Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

478 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dissa Meesa Virus Tween yo Cheeks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682594)

N is for nuts dat got da semen that will impregnate your daughter.
I is for "in yo face", you know we upfront.
G is for guns we got, got a problem bitch?
G is also for grabbing dey crotches, it what we do.
E is for Eazy muthafuckin' E, our lord and savior.
R is for robbery, dey favorite pasttime.

Re:Dissa Meesa Virus Tween yo Cheeks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682604)

100% of GPL is virus. GNU's not usable.

Ob. Matrix quote (1, Funny)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682606)

Humans are a virus!

Re:Ob. Matrix quote (2, Informative)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682658)

Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure. Okay that's done with.

Re:Ob. Matrix quote (5, Funny)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683352)

The moral of the story is, cannibalism really does allow you to take your enemies strength. That's why we eat Jesus' flesh on Sundays, so we can absorb his holy virus and become like God.

Re:Ob. Matrix quote (3, Funny)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683312)

Humans are a virus!

Before the Matrix, there was Bill Hicks: "I'm tired of this back-slapping 'isn't humanity neat' bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay?"

Re:Ob. Matrix quote (1)

robinstar1574 (1472559) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683320)

...one in which needs to dissappear.

Not Bad (4, Funny)

pilsner.urquell (734632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682638)

Eight percent, I consider that a fair return on an investment.

Re:Not Bad (5, Insightful)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682980)

Unless of course it's the 8% that makes you bald as you get older, or makes you susceptible to heart disease or diabetes, or any number of inherited undesirables. Remember, things like sickle cell anemia originated as a defense against malaria. In fact, in TFA it actually suggests an hypothesis:

"These data yield a testable hypothesis for the alleged, but still controversial, causative association of BDV infection with schizophrenia and mood disorders," Feschotte said.

where BDV here is the virus whose DNA they were searching for in the human genome. There you go, if you're depressed, manic or schizophrenic, it could be one of your ancestors got a brain virus.

Re:Not Bad (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30683056)

Unless of course it's the 8% that makes you bald as you get older, or makes you susceptible to heart disease or diabetes, or any number of inherited undesirables.

No, those are the symptoms of our genetic origins as Pak Protectors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pak_Protector

Re:Not Bad (2, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683206)

Sickle cell anemia originated as a mutation. The mutation happens to confer some defense against malaria, so it became widespread in certain geographic areas and is still present in the population.

That's a small difference in phrasing, but it is much clearer.

Re:Not Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30683222)

Unless of course it's the 8% that makes you bald as you get older, or makes you susceptible to heart disease or diabetes

Or it's the same 8% that it also gave to a child rapist whose DNA the cops are looking for.

Re:Not Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30683274)

Eight percent, I consider that a fair return on an investment.

Windows virus?

Yeah and... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682654)

And 50% of CmdrTaco's kid's DNA comes from one of the niggers that his wife plows.

Useful? (5, Interesting)

Kolie (1012967) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682660)

Is any of that DNA in use or are those parts dormant? What effect do these modifications have on us beyond the initial use of replication and further propagation of viruses?

Re:Useful? (1)

shabtai87 (1715592) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682746)

That would be interesting to see which of that DNA actually gets expressed in the cell. scarier thought: what would happen if those parts could be forced to be expressed...

Re:Useful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30683098)

what would happen if those parts could be forced to be expressed...

One becomes immediately compelled to pursue their juris doctor. The horror...

Re:Useful? (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683106)

I believe that movie was called Species

Re:Useful? (5, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683108)

The weird thing is that research is now showing that a lot of the so-called "junk dna" is actually used indirectly. Maybe we like junk food so much because we eat what we are? :-)

But this whole thing isn't all that surprising when you consider where our mitochondria [wikipedia.org] came from.

Re:Useful? (1)

SoapBox17 (1020345) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682780)

From TFA

Feschotte said this virally transmitted DNA may be a cause of mutation and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders. In his article, Feschotte speculates about the role of such viral insertions in causing mutations with evolutionary and medical consequences.

The article doesn't go into much detail, but one type of virus that looked at specifically is a brain virus, definitely interesting implications for mental health research.

