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!

New Virus Jumps From Monkeys To Lab Workers

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the thanks-for-that dept.

Medicine 160

sciencehabit writes "It started with a single monkey coming down with pneumonia at the California National Primate Research Center in Davis. Within weeks, 19 monkeys were dead and three humans were sick. Now, a new report confirms that the Davis outbreak was the first known case of an adenovirus jumping from monkeys to humans. The upside: the virus may one day be harnessed as a tool for gene therapy."

cancel ×

160 comments

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

Death may be here soon... (0)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776198)

What after everybody is Dead?

Re:Death may be here soon... (0)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776302)

Then we sue!

Gene Therapy? (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776748)

Unlikely. It will be weaponised for more desperate, enormous profits.

Re:Death may be here soon... (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777204)

dead people need to sue too.

Re:Death may be here soon... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776828)

What after everybody is Dead?

Somehow, I'm forced to suggest an alternative.

The fact that they're releasing Rise of The Planet of the Apes [imdb.com] in a couple of weeks seems apropos here. :-P

Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776202)

You forgot about AIDS. [youtube.com]

Re:Duh (1)

squidguy (846256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776250)

yeah, except that probably involved something more like Goatse, rather than simple proximity between humans and primates.

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776426)

yeah, except that probably involved something more like Goatse, rather than simple proximity between humans and primates.

Anal stretching? While i know you mean goat sex, you still deserve to be moded down. Too bad i am out of point.

Re:Duh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776652)

Is it still "sex" if the entire animal is inside the orifice in question? In other news, who's ready for lunch?

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776516)

A monkey spread his arse incredibly wide and farted HIV into everyone's face?

Re:Duh (2)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776720)

No, it involved a vaccination program with SIV-tainted products.

Re:Duh (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777254)

Having been permanently damaged by viewing the goatse meme a good number of years ago, I still seem to remember that the analogy would be more as if she had had the whole monkey shoved up her ass a few times. Which in HIND sight is more logical, since the monkeys in question in this case look like they must have really small dicks. And she couldn't have infected them if she wore a strap on.

free Planet of the Apes publicity (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776208)

One must wonder if this story has been released to create publicity for the reboot Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Oh what could possibly go wrong. (-1, Troll)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776214)

Lets keep tampering with genes, viruses, mutagens 'privately', without scrutiny of public eye in private corporation's faraway labs as much as we can.

after all, what can possibly go wrong.

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776280)

The California National Primate Research Center. Hmm, does that sound like it's owned by a private corporation or the US Government? I know, lets make a bunch of retarded, baseless accusations under the assumption that it is without first taking 5 seconds to look it up.

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776352)

But... he does this... FOR SCIENCE!

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776388)

The California National Primate Research center is a United States federal government funded biomedical research facility.

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776440)

the comment was not specific to this incident. your view is too narrow.

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776460)

comment had a broader horizon than your narrow look. you could have spared 5 seconds to think broader.

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (2)

Angostura (703910) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776520)

Oh, I assumed that the posting was caused by the spasming bought on by the force with which your jerking knee it your chin.

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776404)

The persuit of knowledge is dangerous. Experimentation with practical application even more so.

But you know what happens if we don't take these risks?

Nothing.

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (3, Insightful)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776484)

Worse than that.
If clever well funded scientists under careful observation do this there is a none zero chance of danger. However they will publish their findings and the state of the art will advance.
If you make it illegal to do this kind of research then someone somewhere will tinker with it.* They are much more likely to make mistakes and skip safety protocols.
Nothing significant will be learnt from their findings (because they can't publish) but we will face all the danger of their mistakes.

*They may be elite scientist working for military/uber-pharmaceutical company or they may be a less than fully talented fringe scientist in some less well funded/observed company/country - neither of those options are reassuring.

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777636)

"none zero"? Are you trying to say "non-zero"? "Non" rhymes with "gone" and "none" rhymes with "sun".

That sentence should be:
      "If clever, well-funded scientists under careful observation do this, there is a non-zero chance of danger."

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (4, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776412)

From Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]

The California National Primate Research Center (CNPRC) is a United States federal government funded biomedical research facility, dedicated to improving human and animal health, and located on the University of California, Davis, campus.

Yeah, sounds just like a private lab far away from the scrutiny of the public eye. Hell, the freshmen might even have trouble getting into the lab for late-night makeout/pot smoking sessions! Doubt it, though.

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (4, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776608)

Nothing more than could go wrong with natural evolution over the the same course of time.

