more difficult than just using broad-spectrum antibiotics. I wonder if virophages, as a potential avenue for treatment, will run into the same issues... I suppose the difference here is that we don't yet have good treatments for many different types of viral infection.
Well, there's the obvious advantage that macrophages don't eat viruses, they eat bacteria.
Really you'd call it the opposite of eating, if anything, right? Viruses inject DNA into their victim, and the victim explodes with clones.
Yes, but I think its a tad bit more meta. At the risk of sounding like a total idiot, I'd conjecture that the virophage injects DNA into its victim, a virus. Which in turn injects its DNA into its victim, a cell. The cell explodes with clones of the virophage instead of the target virus, which go on to infect more viruses. Thus systematically reducing the number of viruses with each iteration by cutting into their only replication mechanism.
Yeah, totally, where exactly does the energy flow chain lies there is somewhat beyond me!
This i would say lends loads of support to the "RNA world" hypothesis (that says RNA replication is the basic mechanism of life and DNA is just like storage of sorts, like RNA=RAM, DNA=HD)...
I feel like I should be surprised, but it seems everything eats something and is eaten by something else.
So, where exactly is "eastern Antarctica"? The Australian sector?
Eastern Antarctica is everything from 0° 0′ 0" E to 180° 0′ 0" E. If you take a look at the map of Antarctica on Wikipedia[1], it will be everything to the right of the centre line. So, yes, the Australian Antarctic Territory is the major part of Eastern Antarctica, but it's not the only one.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Location_...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Location_...
I know it's far too early to really speculate, but speculate I shall: would there be any inherent benefit in potentially using virophages instead of macrophages for treatment of viral infection? Macrophages haven't caught on in the west because they're quite cumbersome to produce and use, and obviously pharma companies have no interest in advancing macrophage treatments.