Re:Useful? (4, Interesting)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682788)

Back with this story [boingboing.net] first came out I remember reading that DNA introduced by virus is thought to have given us the genes that allow the formation of placenta, which gave rise to mammals.

All the articles from around that time seem to be locked away behind paywalls now.

Re:Useful? (1)

semargofni (1476489) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683104)

LOL - a retrovirus

Mammals (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682858)

Google for placenta and endogenous (as in endogenous virus). The placenta uses a lot of viral code, to the extent that it might be more virus than anything else. It also sheds a lot of viruses. The placenta is almost a different life form.

BTW, the Wikipedia entry shows that the "8%" number was known as long as 6 years ago.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus [wikipedia.org]

Re:Useful? (2, Interesting)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682992)

RTA

The researcher was looking at the Bornavirus (BDV) and its association with Schizophrenia. So yes, it's active and yes it has an effect on us.

Re:Useful? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683062)

The viral DNA that isn't conducive to life would have evolved out. There was a slashdot article not too long ago about a correlation between schitzophrenia and creativity. Being creative would certainly help one's survival.

Re:Useful? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30683322)

"The viral DNA that isn't conducive to death probably stayed in." -- There, fixed that for you.

Re:Useful? (1, Troll)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683204)

This is where a lot of research scientists fail - they don't tell you what a potential (even a far-fetched) real-life application of this knowledge will give us. They don't break it down to "by knowing this we may be able to...". I am a pretty smart guy but reading that article was painful, and all I wanted to know - by the end - was what this information can do for us. It didn't do that - so I am left to say "who cares?" - well i know that this research may lead to other research which may give us benefit, but not everyone will realize that.

What I am saying leads to this - if you want people to care about your work. if you want people to invest more money in your work. then you need to give people a reason they can understand, a reason that is "tangible". Leave the heavy research dialect for experts-only conferences, papers, etc...when someone is interviewing you for an artcle, smarten up a bit and give information that a large audience would appreciate...an audience that may be interested in parting with their money for your research.

Like my PC (5, Funny)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682662)

8% of my Windows code comes from Viruses.

Re:Like my PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682770)

Nono, Windows is a virus where 8% of the code comes from Humans(tm).

Bible Code? (4, Insightful)

Gotung (571984) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682666)

Isn't this "discovery" sort of like the Bible Code? So they searched the human genome and found a bunch of "virus like" patterns. Any sufficiently large set of information is going to give you some matches on just about anything you search for.

Re:Bible Code? (4, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682772)

If you found a scroll in a cave that contained the book of John, would you say that it came from a different source than the book of John in the Bible? That's entirely different from rearranging letters until it says what you want it to say.

Re:Bible Code? (3, Insightful)

Jhon (241832) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683060)

If I found a really big scroll in a cave that contained billions and billions of apparently random letters -- but somewhere in the middle of all that was the text of the book of John (or "The Three Little Pigs" or whatever), I MIGHT suspect it came from a different source, yes.

Infinite monkeys pounding on keyboards [wikipedia.org] over an infinite span of time would create the combined works of William Shakespeare, and all that...

Certainly not saying that's what happened here -- but the GPs question/point isn't entirely without merit.

Re:Bible Code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682832)

Remember that there are in fact two towers. Two minus one is one; one one - 11; two minus one is one; one one, and there are nine members on Silverstein's board of directors. That's nine-one-one. Nine-eleven. And take 2 - 1 + 9/11 and you get 12, which leads us all to the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

Twelve contains the numbers one and two, just like the toilet yesterday where somebody went number two instead of number one! And one and two with 911 and you get 914! Drop the 4 and it's 91! Exactly the score Kyle got on his spelling test twelve days after 9/11! Who has the most to gain from 9/11?! Kyle! Who was nowhere to be found the morning the towers fell?! Kyle! Who dropped the deuce in the urinal?! Kyle! But probably the most damning of all is the evidence seen in this photo of Tower 2! When I zoomed in I saw what first appeared to be a blur, but when I computer-enhanced it, You almost got away with it, you sneaky butt hole.

