View Poll Results: Are viruses living or non-living organisms
Living 7 21.21%
Non-living 17 51.52%
Both 9 27.27%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

Viruses: Living or Non-living organisms


by Biosyn
Tags: living, non-living, organism, virus
Biosyn
Biosyn is offline
#1
Feb19-12, 12:57 AM
Biosyn's Avatar
P: 112
Do you consider a virus living or non-living organism?

In middle school, I was taught that a virus was the smallest living organism.
However, I see viruses as packages of genes coated in protein and that they are inert on their own. I think of viruses as stuck in a "Twilight Zone" between living and non living.

I don't think that viruses are true living organisms because they do not grow by dividing, generate energy, creating protein, etc. Yet, some scientists believe they are living because they contain genes necessary for their replication.

And there are some bacteria that are like viruses, unable to reproduce outside a host cell, such as Chlamydia or Rickettsia that are classified as living organisms. But they have the same limitations as viruses.



p.s. I think there was a similar topic for some research paper that was posted in 2009. I can't seem to find it.
Phys.Org News Partner Biology news on Phys.org
Campaigners say protected birds in danger in Malta
WWF condemns oil search in Africa's oldest national park
Genome yields insights into golden eagle vision, smell
bfman
bfman is offline
#2
Feb19-12, 01:42 AM
P: 1
Viruses are not considered to be "living" organisms in the fullest sense of the word. They replicate inside other living beings, but themselves are not living.
Dasarath Sai
Dasarath Sai is offline
#3
Feb19-12, 04:09 AM
P: 1
bfman is exactly right.

Ryan_m_b
Ryan_m_b is offline
#4
Feb19-12, 11:18 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,351

Viruses: Living or Non-living organisms


To be honest I don't think I've ever heard a solid definition of "life". Instead I've heard lists of attributes that if something has (or at least has some of them) it can be said to be alive. I would not class viruses as alive because they are not metabolically active and cannot reproduce themselves. The latter is different to needing a host to replicate because the distinction is that viruses literally are assembled by the host rather than growing in it.

I also find it bewildering that people have voted "both" for a question that is essentially "A" or "Not-A"
Pythagorean
Pythagorean is offline
#5
Feb19-12, 01:28 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,214
"Towards a Mathematical Theory of Complex Biological Systems" by C. Bianca, 2011:

my paraphrasing and comments in the parenthesis

1. Wide range of participating entities (e.g. functional molecular groups)
2. Nonlinear interactions between entities (characterized by feedback and dispersion)
3. Heterogeneity (not sure how this is different form 1 given the paragraph on this)
4. Self-Organization / ability to develop specific strategies (I don't think these should be the same)
5. Active entities "play a game" at each interaction. (not really clear, but the author's paragraph talks about basically, changing internally as a result of external interacitons.
6. System is not in equilibirum (I agree that would be bad for a living system)
7. Entities belong to a wide variety of components (the entities have diverse functions)
8. Time is a key variable (this seems irrelevant/obvious to me. It uses the words Darwinian evolution, but we've already established that implicitly with 4 and 5)
9. multiscale approach (multi-scale optimization).
10. small changes lead to large effects (an extension of 2: form nonlinearity to chaos)

I think some of these are important and the idea develops a good framework for mathematical biology (which allows you to more concretely define things) but I think the number "10" was reached for. There's maybe four or five basic quantifiable principles here.

We could lump:

1, 3 and 7 together
4, 5, 8 and 9 together
2, 6 and 10 together

(wow, that would bring it down to 3!)

So far it seems that viruses would pass the test on these little quantifiers (but probably only in the presence of a "host"?), but then I have the feeling like they're life junk: amalgamates that must inevitably result from an ecology diverse degeneracy.

But I also have another thought. In the spatiotemporal limit, we are all part of one system (we all came from the same ancestor, we're all driven by and interact with the same chemical and physical gradients). So the boundaries we define between "organisms" can often be fuzzier than we imagine it is. At some point, a transitions from a colony of single celled organism to a single multi-celled organism must have occurred.

So my thought with viruses is then.. maybe they're just an extension of living things, moreso than a living thing themselves. An example of where the phenomena of "organism" leaks into and out of the environment through these fuzzy boundaries that define the organism.
Antiphon
Antiphon is offline
#6
Feb19-12, 01:50 PM
P: 1,781
Seems like we need to make finer distinctions. I propose that a virus is dead until it contacts a cell and begins working. I'd further propose that it's not alive at that point either; that it has merely transformed the host cell into a new entity.

In a very real way the infected cell is like a Zombie. It's no longer the cell it was and the mutated cell has to be considered the true organism with the virus particle as a mere "seed" or spore.
Biosyn
Biosyn is offline
#7
Feb19-12, 02:14 PM
Biosyn's Avatar
P: 112
Quote Quote by Antiphon View Post
Seems like we need to make finer distinctions. I propose that a virus is dead until it contacts a cell and begins working. I'd further propose that it's not alive at that point either; that it has merely transformed the host cell into a new entity.

In a very real way the infected cell is like a Zombie. It's no longer the cell it was and the mutated cell has to be considered the true organism with the virus particle as a mere "seed" or spore.
Same, I personally don't think a virus is living or non living.

