• deranger@sh.itjust.works
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    2 days ago

    One of the theories how organisms switched from RNA to DNA is due to viruses. Viruses have a pretty wild range of their genetic diversity. Single strand DNA, double strand DNA, positive sense single strand RNA, negative sense single strand RNA, double strand RNA. We’ve also probably got viruses as a permanent part of our genome from some ancestor species.

    I think they’re pretty cool. Also, they do respond to outside stimuli, otherwise they’d be completely inert.

    • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      2 days ago

      We’ve also probably got viruses as a permanent part of our genome from some ancestor species.

      We definitely have viruses as a permanent part of our genome. A type of herpes virus is present in the DNA of all living things descended from bony fishes

      • kadup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Mammals wouldn’t have a chorioallantoic placenta at all if not for a virus integrated into our genome. Mapping when in evolution the genes responsible for placental development first appeared was my first participation in scientific research, so I love this topic.

          • kadup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Happily! Basically, the true placenta we mammals (Eutheria) have is what allows such a long gestation period. Unlike our closely related marsupials, that quickly deplete their resources and must give birth, our placenta allows for a continuous exchange of nutrients. This involves a quite complicated process of embryonic tissue invading the uterine wall, so you can imagine the kind of immunological regulation that must be taking place for that to work.

            So you’d assume we have several genes highly specific to our placenta that appear when we Eutherians first appeared… right? No! Turns out the vast majority already existed in jawed vertebrates (our common ancestor with sharks), then quite a lot show up in bony fish (our common ancestor with most things you call fish), and just one shows up in Tetrapoda (our common ancestor with amphibians).

            So most of the framework for developing an organ such as the placenta already existed for millions of years, so what exactly was missing before it could finally show up in evolutionary history? The two genes that are absolutely required for this whole crazy “let’s invade the mother’s uterine wall tissue but NOT trigger her immune system” part: CSF2 and a group of closely related genes called syncitins.

            Syncitins are the star here, because they’re actually a gene that came from ancient retroviruses. In the virus, they were expressed in the envelope and controlled the fusion between the viral particle and the host cell. These viruses got integrated into our genome, and this “fusion with the host cell” mechanism became extremely useful and crucial for the placenta, basically allowing it to exist.

            • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 day ago

              So, in other words, viruses did parts of the work of evolution by inventing the CSF2 and syncitin genes?

              And that regulates the immune system to not respond to foreign tissue?

              • kadup@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 day ago

                Basically, yes. Viruses came up with the syncitins to fuse with host cells, then when they infected us and integrated their genome we had the code for making these proteins… and turns out “invading tissue” was a really useful tool for the embryo.

                • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  i am wondering (in case you know), what activates these genes?

                  i.e., i’d like to understand how gene regulation works in general. what causes genes to become active all of a sudden?

                  i.e., why does the genes allow embryos to live inside the mother, but not allow other intruders to live inside the human?

          • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yeah but they didn’t use to be viruses, they used to be bacteria.

            And they didn’t integrate into human genome. They’re just another foreign body that lives inside human cells, but they have their own genome still.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Also, they do respond to outside stimuli, otherwise they’d be completely inert.

      Do they actually respond? Or is it the external stimuli responding to them?

      • deranger@sh.itjust.works
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        They respond because they have to do things like inject the genetic material into the organism once it latches on to whatever on the cell surface. That doesn’t occur in the host, it occurs in the virus.

        It’s been a while since I took virology, but I feel pretty confident that something occurs in the virus due to an external stimulus.

    • [email protected]@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 days ago

      In the same way that the mafia plays a crucial role in the Italian mafia government. They’re still a bunch of dicks, even if they’re working for us. Move ‘em 2 millimeters in the wrong direction and you’ll have a bad time

      • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’m actually interested, is this true?

        When bacteria were first discovered, people found them in the gut and thought “oh, that’s horrible. bacteria cause diseases, so we must get rid of them.” it was only found out much later that bacteria in the gut can improve health on average.

        the same is true for many other categories of living beings, such as insects (worms), fungi; and now my question is whether it could be the same for viruses?

        • [email protected]@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Some perform tasks, but they largely just take up space, and that’s a good thing. Your body’s full of materials that malignantly pathogenic bacteria would love to get their hands on. Bacteria that are largely incapable of doing anything to us take up space that would otherwise be occupied. You’d likely prefer an old squatter living in your walls, rather than a crackhead. You’d probably choose an electrician, but that’s life. Better they’re largely benign than overtly and desperately malicious.

          You factually do have a viral balance in your internal ecosystem. Bacteriophages cull populations, and some viruses hyper-specialize in attacking cancer. There are more examples, but I can’t immediately recall

          • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            thank you, that makes sense to me.

            i’m interested in actually understanding what functions what elements of the gut microbiome perform. but i guess that’s a highly complicated topic, so i expect no quick answers

            • [email protected]@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              You’re asking a question without a complete answer, as it’s a complex system in active research, but truthfully, I only know of a couple offhandedly. Some strains of lactobacillus occupy space largely benignly, and some E. coli produce vitamin k. But mostly, they’re just eating and multiplying. Hit up Wikipedia for an abundance of specifics.

      • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Move ‘em 2 millimeters in the wrong direction and you’ll have a bad time

        Are you referring to getting, I dunno, yogurt in places outside the digestive tract?

        My understanding was that gut bacteria play a pretty crucial (beneficial) role in overall health, not to mention the whole gut-brain stuff.

        • [email protected]@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Take some of those same bacteria and set them directly against the intestinal lining without any of the delicious mucus in the way and you’ll have a slightly unpleasant time. And I’m being literal. It’ll be aggravating, and deleterious to your long term health, but usually not immediately life threatening. They’re absolutely beneficial, but they’re in it for themselves. They’re not beneficent, they just are, which was all the point I intended to make.