Register to reply

Viruses aren't living things but..

by Math Is Hard
Tags: living, things, viruses
Share this thread:
Math Is Hard
#1
Sep4-05, 12:13 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Math Is Hard's Avatar
P: 4,923
I noticed that we give them certain names (I was reading a science journal this weekend about a "phi-6 bacteriophage"). If they don't belong to a kingdom, do they have a domain? If not, what's the classification structure used? Sorry -I am very new at this.
Phys.Org News Partner Biology news on Phys.org
Honey bees sting Texas man about 1,000 times
Study indicates large raptors in Africa used for bushmeat
The microbes make the sake brewery
honestrosewater
#2
Sep4-05, 12:59 AM
PF Gold
honestrosewater's Avatar
P: 2,330
I just thought this was an interesting question and googled a bit. It appears that viruses have their own taxonomy.
Universal, unambiguous virus taxonomy (naming and categorization) is vital for distinguishing the thousands of viruses which have been isolated from humans, animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, and archae.
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTVdb/ICTVdB/index.htm
The ICTV seems to be the head honcho in the virus department. Seventh Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses
Doesn't really answer your question, but maybe it will be helpful later.
Moonbear
#3
Sep4-05, 07:28 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Moonbear's Avatar
P: 12,271
The difficulty with viruses is that biologists just aren't sure if they should be classified as living organisms. For example, they can't reproduce on their own, but instead require host cells for replication, and the retroviruses don't even have DNA but carry only RNA instead. They are distinctly in that gray area between things we can say with certainty are living and things we can say with certainty are non-living.

pattylou
#4
Sep4-05, 09:28 AM
P: 1,036
Viruses aren't living things but..

Classification is based on several things.

-DNA vs. RNA genome
-Single stranded vs. double stranded genome
-Positive vs. negative genome (this means whether the genome codes directly for proteins or whether it needs to be transcrbed or replicated first, to make a "plus strand)
-general coat morphology
-I think the type of host may also play into classification (viruses are extremely host specific.)

There may be some others, for example retroviruses are those that create DNA from RNA and then insert into the host genome.

Some viruses appear to have developed, at least partly, out of genes that were host genes to begin with (cellular oncogenes).

Viruses can pick up host material fairly easily during packaging. As moonbear said, they don't reproduce sexually, so variation in viruses is due solely to mutation and picking up *host* DNA.

Virus classification starts at the level of family for most, and class for a few (if I recall correctly, you may want to check this.) Genera are established (like Herpes) but species names are not always established (again, this is from memory.)

So the classification is not as complete as that for truly living organisms.
JamesU
#5
Sep4-05, 09:58 AM
PF Gold
JamesU's Avatar
P: 745
Quote Quote by Moonbear
The difficulty with viruses is that biologists just aren't sure if they should be classified as living organisms. For example, they can't reproduce on their own, but instead require host cells for replication, and the retroviruses don't even have DNA but carry only RNA instead. They are distinctly in that gray area between things we can say with certainty are living and things we can say with certainty are non-living.
It's weird isn't it? non-living things don't reproduce, however, some don't even have DNA! maybe they should have their own catagorization....

LIVING || Thred life || Viral life || Non-LIVING
Math Is Hard
#6
Sep4-05, 12:21 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Math Is Hard's Avatar
P: 4,923
Thanks, all. This is very helpful. I was just looking at that link Rose posted:
The ICTV has approved 3 orders, 56 families, 9 subfamilies, 233 genera and 1550 virus species. Descriptions of virus satellites, viroids and the agents of spongiform encephalopathies (prions) of humans and several animal and fungal species are included. Finally, a list of unassigned viruses is provided with a pertinent reference for each.
I don't know much about taxonomy but it looks like they are following the same classifications that are used for living things. I'm curious about that 'unassigned' list, and why some of them haven't been classified yet.
honestrosewater
#7
Sep4-05, 05:13 PM
PF Gold
honestrosewater's Avatar
P: 2,330
Danish Kings Play Cards On Fat Girls' Stomachs.
Domain Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species.

Sorry, I want to play along, but I know nothing about viruses. I must sneak in stuff where I can.
pattylou
#8
Sep4-05, 05:19 PM
P: 1,036
Quote Quote by Math Is Hard
I'm curious about that 'unassigned' list, and why some of them haven't been classified yet.
The vast majority of viruses haven't been isolated yet.* The unnassigned list probably has numerous viruses that have been described functionally in one or two papers, and not picked up by anyone interested in taxonomy.

* In a teaspoon of sewage treatment effluent, you can isolate viruses that infect almost any bacterium you'd like. In other words, the diversity is likely far greater than we appreciate. It might not be unreasonable to suggest that there is an order of magnitude more diversity/variety among viruses, than among bacteria. And bacteria put eukaryotes to shame in terms of diversity.
Renge Ishyo
#9
Sep4-05, 08:46 PM
P: 282
Viruses aren't grouped as part of the "phylums" of life because they lack certain key characteristics that all the things we consider lifeforms share. For example, viruses do not have cells of their own. They use the machinery in the cells of the host they infect in order to replicate their DNA code. As far as I know, viruses can't replicate unless they first invade a body and use it's cells.