See, we have these things called DNA, that occurs naturally, and these things that happen to it called mutations, that occur naturally, and every time we wipe something out or solve a problem, we "force" the organism (indirectly) to move to a mutation that survives. In doing so, nature does the same things as we would do, except more efficiently, more quickly, more randomly and under far less control.

Wait 50 years. AIDS will be back, in a slightly different form. Bird flu will be back. Swine flu will be back (it is already, in various mutated forms that we can't treat). MRSA will be back (because MRSA is basically nothing more than an evolved bacteria).

30 years ago we hadn't even heard of MRSA or AIDS and today they are present most of the world. Guess what'll happen 30 years from now, especially if we eradicate either of those and leave lots more potential human hosts living for longer with freedom to copulate more than previously?

Nothing we do in genetics, or even huge tracts of biology, isn't happening too, now, around you, this second, under far, far less control. And guess what? If we don't tinker with it ourselves, we have no way to detect, understand, treat and cope with any of those natural changes that have a devastating effect on people (i.e. we'd be able to do fuck-all about AIDS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, even just simple cancer). Cancer is a naturally-occurring mutation that makes a single cell out of billions in your body go ape-shit and not stop reproducing.

Despite all that, statistics show that people have NEVER lived as long as they do now (and cancer survival rates are phenomenal compared to even 10 years ago). All that's because of people tinkering.

Basically, your argument would make more sense reversed - why aren't we tinkering more? Tinkering helps, yet nature destroys and keeps coming back and back and back and attacking us with new things all the time that we take DECADES to understand.

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776822)

Well said. Nature's unchecked experimentation is far more horrifying and rewarding then anything man can come up with. While we can often come up with marvels and directions nature might not have gone, the scope and timeline of what we have done so far is a joke. It is hubris in the most apt sense of the word to think we can outproduce nature at this point.

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (1)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777340)

Actually, humans can target certain mutations specifically and accomplish things nature might or might not have a mutation path to.

Things like making certain parts fluorescent and such. In nature there is an implied improvement in survival and/or reproduction that preserves a mutation and propagates it onward. Humans can create mutations that provide no such advantages.

But the difference is that as human pursue these various mutations, there can be unintended side effects and consequences. Things like bacteria that excrete alcohol for biofuels that happen to like to live in the soil and feed off plant matter. Their alcohol excretions can kill living foliage. If those bugs manage to get out of their scientific/industrial homes and escape into the wild - and survive - then we have created a path to wipe out vegetation.

I think that kind of scenario is along the lines of what people fear. Sure, nature could also come up with a bug that feeds off plant matter, excretes alcohol, and loves to live in the soil. But humans have already done it and now it is a liability if it ever gets out.

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (2)

Jeng (926980) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776656)

It is when science goes in unexpected directions that progress is made.

So in a way "What could possibly go wrong" is the desired result.

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776844)

Nature works on the exact same principal. THAT is what evolution is.

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (3, Funny)

Troy (3118) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777092)

Except when the answer to that questions is "zombies."

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777096)

Why? It's great!

You have cancer?
Use Public Transport and get cured for free!
(You might get the sniffles free on top)

Little known fact (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776282)

I heard it was the Umbrella division at the CNPRC where this initially happened.

Re:Little known fact (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777062)

The lab is too cheap to have a free condom vending machine in the washroom? Or was it removed because of budget cuts?

Re:Little known fact (1)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777538)

Are you suggesting they had sex with the infected monkeys?

Damn dirty apes! (2)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776292)

You damned dirty apes!

Yay! (0)

Dan East (318230) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776312)

The upside: the virus may one day be harnessed as a tool for gene therapy.

Oh, I feel so much better now knowing there is an upside! And here I was worried that a virus totally new and thus unrecognized by the human immune system might wipe out the bulk of the human race. Silly me.

Re:Yay! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776358)

RTFA - it was essentially harmless to us.

Re:Yay! (5, Insightful)

geek (5680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776374)

Why would it "wipe out the bulk of the human race"? We encounter new viruses every year and our immune systems adapt. The workers in question didn't die either. How do you make the leap from a simple virus in an ape jumping to a few isolated humans to it wiping out the human race? Been watching too many movies? How would this be different than say, avian or swine flu? Somehow because it comes from an ape suddenly we're all doomed? Grow up.

