Another one to watch?, mysterious virus In Brazil

[Maverick]

Now There’s A Mysterious Virus In Brazil

In the wake of the Coronavirus health emergency, the newly discovered “Yaravirus” in Brazil is causing confusion in the science community.

The mystery virus, harvested from an amoeba in the Brazilian man-made Lake Pampulha, was suspiciously smaller than other viruses typically known to attack amoeba. Over 90% of the virus’s genes had never been described before, according to Science Alert. Only six genes bore a distant relation to other discoveries. This means that the Yaravirus is made up of orphan genes, meaning they have no detectable homologues in any other lineages.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/10/mysterious-yaravirus-brazil/

 

[Brent S]

I haven’t seen anything about this yet Mav. Scary as I don’t think the world economy could handle two pandemics at once. Just saw 1100 dead as of today from the current virus. Even with all the effort and money in the world the current one is not going to stay constrained in China. We will start to see more widespread outbreaks all around the globe over the next few months. I’m predicting this will overwhelm health care systems worldwide allready. Two at once would definitely be the straw that breaks the camels back.

 

[KateMTx]

At least this virus is in amoebas right now. Hopefully the strange genes will not be compatible with infecting humans!

 

[jontte]

hope so too,but it seems mother nature has decided to kick our ### a few times now...

 

[Kevin L]

At least this virus is in amoebas right now. Hopefully the strange genes will not be compatible with infecting humans!

This is what I believe.

I think that this was a very irresponsible, nasty, unbalanced piece of journalism . . . and here's why:

1) Ameoba and humans are so different from each other, that it's unlikely in the extreme that a virus infecting ameoba could be capable of infecting humans (or any other form of life in the animal kingdom. Ameoba are not animals, but protozoans.

2) I imagine that there might be situations where this virus (or, more likely, one of its relatives) might be very beneficial, or even life-saving. Ameobic dysentary kills hundreds of thousands of people every years, and tens of millions more are sickened. I love the idea of treating dysentary, or even that brain-eating ameoba that's 97% fatal with a virus.

3) Viruses that attack bacteria are used in place of antibiotics in parts of Russia, Romania, Hungry, Ukraine, and China. So, we have a "proof of principle" to see if this virus might be used to treat ameobic infections.

4) Viruses typically require no refrigeration if they're packaged up a certial way . . . so they would be a good bet in an epidemic in some distant, forgotten corner of the world that has no power or refrigeration.

5) The article is written to take advantage of the fear of the novel corona virus, so these other points aren't made . . . probably to better sales (and/or advertising revenue).

6) Fear mongering during an international epidemic (or pandemic) may not be against the law . . . but it's still criminal. I'm even saying this as a staunch freedom of speech person, as I write on the side for money . . . so freedom of speech puts cash in my pocket. I'm still against fear-mongering despite this seeming hypocracy.

 

[Maverick]

This is what I believe.

I think that this was a very irresponsible, nasty, unbalanced piece of journalism . . . and here's why:

1) Ameoba and humans are so different from each other, that it's unlikely in the extreme that a virus infecting ameoba could be capable of infecting humans (or any other form of life in the animal kingdom. Ameoba are not animals, but protozoans.

2) I imagine that there might be situations where this virus (or, more likely, one of its relatives) might be very beneficial, or even life-saving. Ameobic dysentary kills hundreds of thousands of people every years, and tens of millions more are sickened. I love the idea of treating dysentary, or even that brain-eating ameoba that's 97% fatal with a virus.

3) Viruses that attack bacteria are used in place of antibiotics in parts of Russia, Romania, Hungry, Ukraine, and China. So, we have a "proof of principle" to see if this virus might be used to treat ameobic infections.

4) Viruses typically require no refrigeration if they're packaged up a certial way . . . so they would be a good bet in an epidemic in some distant, forgotten corner of the world that has no power or refrigeration.

5) The article is written to take advantage of the fear of the novel corona virus, so these other points aren't made . . . probably to better sales (and/or advertising revenue).

6) Fear mongering during an international epidemic (or pandemic) may not be against the law . . . but it's still criminal. I'm even saying this as a staunch freedom of speech person, as I write on the side for money . . . so freedom of speech puts cash in my pocket. I'm still against fear-mongering despite this seeming hypocracy.

I'm not so sure, virus mutates whereas the mutation transfers to humans, this has happen many times through human history. Reason for the number of research in South America is to discover unknown viruses that may impact humans.