Of course, none of this will stop people from grouping viruses together based on similiarities or differences and studying their functions. This will inevitably lead to organizational (taxonomic) structures that are very similar to those we have for living things, chemical compounds, etc. Nevertheless, viruses still are not considered "living" if only because they do not meet the minimum criteria for how we define "life."
Math Is Hard
#10
Sep5-05, 01:50 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Math Is Hard's Avatar
P: 4,923
Quote Quote by honestrosewater
Danish Kings Play Cards On Fat Girls' Stomachs. Domain Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species.
That will come in handy!! It's unforgettable! Actually, HRW, I was thinking you might (being the mathophile) enjoy this article I am reading: American Scientist, September-October 2005, "Cheating Viruses and Game Theory". It's all about the role of "cheaters" in the evolutionary process, and the hypothesis that the author came up with is based on mathematical game theory.
Quote Quote by pattylou
It might not be unreasonable to suggest that there is an order of magnitude more diversity/variety among viruses, than among bacteria. And bacteria put eukaryotes to shame in terms of diversity.
From what I have been reading that sure seems entirely plausible. I wonder what the rate of virus mutation is compared with both prokaryotes and eukaryotes?
Quote Quote by Renge Ishyo
Nevertheless, viruses still are not considered "living" if only because they do not meet the minimum criteria for how we define "life."
Agreed. Without a host cell to infect, viruses could be seen as nothing more than a jar of chemicals on a shelf. But what fascinates me is that the ICTV group refers to them as a "biological entity" and even lays out a "virosphere". I am surprised that there hasn't been something like a "pseudo-life" domain created for viruses. Perhaps there is a surreptitious agenda here to create such a thing?
honestrosewater
#11
Sep5-05, 02:31 AM
PF Gold
honestrosewater's Avatar
P: 2,330
Quote Quote by Math Is Hard
That will come in handy!! It's unforgettable! Actually, HRW, I was thinking you might (being the mathophile) enjoy this article I am reading: American Scientist, September-October 2005, "Cheating Viruses and Game Theory". It's all about the role of "cheaters" in the evolutionary process, and the hypothesis that the author came up with is based on mathematical game theory.
Thanks. I'm not sure what they mean by "The study is the first to demonstrate the evolution of irrational, selfish behavior in a biological system." I'll put it on my list.
matthyaouw
#12
Sep5-05, 04:25 AM
PF Gold
matthyaouw's Avatar
P: 1,216
Quote Quote by honestrosewater
Danish Kings Play Cards On Fat Girls' Stomachs.
Domain Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species.
King prawn crackers on fried green seaweed
Kingdom, phylum etc...

I had chinese food cravings all the way through my taxonomy lessons. It was terrible!
hitssquad
#13
Sep5-05, 05:09 AM
hitssquad's Avatar
P: 1,382
Quote Quote by honestrosewater
Danish Kings Play Cards On Fat Girls' Stomachs.
Reclining.
honestrosewater
#14
Sep5-05, 05:24 AM
PF Gold
honestrosewater's Avatar
P: 2,330
Quote Quote by matthyaouw
King prawn crackers on fried green seaweed
Kingdom, phylum etc...

I had chinese food cravings all the way through my taxonomy lessons. It was terrible!
Crackers on seaweed? Wouldn't you put the seaweed on the crackers?
Quote Quote by hitssquad
Reclining
What is that for?
matthyaouw
#15
Sep5-05, 05:39 AM
PF Gold
matthyaouw's Avatar
P: 1,216
Quote Quote by honestrosewater
Crackers on seaweed? Wouldn't you put the seaweed on the crackers?
Only if you want to fail your taxonomy exam
(Here come the chinese food cravings again...)
iansmith
#16
Sep5-05, 06:37 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
iansmith's Avatar
P: 1,430
Quote Quote by Math Is Hard
From what I have been reading that sure seems entirely plausible. I wonder what the rate of virus mutation is compared with both prokaryotes and eukaryotes?
It will depend on the type of viruses. DNA viruses have a mutation rate that compares to their host, so bacterial and archea viruse will have a mutation rate around 10-6 and eukaryote viruses will have a rate around 10-9. RNA viruses have the highest rate of mutation with a frequency of 10-2 to 10-4. The enzyme responsible for synthesising RNA to DNA (Reverse transcriptase) does not have a proofreading mechanism. Hence, higher error rate compare to DNA viruses.
Math Is Hard
#17
Sep5-05, 10:46 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Math Is Hard's Avatar
P: 4,923
That's very interesting, Ian. Do some microbiologists study viruses exclusively - or is that an entirely different field of study?
Math Is Hard
#18
Sep5-05, 10:48 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Math Is Hard's Avatar
P: 4,923
Matthaeiouw has made me hungry for Dim Sum now. I doubt the buses to Chinatown are running today. Darn.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Mythical living things General Discussion 14
Are all things in the universe caused by things that cause things like themselves? General Discussion 10
Living things and cells? Biology 5
Could there be living things under Earth's crust? Earth 0
What differentiates the living from the non-living? General Discussion 28