Re:Yay! (2)

liquidweaver (1988660) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776602)

Life tip - I completely agree with your retort, the parent doesn't understand well how the immune system works. But the ad hominem at the end is not necessary, mate, and will make any audience side against you.

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776780)

Life tip - I completely agree with your retort, the parent doesn't understand well how the immune system works. But the ad hominem at the end is not necessary, mate, and will make any audience side against you.

Do you have any racist uncles or grandparents? Ever try telling them to stop being racist because it'll turn bystanders against them?

Telling a 4-digit-ID user on /. to change their approach is similarly futile, I think.

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776966)

Logic tip - That wasn't ad hominem, it was just a simple personal attack. It only becomes ad hominem if you attempt to build an argument on that personal attack, which geek did not. Don't get me wrong, though. Insults are not (usually) valid arguments and they can certainly be inappropriate, but they are not automatically ad hominem, either. In fact, some of the greats in philosophy famously sprinkled their counter-arguments with carefully-worded (and frankly well deserved) ridicule.

Re:Yay! (2, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776718)

The "new" viruses you refer to are mutations of existing human viruses - they are more the same than they are different. When a virus jumps species the risk is that it is different enough to not be efficiently recognized by the immune system. Our immune systems are already "pre-primed" with antibodies to viruses we have already encountered, and that gives us a significant advantage in fighting off the "new" viruses you refer to, which are generally minor mutations.

Re:Yay! (1)

geek (5680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777020)

All viruses are mutations of past ones. It's called evolution. Whether it's from one species to another, they are all mutations of past virii. We call them new because they are new mutations, not because God suddenly said "Let there be Virii!" Even species jumping virii have to do battle with our "pre-primed" immune system because there is very little it hasn't seen before, in one form or another. You act as if our bodies have never come into contact with virii from other species before.

Re:Yay! (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777440)

Following your argument, humans can successfully mate with a tiger, since we at some point originated from the same primordial soup.

Also, the reason for the h1n1 scare, was we humans have tried that interspecies thing before, notably during ww1 where millions died of the Spanish flu.

Also, the h1n1, unlike most virii, did more damage to young people than normal, suspicion is our immune system had not seen this strain before, where as older people might have been primed in outbreaks before 1970.

Re:Yay! (1)

geek (5680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777520)

That doesn't follow my logic in any way shape or form. You should learn some of the basics of biology before attempting to make that analogy. Interaction with other species and contract germs/viruses is a far cry away from mating with them. But lets take your example anyway and then point out the Mule and the Liger. There are of course other examples.

Re:Yay! (1)

bioster (2042418) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777622)

Following your argument, humans can successfully mate with a tiger, since we at some point originated from the same primordial soup

No, following his logic you could shoot a tiger with an elephant gun. Just the gun wouldn't work as well on a tiger as it works on an elephant.

Re:Yay! (2)

cbdougla (769586) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776948)

The book, The Hotzone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hot_Zone), tells a story about a strain of Ebola that became known as Ebola Reston that was discovered in a research facility in Reston, VA in 1989.

It was an airborne strain that spread from monkey to monkey much like the Flu and was extremely fatal to the monkeys. But while it could (and DID) infect a human, it had no ill effects. The scary thing is that there are other strains of Ebola that are fatal to humans (Ebola Zaire).

Anyway, it's a little bit frightening how close we came here to an easily transmitted airborne virus that is fatal to 50 to 90% of the people who get it within 3 weeks of contraction. Yes, I know it would not wipe out the bulk of the human race...probably. But there are reasons we have pandemic plans in place and while things like the Bird and Swine flu have been blown out of proportion in recent years, the truth is that nature could throw us a curve ball at any moment and everyone who dismissed the bird and swine flu (including me) would be in for a surprise.

Re:Yay! (1)

geek (5680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777250)

Point taken, but I think that you're looking at the little picture and not the big one. Viruses have been evolving with us for millions of years (ok hundreds of thousands in our case). While a "curve ball" as you say is possible, it's also very unlikely. The last major curve ball was probably the "black plague" which put a big dent in society but was also highly treatable, only our ignorance kept us from treating it properly. We're much better about these things now.

You could say that AIDs was a curve ball. It's certainly killed enough people. We didn't handle it well in the beginning and as a result we're now seeing many people die from it which could have been avoided. But AIDS taught us a great deal. Combating these illnesses isn't just about the immune system. We have tools a simple virus can never have; intelligence.

The airborne Ebola is interesting though. I am by no means an expert on the subject but it fascinates me. Microscopic killers are always an interesting study.

