Jump to content

creation of virus?


Recommended Posts

Is it possible to create a virus such as Hepatits , influenza or HIV in the laboratory?

 

Or is it possible to manipulate or alter the viruses genetically to produce a new type ( cousin virus )?

 

Can this be done in the lab manually?

 

I'm more interested in HIV .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible to create a virus such as Hepatits , influenza or HIV in the laboratory?

 

It's so easy, you could do it right in your body.

 

Or is it possible to manipulate or alter the viruses genetically to produce a new type ( cousin virus )?

 

Can this be done in the lab manually?

 

I'm more interested in HIV .

 

This also happens naturally, given the high mutation rate of viruses. Every flu season you get a different one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe someone recreated the polio virus at my school in Stony Brook, but these other guys in the forum probably know WAY more than me about that.

Also viruses are dangerous and making them even more dangerous so when you ask something like this you should post your reasoning.

 

-"Testing on Aminals is Humane if you see it from Sophocles's Veiwpoint."

Edited by wikiro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are unable to create an absolutely novel virus from scratch. We can, however use existing viruses as template and create recombinant versions. Essentially this is accomplished by standard mutagenesis. Normally a host system is required for production and propagation, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, is it possible that somebody creates an undetectable form of HIV and infects it to people , and you know, it's not detected until the person develops AIDS. and since people don't know they are infected, they easily pass it on to others.

 

Is this kind of scenario possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can make a guess about whether someone has HIV before it develops into AIDS anyway. AIDS develops when the CD4+ T cell count falls below a certain number. Before you get full-blown AIDS, it is still possible to detect a fall in these cells - very soon after inital infection there is a dramatic fall in numbers. There are also the characteristic symptoms/epidemiology which will give a hint.

 

File:Hiv-timecourse.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, is it possible that somebody creates an undetectable form of HIV and infects it to people , and you know, it's not detected until the person develops AIDS. and since people don't know they are infected, they easily pass it on to others.

 

Is this kind of scenario possible?

 

Not really. HIV attacks the body's white blood cells (eg CD4), and any significant quantity of HIV virus will have to kill off those cells to replicate. Thus it will be detectable via lowered cell count in the blood. Perhaps if you modified the virus such that it was slower to kill off our white blood cells and could become infectious before causing serious symptoms (more so than standard HIV which already takes years to become apparent). I suppose then it could infect more people but the virus itself would become more harmless. In fact, without it killing off the white blood cells, it is quite likely the virus looses the battle with the immune system rather than the other way around. Odds are such a virus would function more as a vaccine against HIV than some more deadly virus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read somewhere HIV can be modified to become undetectable for Bio Terrorism. The idea is to infect people with the modified version of HIV through injection when they are unaware. Now these people won't know they are infected because they would be negative in the HIV antibody test. They transmit the virus to others without their knowledge ( they think they are negative ).

Consequenlty the person would die later cos of opportunistic infections. The virus would be spread drastically.

 

Now this really scared me. Could this be possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Is it possible to create a virus such as Hepatits , influenza or HIV in the laboratory?

 

Or is it possible to manipulate or alter the viruses genetically to produce a new type ( cousin virus )?

 

Can this be done in the lab manually?

 

I'm more interested in HIV .

 

First Part: "Create" no but if you have the DNA sequence you can express it in e. coli or some other organism

 

Second Part: Yes if you have the DNA sequence you can pretty much express any mutant you want. Doesn't mean it will be viable. On the other hand you can create a supermutant that has properties superior to the wild type

 

Third Part: It is done in the lab all the time. Manually? Well if you are the one doing the work then it is manual I guess. No such thing as automatic work that you can do....

 

Comment: People who work with viruses typically make coat proteins to study. The genetic material for propagation of the virus is taken out so that you don't infect yourself.

Edited by apricimo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read somewhere HIV can be modified to become undetectable for Bio Terrorism. The idea is to infect people with the modified version of HIV through injection when they are unaware. Now these people won't know they are infected because they would be negative in the HIV antibody test. They transmit the virus to others without their knowledge ( they think they are negative ).

Consequenlty the person would die later cos of opportunistic infections. The virus would be spread drastically.

 

Now this really scared me. Could this be possible?