 

[Kevin L]

I'm not so sure, virus mutates whereas the mutation transfers to humans, this has happen many times through human history. Reason for the number of research in South America is to discover unknown viruses that may impact humans.

I recognize your point, and it's quite valid . . . but the situation is a little more complex.

It's one thing for a virus to jump from an anmial to a person. People are in the animal kingdom, so there will be similarities between biochemistry and special protein structures on a cell called "receptor sites".

So, maybe a virus might need only 5 mutations in 5 generations in order to infect people because of the pre-existing similarity.

Protozoa and animals are so different (not even in the same kingdom) that, perhaps, hundreds and hundreds of special mutations need to occur in a short time . . . and many other conditions must be met.

So, to jump from one animal to another may require a "straight" (like a winning poker hand), but to jump from protozoa to person would be like randomly shuffling a hundred decks of cards together, and dealling 100 pat "Royal Flushes" in a row.

So it's possible . . . but highly, highly, unlikely. More unlikely than winning powerball ten times in a row.

The article indicates none of this.

 

[Maverick]

What they are looking at, virus carrying insects that feed on plants and the mutation between the two viruses of the one in the insect and the one in the plant. I know we consume viruses through vegetables and fruits without issues but those are known, it's the unknown and newly discovered ones that concerns scientist. I do agree with you it's not going to be an issue... yet

As I said many times on here, nature has a way

 

[Kevin L]

.

What they are looking at, virus carrying insects that feed on plants and the mutation between the two viruses of the one in the insect and the one in the plant. I know we consume viruses through vegetables and fruits without issues but those are known, it's the unknown and newly discovered ones that concerns scientist. I do agree with you it's not going to be an issue... yet

As I said many times on here, nature has a way

Of course . . . and everything you say is quite correct about viruses jumping from animals . . . but to jump from plants to people, or from protozoa to people is--as I said--so unlikely as to be almost impossible for reasons that I gave earlier.

An easier way to explain it is to compare a tropical rainforest, a temperate meadow, and the ocean.

An animal that is snatched out of the tropical forest and dumped in a temperate meadow will have problems and may need to change a bit to adapt to the new environment . . . but compare this with taking a deep sea fish and dumping it on the meadow . . . an it dies right away.

The fish has to change a million times more to adapt to a meadow vs. a tropical forest animal that has to adapt to a meadow.

As an example from real life, consider the similarities between a wooly mammoth and an Asian elephant . . . and then picture how much work a fish has to do to adapt to the mammoth's environment.

This is like the differences between an animal virus and a protozoa virus.

 

[DrHenley]

The reason is because viruses are bits of self replicating DNA or RNA. We have very little DNA and RNA in common with amoebas.

 

[Kevin L]

The reason is because viruses are bits of self replicating DNA. We have very little DNA in common with amoebas.

Exactly . . . although a (very) minor quibble is that some important viruses (like HIV) are RNA viruses.

This doesn't really change your point, though.

 

[DrHenley]

Exactly . . . although a (very) minor quibble is that some important viruses (like HIV) are RNA viruses.

Noted, thanks. I fixed it...

 

[Maverick]

.

Of course . . . and everything you say is quite correct about viruses jumping from animals . . . but to jump from plants to people, or from protozoa to people is--as I said--so unlikely as to be almost impossible for reasons that I gave earlier.

An easier way to explain it is to compare a tropical rainforest, a temperate meadow, and the ocean.

An animal that is snatched out of the tropical forest and dumped in a temperate meadow will have problems and may need to change a bit to adapt to the new environment . . . but compare this with taking a deep sea fish and dumping it on the meadow . . . an it dies right away.

The fish has to change a million times more to adapt to a meadow vs. a tropical forest animal that has to adapt to a meadow.

As an example from real life, consider the similarities between a wooly mammoth and an Asian elephant . . . and then picture how much work a fish has to do to adapt to the mammoth's environment.

This is like the differences between an animal virus and a protozoa virus.

Unless it's a lungfish Then again we have fish that breathe out of water as well as in water, viruses also adapt through evolution.

 

[Kevin L]

Unless it's a lungfish Then again we have fish that breathe out of water as well as in water, viruses also adapt through evolution.

Yes, there are fish that can breathe air.

The qeensland lungfish is an example. There are other lungfishes in Africa and South America. There are also mudskippers, and a walking catfish that has become invasive in Florida.

Still, these examples only strengthen my points. Out of all the species of fish, perhaps only 300 to 400 total species (mostly catfish) can breathe air for any length of time.

Compare this number against the millions of species of fish, and you see what I mean.