HIV (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777596)

Yeah, one percent of Caucasians are immune to HIV. Not 1% of people, just 1% of caucasians. HIV goes airborne, bye bye human race that can't afford drugs, which is 99.9% of them once demand goes to 100%.

Adaptability rarely happens over a short period with slowly reproducing creatures. Virii, reproducing at an unimaginably faster rate can adapt faster. It's a race we can never win.

Re:HIV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777722)

...creatures. Virii, reproducing at...

Hmm:

Dictionary.com: virii - no dictionary results
m-w.com: virii - The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary...

So unless you like sounding like a fucking tool to the rest of the world, how about just using the correct form of the plural instead of being a poser? (The correct form, incidentally, is "viruses.")

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776394)

I agree. The bulk of the human race will be wiped out, but those who are left will develop some very nice gene therapy.

There's always a silver lining...

Re:Yay! (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776518)

I like the irony that the gene therapy developed would save you from the virus you created in the research. So by terminating the research you don't develop the cure you'll later need ;-)

Poste friste (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776316)

Forst poust

28 days later (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776324)

the zombies will be everywhere!

species-jumping (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776338)

We don't really understand the biology of virus jumping species, do we? Other than the few documented cases of some viruses, that is - i.e., this virus x has done it before.

Re:species-jumping (1)

geek (5680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776448)

Avian flu, swine flu, the list goes on and on. Virii are just as, if not more, resilient than we are. We share genetic similarities in enough species than jumping from one to another happens frequently among virii. Everything from AIDS and Ebola to influenza. We are every bit a part of the animal kingdom as pigs, dogs, cats, apes and birds. We're subject to all the same biological curiosities and horrors.

Re:species-jumping (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776946)

No matter how correct your post may be, as soon as you type "Virii" all credibility does out the door.

Re:species-jumping (2)

geek (5680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777076)

I happen to like the word. It's much nicer than "viruses"

beastility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776758)

... so the lab worker butt fscked a monkey?

Zombie movies are holding back science (1)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776342)

I bet there will be the usual "I am legend" zombie jokes now. Seriously, while there are dangers in using a virus for gene therapy .. most viruses .. in fact a good 99% of them are handily defeated by the immune system. Also not all viruses spread easily. Furthermore when they are used in gene therapy their genes are removef are severely crippled

Re:Zombie movies are holding back science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776416)

Zombies aren't real...

But a virus wiping out most humans could spread very rapidly. If it spreads for a few weeks with no symptoms, and then has a 99.99% fatality rate, we would be in trouble.

Re:Zombie movies are holding back science (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776592)

Actually a 99.9% fatality rate wouldn't even put us into trouble. 0.1% survival still leaves millions of humans alive to repopulate. We're like cockroaches at this point.

Re:Zombie movies are holding back science (1)

JohnnyBGod (1088549) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776492)

I was actually thinking about "28 Days Later", but "I Am Legend" can work too.

Re:Zombie movies are holding back science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777488)

I thought The Stand, but that really dates me and King's endings make me crabby.

Re:Zombie movies are holding back science (2)

ByteSlicer (735276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776556)

in fact a good 99% of them are handily defeated by the immune system

Actually, most of them would easily defeat the immune system. But they evolved not to do so, since a dead host doesn't make a good vector...

Re:Zombie movies are holding back science (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776562)

In the novelette, the vampire disease blows in on the wind.

So blame present-day Hollywood, not "I am Legend".

Re:Zombie movies are holding back science (3, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776734)

The lab monkey as desease vector scenario bares far more resemblance to 28 Days Later than "The Last Man on Earth/Omega Man/I am Legend"

Phew! (1)

Jethro (14165) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776362)

That's a relief, I was worried it'd be a computer thing.

Re:Phew! (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777718)

Surely. Yawn.

Call me when a virus jumps from a Mac to a human.

sounds a bit like the marburg virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776432)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_virus

Lack of numeracy, AGAIN (1)

omb (759389) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776480)

This article, of the flavor of scientists (found|suggest) x ->y, when it was TOO LATE to get a single DNA sample!

Instead of a CarbonTax we need a FauxScienceClaptrapHotAirTax. There is far too much of it.

28 days later... (0)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776494)

Almost the entire population of Britain is wiped out, save for a few lucky survivors.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/ [imdb.com]

Don't have sex with the lab monkeys!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776504)

Especially not the sick ones. Sheesh, how hard is that?