 

No, if we could manipulate the virus to such an extent we would have found a cure already I'm sure. The problem with HIV is that it mutates far too quickly for us to do anything useful with it at this point in time. It's also (so I hear) a pain to culture in the lab so in order to do something like that, you'll need to solve a) how to successfully culture the virus and b) how to incorporate the desired mutations that aren't lost during the virus' natural mutations and don't decrease the ability of the virus to infect. The markers used to test for the virus are also the ones that allow for its virulence I think.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew a Ph.D. student whose thesis was on the function of one HIV protein. He had manipulated and combined genes from three inactivated strains available from the NIH to get the model he needed to do his research. I was the general science advisor on his committee and during his thesis defense I asked him if the virus could be manipulated to be more infectious or less detectible for the purpose of bioterrorism. He said that this was possible. I would like some confirmation of this anecdotal evidence from an expert. SM

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, detection of viruses is normally either PCR or antibody based. I.e. antibodies that the immune system raises against the virus. Direct detection of the virus protein in body fluids while technically possible tends to give relative weak signals.

 

Based on that one could of course change the binding regions of the primers, although they are of course designed to match conserved areas, which, in turn, are generally necessary (and therefore conserved). The major problem is that luckily there is no easy way to rationally improve virulence based on structure (yet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew a Ph.D. student whose thesis was on the function of one HIV protein. He had manipulated and combined genes from three inactivated strains available from the NIH to get the model he needed to do his research. I was the general science advisor on his committee and during his thesis defense I asked him if the virus could be manipulated to be more infectious or less detectible for the purpose of bioterrorism. He said that this was possible. I would like some confirmation of this anecdotal evidence from an expert. SM

 

"General science advisor" on his thesis committee? What is general science?

 

First of all what may that be. Secondly if you are on his committee in which case no one would refer to themselves as "general science advisor" why are you asking these things in science forums? Find related articles to confirm or disprove what he said.

 

Were/are you working in the same as lab him and you don't believe what he has to say or just someone who knows this guy through random people? Thesis committee member asking questions about a thesis defense in science forums what a joker.

 

 

Some people on here I swear.

 

Start your own post about a question you have and don't self aggrandize yourself. General science advisor on a thesis committee.. My god

 

Anyway to respond to the original post...

 

It takes A LOT OF MONEY and A LOT OF WORK to do something that you read or heard about. You need fancy equipment and extremely bright scientists and those cost money. Bright scientists typically, though not always, would rather work on something legitimate since the amount of time they put in to acquiring their knowledge/degrees would be compromised/waste if they were doing something illegal. If there were/are people working on making super HIV strains I'm sure by now something would have leaked. That said there may be labs out there that may have found or are close to finding a way to alter the structure of HIV to a point where they can dictate function and we may not know about because such a discovery would be of interest to the forces of good and evil.

 

Anything that is of high importance to humanity for reasons of good or bad is always a controversial topic and the internet a crappy source for it. So think rationally when you read stuff related to this and other important topics. Read peer reviewed journals and even then you have to be an honest skeptic.

 

It takes A LOT OF MONEY and A LOT OF WORK to do something that you read or heard about. You need fancy equipment and extremely bright scientists and those cost money. Bright scientists typically, though not always, would rather work on something legitimate since the amount of time they put in to acquiring their knowledge/degrees would be compromised/waste if they were doing something illegal. If there were/are people working on making super HIV strains I'm sure by now something would have leaked. That said there may be labs out there that may have found or are close to finding a way to alter the structure of HIV to a point where they can dictate function and we may not know about because such a discovery would be of interest to the forces of good and evil.

 

Anything that is of high importance to humanity for reasons of good or bad is always a controversial topic and the internet a crappy source for it. So think rationally when you read stuff related to this and other important topics. Read peer reviewed journals and even then you have to be an honest skeptic.

Edited by apricimo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apricimo:

 

I am a retired scientist and I have both written and reviewed a fair number of successful research articles and NIH grants. The Ph.D. program in question had a Biomedical Sciences degree. This was a bit more general in an attempt to give graduating students a chance of ultimately (after a postdoc in their specialty) being more attractive as a job candidate to different departments on the basis of being able to teach in more than one specialty. This was accomplished by requiring students to take some coursework outside of their department and to take my scientific teaching skills course. The student in question was in the Microbiology Department but had taken my Microscopic Anatomy course, the Cell and Molecular Biology course, in which I was a lecturer, and had participated in some journal clubs in which I also participated, so he chose me as the required outside (of his) department general science member of his committee. The student got his degree and a good postdoc, and I assume that he is doing well somewhere as an independent researcher and teacher.

 

Asking science question is what this forum is about, and I often answer questions here in my area of knowledge because I don’t have to do a lot of research. I am quite able to do my own research when I have a question that is of great interest to me but otherwise, like everyone else, just ask when there might be expertise here for a quick answer. In this case there was someone. Now aren’t you embarrassed for your long and inappropriate rant when you could have just asked me about what a general science Ph.D. committee member might be?

