• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Virology blog: Can a virus be revived?

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
I found this interesting. Not 'news' as such but interesting I think:

Can a virus be revived?
14 March 2014

In Carl Zimmer’s New York Times article describing the recovery of the giant virus Pithovirus sibericum from the Siberian permafrost, he used the words revive and resurrect. Can a virus be restored to life?
The headline of the article read ‘Out of Siberian ice, a virus revived‘. Within the body of the article, Zimmer wrote ‘From Siberian permafrost more than 30,000 years old, they have revived a virus that’s new to science’, and later considered the ‘risk of an outbreak of resurrected viruses’. Both words mean ‘restore to life’.

When most people say ‘virus’ they usually mean the very small virus particle that infects cells. Virus particles are not living: they are assemblies of protein, nucleic acid, and sometimes lipids that do nothing until they infect a cell. That is why they are called obligate intracellular parasites. In the case of Pithovirus, infectious virus particles were present in the frozen sample that were able to infect amoeba in the laboratory.

To say that a virus was revived or resurrected is wrong, although I understand that the idea of bringing anything back to life has a great deal of general appeal. The key fact in this story is that the infectivity of the virus particle was maintained for over 30,000 years in the Siberian permafrost. I realize that this does not make for compelling headlines, but mine would have been: ‘Infectious virus recovered from Siberian ice after 30,000 years’.

I suspect that Zimmer might understand this, but as he’s told me before, sometimes it’s much easier (and requires fewer words) to write something for the non-scientist that is not quite right.

Even virologists confuse the living with the non-living. When Paul Bieniasz and his laboratory reported that they had reconstituted an infectious retrovirus from viral sequences in the human genome, they used the phrase ‘the resurrection of this extinct infectious agent’.

A virus particle is not alive, but a virus infected cell certainly is living. A virus can be viewed as an organism with two phases, a non-living virus particle, or virion; and an infected cell, which is alive. This definition solves the problem of whether a virus is alive or not, a subject of much debate here and elsewhere. Even if we use this terminology, the use of resurrect and revive to describe viral infectivity is still wrong, because virus particles cannot be brought back to life – they are not alive to begin with.

Reminded me also of all the headlines used to create this 'buzz' around science in the general media, especially around 'discoveries'. I think it does science no good. Was reading recently, how many of the press feed on PR press releases that come not from scientists themselves (the ones doing the studies), but from PR firms who might - if say the story was associated with a new drug - ring a scientist for a quote out of the blue. All adds to the 'dumbing-down' of science in the mass media...
 
Messages
48
Location
UK
Was reading recently, how many of the press feed on PR press releases that come not from scientists themselves (the ones doing the studies), but from PR firms who might - if say the story was associated with a new drug - ring a scientist for a quote out of the blue. All adds to the 'dumbing-down' of science in the mass media...

Morals and honesty are often compromised when there is money to be made! You are so right about the dumbing down. :thumbsup:

Regards.
 

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
Morals and honesty are often compromised when there is money to be made! You are so right about the dumbing down. :thumbsup:

Regards.

It's like everything to do with science on the BBC etc. has to be a 'breakthrough' even when its really tentative stuff. They get people with serious health conditions all hopeful that something is coming that will make a difference to their lives - and off they fly to the doctors - only to be told that any treatment is unlikely to occur for an age.

And even Science - the magazine - I mean it's interesting and often fascinating stuff: but it's a PR vehicle for, well, for science. The whole world is about selling an image now: and I am afraid that applies to ME as well...
 
Messages
48
Location
UK
It's a difficult one really because there needs to be a balance between giving people hope and whilst at the same time not giving a false hope. Half the trouble is that the media's primary function is to sell media and not compassion and accuracy and the other half is that often these things are written by people who have a real lack of empathy.

Science is an area like most others where in reality people want to do a job they want to do but also because in society we need money etc., to live a good life, people often have conflicts of interest. 'Oh dear this project is nearly complete, where's my next funding coming from?' Media want a story to sell media and scientist wants new funding and so they become good bedfellows.

I do think however, the issue is more with society than it is with science and the media and this is because it is society which really sets out what is and what is not acceptable. Society however has been losing its moral compass and over decades has been drifting towards a disposable society and one of instant gratification.

I believe an ME cure will either come from the ME community or else it will not come, but what we have to do is try to remove all the red herrings and drill down to the data which matters and then go through a process of well considered and logical deduction.

We have to be careful here because when we have a complex illness then we have a lot going on and sometimes we may miss that one critical piece of information because it's lost in a whole lot of other data which is really just a distraction.

As for society, it's going to take a major negative event to make a difference, in my opinon.

Regards.