Re:Bible Code? (3, Interesting)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682836)

Not necessarily.
A virus infects a human. It gets to infect the sperm or egg cell. Insignificant part of genetic code gets replaced.
A child is born with -all- its cells containing the virus-originated code.

Of course the replaced part will be several genes at most, but if the mutation is insignificant or positive, it will remain in all the offspring. Meanwhile this may repeat any number of times and will be perpetuated through ages.

If a defect of lacking one whole chromosome is non-lethal (Down's syndrome), a minor damage to your genome has a really good chance of not affecting your offspring at all.

Re:Bible Code? (4, Informative)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683066)

Actually Down Syndrome (technically Trisomy 21) is having a whole extra copy of chromosome 21 not the lack of one.

Re:Bible Code? (1)

Gotung (571984) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683140)

I know that DNA can be transferred between virus and host.

My point is, how can they say with any certainty that 8% is the number? How do they have any idea what actually came from a virus, and what just happens to match?

The building blocks of each aren't really that much different. How do we know the code for building protein X that is used for part of the virus's wall actually came from it, and doesn't just happen to match the code for building protein Y that is used somewhere in our cells for similar purpose?

The article then goes on to make an association between a virus that only infects brains cells, and this process of DNA transfer. How is the new viral DNA transferred to offspring if it only infects neurons??

Re:Bible Code? (1)

iroll (717924) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683162)

Down's Syndrome generally means that you won't be having any offspring.

Re:Bible Code? (5, Insightful)

2short (466733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682844)

"Any sufficiently large set of information is going to give you some matches on just about anything you search for."

Yes, but not a sufficiently large rate of matches. If the researchers are competent, they can calculate what percent of the data would be expected to match their search even if the data is just random, and decide if the match rate exceeds that by a significant margin. The 'researchers' of the Bible Code were clearly not competent in exactly this way.

As opposed to the paperback book market, Nature does not tend to print whatever comes across it's desk.

Re:Bible Code? (1)

sjs132 (631745) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682976)

But now if I hunt someone down and murder them and get diagnosed as a schizo, then I can blame it on the virus in my head that controlled me. Instant "Get-out-of-Jail-Free" card for 1000's of individuals... I wondered how Arnold was gonna cut costs on prisons and focus on Education.... Now it is starting to become clear.

Viral Death: (c) 2010
(Sing it like a thrash punk song!)

Kill Kill Kill
It's what I do best

Kill Kill Kill
It's a viral test

Kill Kill Kill
Now we got a viral fest

I'll Breed inside your Head
until you drop them dead
Nobody else will know
because I'm in you Gnome

Kill Kill Kill
What a viral fest...

(Lather, rinse, repeat...)

Re:Bible Code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30683094)

Your humor skills need work.

Re:Bible Code? (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683034)

Does anyone read anymore!

They found a specific virus, Bornavirus (BDV).

Think before you speak. You might prevent yourself from looking like a jackass!

Re:Bible Code? (1)

Jhon (241832) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683180)

Think before you speak. You might prevent yourself from looking like a jackass!

Read my post [slashdot.org] . Then take your own advice.

I think the GP is wrong, but certainly not stupid or a jackass -- just an honest GOOD question based on the article.

Re:Bible Code? (2, Informative)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683324)

"Any sufficiently large set of information is going to give you some matches on just about anything you search for."

That's why the bioinformatics tool the Japanese (authors of the original paper in Nature) were using (called BLAST) has a parameter called an e-value for each sequence similarity hit. It's basically a probability to encounter such hit randomly in a database of that size (assuming the sequences in the database are pseudo-randomly distributed).

That evalue for the found matches is less than 1e-70.

Re:Bible Code? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683332)

Sort of. The difference is that in things like the Bible Code you have to jump through hoops to find anything at all, then, when you do, you don't go back and figure out how likely it was that you'd find what you did.

In science, when you do something like pattern matching you figure out how likely it is that you'd find pattern A in dataset B by chance. If it's less than a certain value (5% or 1 time in 20 is often used in biology), then you say it's statistically significant and publish it.

What test subjects? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682672)

No fair when solely investigating the Bush administration, we already concluded that part ourselves!