 

SM

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apricimo:

 

I am a retired scientist and I have both written and reviewed a fair number of successful research articles and NIH grants. The Ph.D. program in question had a Biomedical Sciences degree. This was a bit more general in an attempt to give graduating students a chance of ultimately (after a postdoc in their specialty) being more attractive as a job candidate to different departments on the basis of being able to teach in more than one specialty. This was accomplished by requiring students to take some coursework outside of their department and to take my scientific teaching skills course. The student in question was in the Microbiology Department but had taken my Microscopic Anatomy course, the Cell and Molecular Biology course, in which I was a lecturer, and had participated in some journal clubs in which I also participated, so he chose me as the required outside (of his) department general science member of his committee. The student got his degree and a good postdoc, and I assume that he is doing well somewhere as an independent researcher and teacher.

 

Asking science question is what this forum is about, and I often answer questions here in my area of knowledge because I don’t have to do a lot of research. I am quite able to do my own research when I have a question that is of great interest to me but otherwise, like everyone else, just ask when there might be expertise here for a quick answer. In this case there was someone. Now aren’t you embarrassed for your long and inappropriate rant when you could have just asked me about what a general science Ph.D. committee member might be?

 

SM

 

 

 

I believe what you have to say as far as I can throw you. I can rattle off rank as well and I don't believe you are who you say you are for a number of reasons. Not going to list them.

 

"I would like some confirmation of this anecdotal evidence from an expert". There is nothing anecdotal about the scenario you painted it was simply his opinion and not an isolated incident of unreproducibility. Oh and someone of you status expects to find an HIV structural expert in these forums. My god who are you kidding.

 

If you have the credentials you claim to have you know how to find this answer very easily so why are you stooping down to people who have no depth in HIV background to ask such a piercing question? It makes absolutely no sense. It would like my PI asking me what LASER stood for. and how it worked. So I am not embarrassed just because you replied.

 

It wasn't just the general science comment you made it was your whole post.

 

I" asked him if the virus could be manipulated to be more infectious or less detectible for the purpose of bioterrorism" What committee member asks this question? I believe the first half of the question but why would anyone in academia ever ask about "for the purpose of bioterrorism".

 

None of what you say fits together.

Edited by apricimo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually this sounds like a plausible question that a non-specialist would ask during an exam to bring something up. It is rather uncommon that all the members of a committee are specialist in what you are doing.

 

That being said, I would advise against personal attacks. People may or may not be who they claim. Refute their arguments, if necessary, but personal attacks serve no purpose.

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually this sounds like a plausible question that a non-specialist would ask during an exam to bring something up. It is rather uncommon that all the members of a committee are specialist in what you are doing.

 

That being said, I would advise against personal attacks. People may or may not be who they claim. Refute their arguments, if necessary, but personal attacks serve no purpose.

 

I think this is my going out with fires of glory. This forum is filled with a bunch of people who don't have a clue about 90% of topics they post on. This includes YOU. Some of the "answers" you gave to my topics have been completely off base. Why chime in stuff you don't know. Why. People try to answer questions to topics they have no clue about. I'm done with it.

 

 

Yes and thank you I know how committees are put together but again thank you for knowledge you put in that no one asked about. That seems to be your bread and butter.

 

 

TO ANYONE WHO READS THIS BE ADVISED THIS FORUM IS WORTHLESS AND IS WORSE THAN GOOGLING AND READING A RANDOM WEBSITE.

 

PEACE. "EXPERTS"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew a Ph.D. student whose thesis was on the function of one HIV protein. He had manipulated and combined genes from three inactivated strains available from the NIH to get the model he needed to do his research. I was the general science advisor on his committee and during his thesis defense I asked him if the virus could be manipulated to be more infectious or less detectible for the purpose of bioterrorism. He said that this was possible. I would like some confirmation of this anecdotal evidence from an expert. SM

 

 

 

Anyways, back to the science. Did he actually incorporate this recombinant protein into an active virus again or were they expressed in a bacterial cell culture? Because, as I've mentioned I haven't heard of anyone being able to actually modify a life HIV. If he was studying one protein why would he use 3 different strains, especially recombining them? Wouldn't this create a new/hybrid protein different from the one he wanted to study? Why not start of with one strain, determine the function of that? It seems easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stefan-CoA, you are asking for old memories about an area outside of my expertise. What I recall is that the reason for the different strains is that except for certain qualified labs the NIH did not make any fully competent virus available for research, and there were pieces that had been removed from each genome. The Ph.D. student reassembled a genome that allowed him to do his study. I believe that the viral protein he was studying had something to do with virulence. SM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Is it possible to create a virus such as Hepatits , influenza or HIV in the laboratory?

 

Or is it possible to manipulate or alter the viruses genetically to produce a new type ( cousin virus )?

 

Can this be done in the lab manually?

 

I'm more interested in HIV .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.