Could the insertion of genes to cause cells to make certain chemicals kill viruses?

[cameron marical]

Could the insertion of genes to cause cells to make certain chemicals{that kill viruses and dont harm cells} kill viruses?

 

Also, what is it in soap that kills viruses and bacteria but doesnt harm skin cells?

 

thanks.

[Mokele]

I don't know about the former, but in the case of the latter, plain soap doesn't kill them, but rather just detaches them from the skin and lets them be washed away.

[CharonY]

As viruses do not live it is not possible to kill them. You have to know that once a virus enters the cell most of the time they inject nucleic acids and proteins. Targeting them would inactivate the virus. It is easier to prevent viruses from entering the cell by manipulating the entry point (often a receptor of the cell). This only works in single cell models, and not in whole multi-cell organisms, though.

[GDG]

Could the insertion of genes to cause cells to make certain chemicals{that kill viruses and dont harm cells} kill viruses?

 

Also, what is it in soap that kills viruses and bacteria but doesnt harm skin cells?

 

thanks.

 

Probably the easiest way to do that would be using iRNA. You would insert genes (by gene therapy, a technology still under development) that would express short RNA strands that interfere (hence "iRNA") with the viral RNA transcripts. Basically, the iRNA hybridizes to the target RNA and makes a double strand: an enyzme in the cytoplasm ("dicer") recognizes double-stranded RNA and chops it up.

 

It is conceivable that one could insert genes that make antiviral proteins (or even chemicals), but this would probably be more difficult.

 

As for soap, it solubilizes bacteria and viruses, and can denature their proteins and lipid membranes. Your skin isn't harmed because the outer layer is already dead.

[MM6]

I was also thinking gene therapy. The problem with inserting genes into our DNA is that it's very hard to control where they insert (i.e., they may insert right into an active gene, thereby disrupting it's function). One reason gene therapy got a bad name is the SCIDs-leukemia cases in children.

[cameron marical]

Probably the easiest way to do that would be using iRNA. You would insert genes (by gene therapy, a technology still under development) that would express short RNA strands that interfere (hence "iRNA") with the viral RNA transcripts. Basically, the iRNA hybridizes to the target RNA and makes a double strand: an enyzme in the cytoplasm ("dicer") recognizes double-stranded RNA and chops it up.

 

That sounds like a viable method to eliminate virus problems in the cells. Could this method work? What are the kinks?

[GDG]

That sounds like a viable method to eliminate virus problems in the cells. Could this method work? What are the kinks?

 

The main obstacle is getting the gene transfer to work. It is difficult to get the genes taken up by the appropriate cells, difficult to get it integrated, difficult to get the cell to express the genes appropriately, and difficult to prevent the cells from essentially spitting out their medicine (OK, they somehow disable the inserted genes). Typically, the introduced genes are expressed for, at most, a few weeks. This might be enough for treating an acute infection. But on the other hand, gene therapy has had a few catastrophic (and fatal) failures.

[MustKnow]

i cant recall all the details, but in the human body when a virus enters the cell, before the cell dies it releases a chemical that goes out to warn the other cells to produce an acid, so when the virus goes to attack them their RNA they inject is killed by the acid. I read a study where some doctors tried to make a pill that could cause the human cells to always produce that acid but they werent having much success.

[cameron marical]

Was this recent? That sounds quite interesting and i wonder why it had problems...

[iNow]

I caution you against taking his comments to heart, cameron. He's openly stated he doesn't believe in evolution. I'm not saying that means what he says is inaccurate, just that you should push hard to get a scientific source out of him before accepting his comments as valid. Enjoy.

[CharonY]

Just as a remark, it would not work. Anything strong enough to hydrolyse virus RNA would also affect normal cellular RNA. Also, the cell dies (if at all) when the virus leaves the cell. Not when it enters it (would be kind of ridiculous). And so on...

[GDG]

i cant recall all the details, but in the human body when a virus enters the cell, before the cell dies it releases a chemical that goes out to warn the other cells to produce an acid, so when the virus goes to attack them their RNA they inject is killed by the acid. I read a study where some doctors tried to make a pill that could cause the human cells to always produce that acid but they werent having much success.

 

I think you are thinking of interferon, although this is a protein instead of an acid. Viral infection induces the expression of interferon, which attempts to down-regulate viral expression, and prepares neighboring cells to combat infection.

[MustKnow]

I caution you against taking his comments to heart, cameron. He's openly stated he doesn't believe in evolution. I'm not saying that means what he says is inaccurate, just that you should push hard to get a scientific source out of him before accepting his comments as valid. Enjoy.

 

Im the black sheep now for my views on evolution ? lol

 

 

Ya its interferon. I just googled it to see what would come out, i dont recall what the date was on their experiment. I guess they were trying to make a pill that would causes your cells to produce the fancy proteins.

[GDG]

Im the black sheep now for my views on evolution ? lol

 

I didn't know that they could give negative reputation points