Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Retrovirii [was: Growing new parts}
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 11:18:52 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 02:02 PM 7/6/98 +0100, Spike wrote:
>And verily, did Koenig Boldizsar hastily scribble thusly...
>|BTW, what is a retrovirus? I know both retro- and virus, but this
>|compound eludes me.
>
>I think a normal virus injects its DNA into your cell, the cell then
turns
>into a virus factory and eventually explodes.
>
>With a retrovirus, I think it adds something to your DNA that changes
it's
>characteristics. I'm not sure how it replicates. Maybe some cells
become
>virus factories and others just... change... Or maybe they only
produce
>viruses when the cell splits in two.....
>
>I'll leave it to the biologically adept bods out there...

Ok. The difference between a virus and a retrovirus is in the material
used to cary the virus's genetic code.

A virus uses DNA, just like cells do. This DNA is injected into the
cell, along with enzymes that 'edit' the DNA string into the cell's
own code.

A retrovirus's genetic materia isn't DNA. Instead, they use RNA.
Normal cells use RNA as a 'work order' from the nucleus to the cell's
protein factories. RNA is similar to DNA, except it doesn't helix,
because of the substitution of one of the nucleotide bases.

Because a retrovirus uses RNA, it also has a special enzyme, that
builds a DNA string from the retrovirus's RNA (exactly oposite of the
usual process, where an RNA string is built from a DNA string). This
new DNA string is edited into the cell's code by the usual methods.

Retrovirii are different from other viruses in several other ways too.
Because most of the existing data is about virii and not retrovirii,
they are much harder to combat. Even the most carefully studied
retrovirus, Human Imunodeficency Virus, is far from a cure.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNaDq1KPbvUVI86rNAQF0JAP/duKljPMiUG5wJswIHnfezjlrfrqiqRPM
x5tiUOnP2WWjmJXEB8AtkdnyWIGySnpCVJksrm4yQA/lXF4khExPa4nanAmB2LtH
acHwfwNxa1sRAHfFa5Tda0YLRJkcoyDtrUazscUmx9tHYDE0kXN1EXr5XIgnTE+2
S4zzkqy3Uds=
=KEHQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344

You dare defy my whims?!?
I am the game master; you are my pawns!
I created the world you see before you!
I control your fate!"
-- Dexter, Dexter's Laboratory.
Message no. 2
From: Smilin' Ted <Tuvyah@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Retrovirii [was: Growing new parts}
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 15:48:10 EDT
In a message dated 7/6/98 7:19:14 AM, RunnerPaul wrote:

>A virus uses DNA, just like cells do. This DNA is injected into the
>cell, along with enzymes that 'edit' the DNA string into the cell's
>own code.
>
>A retrovirus's genetic materia isn't DNA. Instead, they use RNA.
>Normal cells use RNA as a 'work order' from the nucleus to the cell's
>protein factories. RNA is similar to DNA, except it doesn't helix,
>because of the substitution of one of the nucleotide bases.

Smack on the money.

And someone else noted the danger of cells going malignant in an adult
receiving genetic alteration. An even greater danger is that the adult's own
immune system will treat the altered cells as an infection. So the entire
immune system would have to be suppressed, with side effects that are fun,
fun, fun....
Message no. 3
From: John W Thornton <whitewolfplayer@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Retrovirii [was: Growing new parts}
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 11:51:15 -0500
"...what once that wrote, it now is dead, but now it's legacy is ours
instead"

On Mon, 6 Jul 1998 15:48:10 EDT "Smilin' Ted" <Tuvyah@***.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 7/6/98 7:19:14 AM, RunnerPaul wrote:
>
>>A virus uses DNA, just like cells do. This DNA is injected into the
>>cell, along with enzymes that 'edit' the DNA string into the cell's
>>own code.
>>
>>A retrovirus's genetic materia isn't DNA. Instead, they use RNA.
>>Normal cells use RNA as a 'work order' from the nucleus to the cell's
>>protein factories. RNA is similar to DNA, except it doesn't helix,
>>because of the substitution of one of the nucleotide bases.
>
>Smack on the money.
>
>And someone else noted the danger of cells going malignant in an adult
>receiving genetic alteration. An even greater danger is that the
>adult's own
>immune system will treat the altered cells as an infection. So the
>entire
>immune system would have to be suppressed, with side effects that are
>fun,
>fun, fun....
>
Nope....by using Rna patterns you bypass the Immune system Which is why
doing it that way is very dangerous cause if something like that got out
of control it would be nearly unstoppable unless there were an anti
formula made to undo the damage........Think Stephen King's the
Stand...............Now I'm not 100% behind this statement of mine, but I
do believe I'm right.