Not surprising, given how DNA actually works (3, Interesting)

IronDragon (74186) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682684)

This is a fairly good little video that explains how RNA monomers end up naturally forming into longer polymer chains. Roughly 95% of our DNA is basically crap that only exists because at some point in the past, it was better at copying itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Re:Not surprising, given how DNA actually works (3, Insightful)

Gotung (571984) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682948)

Actually I'm pretty sure 100% of our DNA is basically crap that only exists because at some point in the past it was better at copying itself ;)

Re:Not surprising, given how DNA actually works (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683044)

That video is tiresome, not good. And it wastes a couple of minutes attacking creationists (Which simply isn't informative, the religious creationists don't have an interesting point of view, they don't need to be addressed in a video that dives into chemistry).

Re:Not surprising, given how DNA actually works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30683068)

Huh, you're pulling numbers out your ass because it's been proven that "junk" DNA isn't junk DNA at all.

Summary and article misleading (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682688)

These are endogenous virus fragments. Which means that a virus inserted itself into your ancestor's DNA. So you didn't get this new DNA after you were born, you inherited the 8% viral DNA from your ancestors.

Re:Summary and article misleading (1)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682754)

That's more or less exactly what I was going to ask without being bothered to RTFA, so thanks. Frankly, I'm suprised its as low as 8%, I'd have expected more.

Re:Summary and article misleading (5, Insightful)

IronDragon (74186) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682944)

Much like someone who copies the content of their old computer straight over to a new computer every few years. Repeat this process a few billion times, and you'll be quite surprised at the amount of sheer useless crap that just keeps getting copied. Voila! DNA.

Re:Summary and article misleading (1)

The Wild Norseman (1404891) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683136)

Repeat this process a few billion times, and you'll be quite surprised at the amount of sheer useless crap that just keeps getting copied. Voila! 4Chan!

Ah. Now it makes sense...

Re:Summary and article misleading (1)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683138)

Our Lord In Heaven!!! Can you imagine what the Windows Registry is going to look like after 100 generations of copying and updating?

Re:Summary and article misleading (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683210)

Well they've only identified enough to equal 8%

Re:Summary and article misleading (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30683232)

Dammit - my parents were too cheap to use Antivirus. They didn't even use the free version because it "kept slowing them down". Losers. Now I have this virus in my DNA. Ugh!

But I use antivirus!!!! (4, Funny)

master_p (608214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682698)

Doesn't Norton protect me from such stuff?

Re:But I use antivirus!!!! (5, Insightful)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682796)

It does, but as a side effect you are unresponsive 80% of your time.

Re:But I use antivirus!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682884)

Now there's finally an explanation for my wife . . . I'm not oblivious, I'm just running Norton, McAffee and AVG at the same time!

Re:But I use antivirus!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682954)

I would suggest that a condom might protect you from such stuff, but since you're posting on /., never mind...

Re:But I use antivirus!!!! (1)

BForrester (946915) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683186)

You bet it does, and it doesn't retard your system at all. Oh, and first post, by the way!

brain food (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682702)

Does this make the virus top of the food chain?

Re:brain food (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682778)

The virus is now part of your body and doesn't work like a virus just like the steak you ate.

Revelation (5, Funny)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682706)

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here, Mr. Malda. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague and we are the cure.

Re:Revelation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682990)

We already covered the matrix quote, but since you brought it up again. This is so not true anyway. Like every mammal has always lived in perfect harmony or a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. There are countless examples of species going extinct,or groups of a certain species in a closed environment, because they exhausted all natural resources in their environment.

The only difference is that humans are supposedly rational enough to do something about it.

Re:Revelation (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683126)

"...humans are supposedly rational enough to do something about it"

Hahahahahah. Oh stop, please. You're killin' me! Chortle. Chuckle.

Either that, or... (2, Funny)

Nux'd (1002189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682738)

They really need to stop using thier gene sequencers to search for porn.

Poor Summary (5, Interesting)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682768)

The real news here doesn't appear to be that endogenization has occured through our past (OK, maybe the 8% number is news; I don't know about the numbers...) but instead that a virus, bornavirus, is displaying this property. This is news because bornaviruses are not retroviruses (previously the only know virus-types to produce endogenous copies.) Furthermore, the article seems to suspect that this virus may have ties to the schizophrenia and mood disorders...

