-Metacelsus- t1_jclu1iy wrote
Reply to comment by za4h in Are there any known endogenous retroviruses that can cause active infections, and is this possible in principle? by amlyo
If it's endogenous then the creature is already infected.
Uncynical_Diogenes t1_jcm5rm0 wrote
They might carry it, sure, but I’d argue it was likely their great-grandparent^nth that was actually infected.
I think this line of inquiry is more about re-emergence of previously-dormant ERVs. As a human, some ~1-8% of my DNA is ERVs, depending on who you ask, but I’m pretty confident that I was never infected by any of them myself. I was just born carrying them.
Neurokeen t1_jcmt6y7 wrote
It actually gets to a really interesting question as to "what counts as infected?"
If there's latent proviral inserts that never activate and propagate, to the point that they're ubiquitous in the DNA of the host, then it strains the definition a bit in most contexts. If you're doing genomics then for those purposes it makes sense to call it an infection. If you're doing something at the level of epidemiology, then probably not.
Having a bunch of boundary cases in definitions is pretty much a staple for biology though, so it's not worth losing any sleep over.
babar90 t1_jcmqnd7 wrote
Can't we argue that by definition a live virus should have a reproduction number strictly greater than 1 (ie. exponential) and be able to spread from cells to cells? For PERV-A seems they obtain exponential replication in human 293T cells https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950858/figure/pone-0013203-g001/
[deleted] t1_jcluc5d wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments