Did viruses precede other life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter iansmith
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Life
AI Thread Summary
Structural studies indicate that viruses may have a common ancestor dating back over 3 billion years, potentially predating cellular life. Research led by George Rice at Montana State University highlights the structural similarities in coat proteins across various viral types, despite genetic differences. This suggests that the arrangement of these proteins may have existed before the divergence of the three domains of life: Eukarya, Bacteria, and Archaea. The Yellowstone virus studied exhibited significant structural similarities to other viruses, although its proteins showed little resemblance to those in existing databases. This raises questions about the origins of viruses, with discussions suggesting that viruses likely evolved from cellular entities that became more efficient, shedding cellular functions and relying on host organisms for reproduction. The debate continues on whether cells or viruses came first, with some proposing that early DNA particles may have utilized primitive molecular machinery to replicate, eventually evolving into viruses.
iansmith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
1,320
Reaction score
2
Structural studies on ancient virus reveal clues about the evolution of life on Earth | By Cathy Holding



Viruses share a common ancestor that existed over 3 billion years ago and may even have preceded cellular forms of life, according to a report in the May 3 PNAS by George Rice and colleagues at Montana State University.

Based on a comparison of known virus types and an icosahedral virus isolated from a hot spring in Yellowstone National Park, the team found that coat proteins in all viral types that inhabit the three domains of life—Eukarya, Bacteria, and Archaea—have conformational similarities even though the genetics underlying them is quite different.

Nearly all of the Yellowstone virus' 36 predicted open reading frame products showed no significant similarity to proteins in public databases, and so basic structural and assembly principles in this virus were compared instead, revealing an “astounding” similarity with all virus types, according to the authors.

“This suggests that this type of coat protein arrangement preceded the split of the three domains of life over 3 billion years ago,” Mark A. Young, the team's leader and coauthor of the paper, told The Scientist.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040506/01
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biology news on Phys.org
Viruses

How would they reproduce without a working cell to invade? My guess is that cells came before viruses and viruses are actually descended from cells that became more and more efficient at their processes until they shed most cellular function relying on their prey to reproduce for them.
 
Yeah, I agree with mee.

Viruses need organisms to live off of. Therefor viruses couldn't have existed before other life.
 
Technically the viruses do not need an organism to live rather a molecular machinery is need to be provided. The first cell had the same challenge than the viruses, they require some kind of machinery to replicated their protein and genetic code. You have to wonder were the machinery came from. The cellular orgnization was not as it is nowadays, it was probably a loose and choatic system. Therefore some DNA particle could "borrow" the machinery of the loose entities, replicated and spread. These loose DNA particles then probalby evolve intoviruses and adapted to more organize and stringent entities which probably ressemble cell found nowadays.
 
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...

Similar threads

Back
Top