8% Solution (1)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683030)

I've never seen the 8% number before. What's interesting to me is that viruses that have their entire lifecycle in the neurons somehow infect germ-line cells.

Re:Poor Summary (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30683058)

You're right, the linked article the summary is based on is an opinion piece about this article [nature.com] , and it's not about the proportion of virus DNA in our genome.

The real news from the journal is: "Here we show that elements homologous to the nucleoprotein (N) gene of bornavirus exist in the genomes of several mammalian species, including humans, non-human primates, rodents and elephants...Our results provide the first evidence for endogenization of non-retroviral virus-derived elements in mammalian genomes and give novel insights not only into generation of endogenous elements, but also into a role of bornavirus as a source of genetic novelty in its host."

Re:Poor Summary (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683130)

Not having access to Nature, which of these is true:

1. Viral insertions make up 8% of our genetic material.
2. 8% of our genetic material came from A virus. ONE of them.

#1 doesn't shock me at all based on past whole-genome sequencing efforts - lots of junk DNA is leftovers from some virus that ended up in some ancestor who knows how long ago (or how many species ago even).

#2 would shock me. That is 320M bp of genomic material from one virus. First, I doubt any virus is even that big, although I could certainly see how a smaller virus might generate a lot of DNA that gets stuck in the genome (maybe 500 copies of itself, repetitive elements, etc). Second, that is on the scale of a chromosome worth of material (although even if it all came from one virus it need not all be in one place now).

The wording of the article suggests #2, but that could just be poorly-chosen wording. I suspect that they've found that 8% of the DNA came from a class of viruses, but most likely as a result of many different events over time.

It wouldn't shock me at all to find that an essential gene came from a virus at some point. Viruses and their hosts often have interesting genetic inter-relationships as viruses slice and dice and transfer DNA all the time - often in a haphazard way. A virus might use a host enzyme for one thing, and bring along its own enzyme for something else, or whatever.

Old news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682792)

I thought that it was long accepted fact that retroviruses can change DNA and those DNA changes can then be passed down to future generations. Perhaps I just watch too many sci-fi shows...

Not Buying It (0)

smitty777 (1612557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682810)

So they discovered some gene sequences that are the same in humans and viruses. Well, I probably share about 95% of the same chemicals as topsoil, but that doesn't mean my great-granddaddy was a ball of mud.

Re:Not Buying It (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30683264)

Maybe you should avoid a career in any of the sciences.

Which one? (2, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682816)

Oh wait, the article says "the genomes of humans and other mammals contain DNA derived from the insertion of bornaviruses" plural. My bad.

What a crappy press release (2, Informative)

RNLockwood (224353) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682834)

So 8% of my DNA comes from a virus and not from my ancestors? I guess that means that I was infected with the DNA after conception and for some reason it's not heritable since I didn't get any from my ancestors. The big story, then, is that there is a mechanism that excludes the viral DNA during meiosis.

Dr Feschotte must have cringed when he read the release.

Re:What a crappy press release (1)

grimJester (890090) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683182)

The real story is that 92% of our DNA comes from mutations and not from our ancestors.

Excellent coincidence (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682850)

I woke up this morning wondering how much of our DNA was influenced by viruses.

Turns out it's 8%.

Thanks, slashdot! :D

Huh (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682870)

That explains a lot actually.

Virus my ass, ever hear of metagenes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682872)

There are genes that control other genes, which means that DNA changes itself on its own, depending on certain environmental conditions.

Fate of us all... (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682890)

BornAVirus - EndOVirus.

Wow! (0, Troll)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682898)

So, finally, an explanation for Republicans.

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30683028)

Or democrats that make snarky remarks?

Re:Wow! (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683142)

Nah... he's a Libertarian. Can't ya tell the difference?

Virus? Hardly. (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682914)

I'm quite sure that that 8% was merely introduced into our genetic code by an Intelligent Designer, just to throw scientists off the trail a bit.

Re:Virus? Hardly. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682994)

No, no, you just don't understand. . .

When the Intelligent Designer was creating viruses after man sinned, so that man would henceforth die, he re-used 8 percent of the genetic code *of man* to make the viruses more effective. Yeah. . .that's it. See, Intelligent design isn't just Creationism re-branded. Oh. Wait. . .

Who owns the copyright? (2, Insightful)

codewarren (927270) | more than 4 years ago | (#30682942)

Considering the necessity of viruses to have some "host-like" code within them, is it not just as possible that viruses got most of their code from hosts rather than vice versa?

Jedi knights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30682966)

Never destroy evil completely, balance and al. Maybe we loose little something each time we destroy a horrible disease.

Also, how little do we know about nearly everything. Kids in a sandbox.

Antibiotics kill your midichlorians (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683038)

Antibiotics will prevent us from ever tapping into the force by killing off all our Midichlorians. . .

the OA refed in the OP link is in N&V section (4, Informative)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683004)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/463039a.html [nature.com]

That section is mostly commissioned and if not submissions reviewed by editor (technically, not peer reviewed).

The author of the referred N&V article is the author one of the articles in the reference section...

For peer-reviewed article, I would go for:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08695.html [nature.com]

written by bunch of Japanese:

Endogenous non-retroviral RNA virus elements in mammalian genomes

Retroviruses are the only group of viruses known to have left a fossil record, in the form of endogenous proviruses, and approximately 8% of the human genome is made up of these elements1, 2. Although many other viruses, including non-retroviral RNA viruses, are known to generate DNA forms of their own genomes during replication3, 4, 5, none has been found as DNA in the germline of animals. Bornaviruses, a genus of non-segmented, negative-sense RNA virus, are unique among RNA viruses in that they establish persistent infection in the cell nucleus6, 7, 8. Here we show that elements homologous to the nucleoprotein (N) gene of bornavirus exist in the genomes of several mammalian species, including humans, non-human primates, rodents and elephants. These sequences have been designated endogenous Borna-like N (EBLN) elements. Some of the primate EBLNs contain an intact open reading frame (ORF) and are expressed as mRNA. Phylogenetic analyses showed that EBLNs seem to have been generated by different insertional events in each specific animal family. Furthermore, the EBLN of a ground squirrel was formed by a recent integration event, whereas those in primates must have been formed more than 40 million years ago. We also show that the N mRNA of a current mammalian bornavirus, Borna disease virus (BDV), can form EBLN-like elements in the genomes of persistently infected cultured cells. Our results provide the first evidence for endogenization of non-retroviral virus-derived elements in mammalian genomes and give novel insights not only into generation of endogenous elements, but also into a role of bornavirus as a source of genetic novelty in its host.

Damn it. (4, Funny)

UncHellMatt (790153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683046)

She told me she was TESTED!

Bad summary (1)

saforrest (184929) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683064)

About 8 percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestors

Not at all what TFA says. Sure, originally we must have had ancestors without any viral DNA, but unless the virus infected us personally and not any ancestor, the 8% of genetic material comes from a virus and from our ancestors.

virus genes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30683080)

It is antivirus signature database.

Laundromat time! (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683082)

After reading this, I feel an overwhelming need to run off to the laundromat and get my genes thoroughly washed....

Snowcrash anyone? (1)

McNihil (612243) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683184)

How can this be news is a bit beyond me but then again I have had my coffeeeeeeee.

Gee, my mother told me that it was 50% . . . (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683190)

. . . she called the virus "your no-good father!"

Even more similar to macaca mulatta? (0, Troll)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683224)

It's interesting how did they chose a particular protein in the Supplementary table of the peer-reviewed Japanese article in Nature (first ref in N&V article by the Italian, the N&V reference is in the bottom of the OA).

They chose hit LOC340900

but if you look for the blinks for H1499's nucleoprotein it lists:

PREDICTED: hypothetical protein [Macaca mulatta]

with slightly higher score than the next hit (from Human).

Open source (1)

l0b0 (803611) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683302)

So nature does open source genetic engineering? Sweet!

Seriously though, could this be used to explain some instances of co-evolution?

What about the 12% from worms? (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 4 years ago | (#30683330)

And an additional 33% from SQL injection attacks?

first( pos7! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30683336)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>