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 4
From: Smilin' Ted <Tuvyah@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Retrovirii [was: Growing new parts}
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 13:43:29 EDT
In a message dated 7/7/98 9:20:10 AM, whitewolfplayer wrote:

>Nope....by using Rna patterns you bypass the Immune system Which is why
>doing it that way is very dangerous cause if something like that got out
>of control it would be nearly unstoppable unless there were an anti
>formula made to undo the damage........Think Stephen King's the
>Stand...............Now I'm not 100% behind this statement of mine, but I
>do believe I'm right.

If alterations are made to the genetic structure of cell -- the DNA -- the
change has a chance of being expressed in the proteins and lipids that mark
the outside membrane of the cell. It is these markers that are the signposts
for the body's immune system, telling it whether the cell "belongs" or not. If
the change is reflected in these markers, the white blood cells, the
antibodies, and all our other little microbe warriors go to work against the
changed cell. Whether the change is made by RNA strands or DNA strands doesn't
matter, if it is the nuclear DNA that's being changed. I don't see how using
RNA to change the nuclear DNA bypasses this system.

-Smilin' Ted
Not a doctor, but plays on in singles bars
Message no. 5
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Retrovirii [was: Growing new parts}
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 11:56:39 -0600
Smilin' Ted wrote:
/
/ If alterations are made to the genetic structure of cell -- the DNA -- the
/ change has a chance of being expressed in the proteins and lipids that mark
/ the outside membrane of the cell. It is these markers that are the signposts
/ for the body's immune system, telling it whether the cell "belongs" or not. If
/ the change is reflected in these markers, the white blood cells, the
/ antibodies, and all our other little microbe warriors go to work against the
/ changed cell. Whether the change is made by RNA strands or DNA strands doesn't
/ matter, if it is the nuclear DNA that's being changed. I don't see how using
/ RNA to change the nuclear DNA bypasses this system.

Now tell that to everyone that's infected with HIV...

While theory says one thing, life has shown us that it aint so.

-David
--
"If I told you, then I'd have to pull a Shadowrun against you. Sorry."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 6
From: Smilin' Ted <Tuvyah@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Retrovirii [was: Growing new parts}
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 14:24:52 EDT
In a message dated 7/7/98 9:56:23 AM, Dave Beuhrer wrote:

>Now tell that to everyone that's infected with HIV...
>
>While theory says one thing, life has shown us that it aint so.

HIV is difficult to cure because it hides in the immune system itself, and
snacks off the cells that should be eating it; and because it mutates rapidly,
producing dozens or even hundreds of different strains, each requiring a
different approach.

I've never heard a doctor point to its "retrovirus" status as a reason for its
nastiness.

Smilin' Ted
Message no. 7
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Retrovirii [was: Growing new parts}
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 16:49:01 EDT
In a message dated 7/7/98 12:56:19 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG writes:

> / If alterations are made to the genetic structure of cell -- the DNA -- the
> / change has a chance of being expressed in the proteins and lipids that
> mark
> / the outside membrane of the cell. It is these markers that are the
> signposts
> / for the body's immune system, telling it whether the cell "belongs" or
not.
> If
> / the change is reflected in these markers, the white blood cells, the
> / antibodies, and all our other little microbe warriors go to work against
> the
> / changed cell. Whether the change is made by RNA strands or DNA strands
> doesn't
> / matter, if it is the nuclear DNA that's being changed. I don't see how
> using
> / RNA to change the nuclear DNA bypasses this system.
>
> Now tell that to everyone that's infected with HIV...

Okay, now let's hold off right there. HIV is a truly powerful Virus, and it's
functionabilities are definitely not so cut and dry.

As for how RNA -bypasses- DNA, that is probably the wrong word. How about
"encorporates" DNA into becoming it's friend? RNA patterns carry the signals
for the DNA matches. A Virus inserts itself as a replacement for one or more
of those replicating components. Because the "matching RNA" chain believes
the Virus is actually what it (the complimentary RNA) needs it to be, it links
up anyway. However, as with all basic chemistry, once you have an exchange of
said chemical activity, you come up with a new pattern.

And when the DNA later on splits to become two new strains of RNA in order to
form more DNA, it now has managed to become a carrier for the Virus that is
impersonating itself as something more.

HIV does this, but does this so dramatically and precisely, that it is just
that much harder to get rid of versus the average "viral agent".

> While theory says one thing, life has shown us that it aint so.

That will remain the case for the rest of time. In that, I can guarantee
you...

-K
Message no. 8
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Retrovirii [was: Growing new parts}
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 22:56:17 +0100
And verily, did David Buehrer hastily scribble thusly...
|
|Now tell that to everyone that's infected with HIV...
|
|While theory says one thing, life has shown us that it aint so.

That's probably because it's not so much an RNA/DNA problem, as a flu type
problem. (This virus changes it's outer protiens so often the body can't
keep up, and it a white cell DOES engulf it... Well, what does HIV infect?
T-cells isn't it?)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Retrovirii [was: Growing new parts}, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!