It is said that a virus can not attach nother virus due to protien protien interaction between the "walls" of the viruses. so it is possible to give immunity to a cell against any virus by simply adding the protien seqence from the caspid of the virus wall to the cell wall of the cell. so now that the cell has the protien on its wall the attacking virus will 'think; the cell to be another virus and hence will not attack it.

can this whole strategy be developed for complete systems instead of just one cell

It would be possible. Or you could just remove whatever it is that the virus attaches to. But whatever is on the cell surface is generally there for the cells survival, and replacing or removing it would be very detrimental to the cell.

It is said that a virus can not attach nother virus due to protien protien interaction between the "walls" of the viruses. so it is possible to give immunity to a cell against any virus by simply adding the protien seqence from the caspid of the virus wall to the cell wall of the cell. so now that the cell has the protien on its wall the attacking virus will 'think; the cell to be another virus and hence will not attack it.

 

yes, you basically could, like mentioned already, but in that case I think the immune system would recognize your "modified cells" because of the viral proteins and would destroy them. This way you would induce a severe autoimmune response and cause more harm than than the virus itself in a cell (at least in some cases).

 

I hope I´m correct here?

 

regards,

kix

__________________

http://www.biologia.fi

kix, you're probably right.

 

However, I would suggest that the reason vira don't attach to each other is not because of the existence of a surface protein, but the absence of one. Vira are very specific, thus only attacking host cells with surface proteins they can recognize. If these proteins are not present, the virus cannot attach.

vira

Viruses.

This is what makes the descendants of the plauge resistent to HIV. They have the [math]

\delta[/math] 32 (Delta 32) mutation. This makes the cells' "ports" incompatable with the HIV virus. However, this does not do a 100% job.

vira

 

Viruses.

 

virus

nevermind

virus

Whoooosh.

Whoooosh.

 

ping!

I don't get it

i didnt get your "whoosh" either, but felt that as you were getting all onomatopaeic on me, id reply with a random sound too.

 

re. the noun 'virus': i thought that if your talking about the condition, the singular is virus and plural viruses, ie "the flu virus and the cold virus are both viruses"; whereas if your talking about the etiological agents themselves, virion is the singular and virus is the plural, ie "if just one virion sucessfully infects a cell, many virus may be prodused".

 

though i could be wrong. twould definately not be the first time i have made an etymological mistake.

This is what makes the descendants of the plauge resistent to HIV. They have the [math]

\delta[/math] 32 (Delta 32) mutation. This makes the cells' "ports" incompatable with the HIV virus. However' date=' this does not do a 100% job.[/quote']

 

hmm thats really interesting, do you know of any good articles that can further elaborate on that?

Virion refers to the whole virus as it normally exists outside a cell: nucleic acids & capsid, plus any enzymes or lipid coats.

whats the plural?

Virions.

oh.

 

thats the fourth candidate for the plural of virion (vira, viruses, virus and virions)

 

anyone got a good dictionay so the can check which ones right (now skye's said it, iv got a feeling that 'virions' is the correct plural of virion)

To make it clearer, virions is the plural of virion, and viruses is the plural of virus.

 

A virus is a virion when it is out of the cell, all bundled up in its protein coat (called the capsid). Once it enters the cell and sheds the coat it is no longer a virion. However, it is still a virus.

So could you say that a virion is a complete virus particle?

i thought that when it entered the cell and shead its capsid, it was a provirus

 

man, nomclamenturial confusion

 

i dont believe i didnt check this out before starting my 10,000 word dissertation, which centers heavaly round HIV. if ive gotta go back and correct myself whenever iv used a word begiining with vir-, then... well, poo basically.

 

A virus is a virion when it is out of the cell, all bundled up in its protein coat (called the capsid)

should that read ' a virion is a virus when it is out of the cell...'?

So could you say that a virion is a complete virus particle?

Sure could.

i thought that when it entered the cell and shead its capsid, it was a provirus

Yes. Well actually, I believe when a virus integrates with the host genome it is called a provirus.

i dont believe i didnt check this out before starting my 10,000 word dissertation, which centers heavaly round HIV. if ive gotta go back and correct myself whenever iv used a word begiining with vir-, then... well, poo basically.

10,000 words, ouch.

should that read ' a virion is a virus when it is out of the cell...'?

Maybe, or perhaps it would have been clearer to say 'a virus is called a virion...'

 

I think you get what I meant though.

Maybe, or perhaps it would have been clearer to say 'a virus is called a virion...'

savvy now

 

10,000 words, ouch.

its due in on the 28th of this month. uberouch.

 

virion, virions, viral, virus, viruses, viri, virii, provirus, prophage... dammit, this whole area is confusing. im gonna get a book on viral nomclamenture out of the library. ill post a summary up here for us all.

hmm thats really interesting, do you know of any good articles that can further elaborate on that?

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf119/sf119p05.htm

Dak, here's a good site on virus taxonomy, if you haven't seen it before:

 

http://www.virustaxonomyonline.com/virtax/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm