Are All Virus Particles from Infected Cells Infectious?

  • Thread starter Thread starter physicsdawg
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Not all virus particles produced from infected cells are infectious, as some may be damaged or incomplete, rendering them non-infective. The question's ambiguity stems from whether "produced" refers to all particles generated or only those that can replicate. Clarification from the instructor is advisable due to the question's poor wording. The discussion leans towards interpreting the question as asking about the infectivity of all virions produced by an infected cell. Understanding the nuances of viral replication and particle integrity is crucial in answering this question accurately.
physicsdawg
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Question about viruses ...

Homework Statement



The question is true or false: All virus particles produced from infected cells are infectious.



Homework Equations



conceptual

The Attempt at a Solution



I find this to be very confusing. On the one hand, some virions are non-infective if they become damaged or are missing part of the genome in the infected cell. I know that a virus particle is non-infective if it cannot replicate, but am not sure if 'produced' means replicated.

Is the question saying this: A cell is injected with a virus. Are all virus particles that replicate infectious?

or is it saying. A cell is injected with a virus. Are all the virus particles from this injection in the cell infectious.

what are your thoughts on the answer
 
Physics news on Phys.org


This is a poorly worded question. I would recommend emailing your instructor to ask for clarification. My best guess is that there is some line of text in the book that is the answer to this and that the person who wrote the question is just trying to see if you read that section but didn't bother to think about what the question would mean generally.

That said, I would lean towards your first idea...that it is asking if all virions produced by an infected cell would be infectious or not.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
9K
Back
Top