NationStates Jolt Archive


GenEn retrovirii

The Shin Ra Corp
23-07-2008, 22:22
Well, I was reading the rather simplistic wikipedia article on genetic engineering, and there it was claimed that a retrovirus carrying a DNA sequence would make for a good carrier to change the DNA of an organism. The things I was wondering about are:

1) Do these viruses really behave like common retroviruses, such as the flu? Meaning that if I insert a gene sequence into such a virus that tells the infected cells to, say, produce a blue pigment, and I spread that virus in my local train station, within weeks, people all over the country have blue skin, because the virus spreads from person to person like any other virus would do?

2) Why would such a virus not have any negative effect on the target organism, unlike common viruses, which are either removed by a response by the immune system, or kill their hosts?

3) Can genes actually be changed this way, or does this just allow for new genes to be added? Or is this the same, as new genes override old ones?

This is a topic I'm currently very interested in, maybe someone could give explanations. Please spare me with remarks about the fact that I have totally no conception of how genetic engineering works - I know that already...
Maraque
23-07-2008, 22:26
Ooh, I'd like to see what people have to say on the subject too.

*subscribes*
Dempublicents1
23-07-2008, 23:17
1) Do these viruses really behave like common retroviruses, such as the flu? Meaning that if I insert a gene sequence into such a virus that tells the infected cells to, say, produce a blue pigment, and I spread that virus in my local train station, within weeks, people all over the country have blue skin, because the virus spreads from person to person like any other virus would do?

They do work like common retroviruses, but not all such viruses are spread like the flu. And getting a virus to spread throughout your body as it would have to for skin color changes would be incredibly difficult. The idea behind genetic engineering is also generally to target a specific cell type.

2) Why would such a virus not have any negative effect on the target organism, unlike common viruses, which are either removed by a response by the immune system, or kill their hosts?

The harmful portions of the virus are removed, keeping only the protein shell (to get the virus into the cell) and the genes necessary for insertion of the gene into the DNA from the original virus. The rest is replaced with your gene of interest.

One big problem that could occur, however, is that we do not yet know how to control where in your genome a virus inserts itself. If it disrupted an important sequence, it could be a problem.

3) Can genes actually be changed this way, or does this just allow for new genes to be added? Or is this the same, as new genes override old ones?

IIRC, retroviral vectors are used to add genes. The process by which individual genes can be altered is more complex.

*has just realized I could use a review on this subject*
Longhaul
23-07-2008, 23:21
*has just realized I could use a review on this subject*
Lol.

I started and binned half a dozen responses to this thread before deciding the same :)
Katganistan
23-07-2008, 23:36
;) Have you guys seen the latest incarnation of the Richard Matheson story, I am Legend?
Fassitude
23-07-2008, 23:40
1. "Retrovirii" or "virii" is not a word. "Virus" has no Latin plural (it is not a countable noun in that language), and even if it did, it would not be "virii". The word would have to be "virius" to get such a plural.

2. The influenza viruses (orthomyxoviridae) are not retroviruses. They are RNA viruses (negative-sense single stranded).
Mirkai
23-07-2008, 23:43
1. "Retrovirii" or "virii" is not a word. "Virus" has no Latin plural (it is not a countable noun in that language), and even if it did, it would not be "virii". The word would have to be "virius" to get such a plural.

2. The influenza viruses (orthomyxoviridae) are not retroviruses. They are RNA viruses (negative-sense single stranded).

You've diffused the anger that the pretentiousness of the OP stirred within me. Thank you.
Tatarica
27-07-2008, 17:50
bump, or is this thread finished already?
Calarca
28-07-2008, 05:31
I think everyones brains burnt out under the influence of the jargon Fass unleashed on the unsuspecting world of NSG...