A friend of mine said that saying that a virus is a living organism inside a host is almost like saying DNA nanobots are living organisms once inside a human body.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0216144238.htm
Borek
Borek is offline
#8
Feb19-12, 04:30 PM
Admin
Borek's Avatar
P: 22,714
Trying to classify a virus as living or not is a futile effort. We (Homo sapiens) have a tendency to try to classify everything, even if the classification doesn't make sense and is based on a questionable definitions.
Ryan_m_b
Ryan_m_b is offline
#9
Feb20-12, 01:24 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,351
Quote Quote by Biosyn View Post
Same, I personally don't think a virus is living or non living.

A friend of mine said that saying that a virus is a living organism inside a host is almost like saying DNA nanobots are living organisms once inside a human body.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0216144238.htm
I fail to see how a virus could be inside once in a host cell as often they have broken apart to shed their protein coat and release RNA. This RNA is then read by ribosomes that assemble more virus proteins, with the RNA is replicated by other processes, then the viral components self assemble. I don't think it is fair to say that any of that counts a virus as alive considering that when a virus replicates there is no whole virus at all.
Quote Quote by Borek View Post
Trying to classify a virus as living or not is a futile effort. We (Homo sapiens) have a tendency to try to classify everything, even if the classification doesn't make sense and is based on a questionable definitions.
Agreed.
r-j
r-j is offline
#10
Feb20-12, 12:17 PM
P: 30
What about Prions?
DarioC
DarioC is offline
#11
Feb20-12, 05:01 PM
P: 187
But I also have another thought. In the spatiotemporal limit, we are all part of one system (we all came from the same ancestor, we're all driven by and interact with the same chemical and physical gradients). So the boundaries we define between "organisms" can often be fuzzier than we imagine it is. At some point, a transitions from a colony of single celled organism to a single multi-celled organism must have occurred.

So my thought with viruses is then.. maybe they're just an extension of living things, moreso than a living thing themselves. An example of where the phenomena of "organism" leaks into and out of the environment through these fuzzy boundaries that define the organism.[/QUOTE]

Well written, I like it. A fuzzy line of almost life. Lots of grey areas in this universe.
DC
tmcphd
tmcphd is offline
#12
Feb20-12, 07:49 PM
P: 4
A a College Biology professor, the debate about a virus being living or non-living is ongoing. The reproduction is the complicated issue, because all viruses use the host's cell DNA/RNA replication machinery, ie, enzymes, nucleotides. Even the enzyme itself is incorporated into the virus' envelop. They therefor are not self sufficient for the own reproduction, which is a characteristic for living things. They also do not carry out all the cool little processes that eukaryotic cells do to produce energy. They lead a "borrowed" life, so to speak.

Prions, on the other hand, are nonliving particles. They are proteins that are capable of misshaping others simply by their contact with them.
bobze
bobze is offline
#13
Feb21-12, 08:12 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 640
Quote Quote by Borek View Post
Trying to classify a virus as living or not is a futile effort. We (Homo sapiens) have a tendency to try to classify everything, even if the classification doesn't make sense and is based on a questionable definitions.
I'd like to second this as well. Whether they are "living" or "non-living" isn't important. We like to shove things in boxes, which sometimes lets us loose sight of the big picture.

People do it when trying to ponder the origins of life as well. Evolution doesn't have a requirement that something be "alive" to evolve--Viruses get by just fine in their niche and evolving without meeting what we deem necessary for something to be alive.
Moonbear
Moonbear is offline
#14
Feb21-12, 08:45 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Moonbear's Avatar
P: 12,257
Viruses fit perfectly in the gray area. I also agree that defining them into living or non-living really has no impact on studying them and what they do. That discussion is mainly useful in the high school biology setting to introduce students to the idea that not everything can be easily categorized and that biological molecules to organisms exist on a continuum.
Pythagorean
Pythagorean is offline
#15
Feb21-12, 08:54 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,214
I see it the other way around. Theoretically, if life is ever formally defined a (i.e. a quantitative set of measurements on a system) it would be interesting to see where viruses fall on the test.
Nik_2213
Nik_2213 is offline
#16
Feb22-12, 12:21 PM
P: 217
I'd class viruses as 'living' because they are obligate parasites. Also, IIRC, viruses do range from stripped-down, minimal monsters to much larger whatsits...
bobze
bobze is offline
#17
Feb22-12, 04:30 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 640
Quote Quote by Pythagorean View Post
I see it the other way around. Theoretically, if life is ever formally defined a (i.e. a quantitative set of measurements on a system) it would be interesting to see where viruses fall on the test.
That's the point though Pythagorean--Life isn't amenable to "definitions", it occurs across a spectrum. Its not binary, its shades of gray.

Probably the most simple and inclusive definition for life we could come up with is something capable of biological evolution.
Ryan_m_b
Ryan_m_b is offline
#18
Feb22-12, 04:34 PM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,351
Quote Quote by bobze View Post
Probably the most simple and inclusive definition for life we could come up with is something capable of biological evolution.
Hmm however by this definition products of genetic algorithms would be classed as alive.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
living beyond possible Special & General Relativity 4
Flow of energy through living organisms Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework 0
Art of Living General Discussion 1
viruses aren't living things but.. Biology 21
What differentiates the living from the non-living? General Discussion 28