28^W525 days later (0)

kmdrtako (1971832) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776512)

I can haz apocolyse

note to self (1)

spongman (182339) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776524)

note to self: steer clear of monkeys.

Re:note to self (1)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777624)

note to self: steer clear of monkeys.

You're doing it wrong, mate. Steer at monkeys, hit them, and save the day, Bruce Willis style.

Begin the countdown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776530)

Here comes the zombie apocolypse

Quickly, (1)

Adaeniel (1315637) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776726)

Someone must inform Madagascar!

Infected with WHAT?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776730)

...rage...

Raising revenues (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776740)

So maybe, in retrospect, accepting a private offer for the monkey on lab tech porn wasn't such a great way to fund the lab after all. Damn budget cuts.

Music to die to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776834)

Time to queue up Don't Fear the Reaper [youtube.com]

Wrong summary (2, Informative)

pesho (843750) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776862)

The summary has the article on it's head. Did the poster or the editors actually read the article??? The virus did not jump from the monkeys to the humans, but the other way around. Sick lab worker was the source of the virus, which jumped on the monkeys. As this was a completely new pathogen for them, they had no immunity and most of the infected animals died. This is typical 'small pox blanket' story.

Re:Wrong summary (1)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776910)

With the new Planet of the Apes movie coming out...

Small pox blankets (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776974)

"This is typical 'small pox blanket' story."

The phrase "small pox blanket", while applicable to cases where the disease was spread accidentally via blankets, is better reserved for those cases where disease-carrying blankets were deliberately used as vectors of infection against enemy peoples, such as the seige of Fort Pitt [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Small pox blankets (1)

pesho (843750) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776988)

agreed

Re:Wrong summary (5, Informative)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777044)

I think you read the article wrong.

The original source of the infection was perceived to be the rhesus monkey, because it was the only thing with antibodies that wasn't sick (and thus was presumed to be the carrier). The virus either passed from rhesus to human to titi, or from rhesus to titi to human.

Either way, a monkey made a human sick. The article specifically points out that this isn't a common human ailment, so it didn't originate in a human. A human wasn't the "source" of the virus. That's the entire reason it's usable for gene therapy; humans don't already carry antigens for it so we won't immediately kill it if it is introduced into our body with a beneficial payload. Theoretically. After all, even with no previous human exposure, the humans in this case managed to kill it off in four weeks.

Re:Wrong summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777374)

I think you read the article wrong.

either passed from rhesus to human to titi, or from rhesus to titi to human.

Titties?

Re:Wrong summary (1)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777066)

"After testing the other monkeys at the primate center, which houses hundreds of enclosures, the researchers found one healthy rhesus macaque with TMAdV antibodies. That suggests the disease might have arisen in the macaques"

Re:Wrong summary (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777156)

Not quite that simple. I didn't even read the article and the summary had me scratching my head. That large number of dead monkeys and the humans are merely "ill"? It sounded backwards to me. So I looked at the articles.

Not that they could be blamed for not at lealst doing a quick reading. After opening the links you can see that the article says monkey->human transtion. The journal states it was likely not native to the monkeys, implying Human->Monkey (or possibly, human->monkey->human), in the summaries, but adds more research is needed to confirm the direction of species jumping.

Re:Wrong summary (1)

lahvak (69490) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777608)

There are two articles linked in the summary. The actual "summary" itself is actually nothing but the first paragraph of the Science article, copied verbatim, with two links added to it.

The second linked article appeared in PLoS Pathogens, it is the actual research article reporting on the case, and while it does not specifically identify the vector of infection, leaving open even the possibility of introduction of the infection by a non-primate species, they clearly state: "Several lines of evidence support the contention that the direction of TMAdV transmission was zoonotic (monkeys to humans) rather than anthroponotic (humans to monkeys)."

While I am not sure whether the poster or the editors read any of the articles, I would definitely recommend you to read them before posting here.

I for one... (0)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36776912)

... welcome our new human killing viral monkey overlords. Better than those DAMN DIRTY APES!

Shades of "The Hot Zone" ... ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36776984)

If any of you out there find this interesting, I suggest you would enjoy
Richard Preston's excellent book "The Hot Zone". In the book
there is a discussion of how Ebola virus escaped the confines of
a biosafety containment level 4 lab in Fort Detrick MD.

It's a damned good read.

*phew* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777050)

Glad it wasn't 12 monkeys...(I'm sure someone else said this already)

"Within weeks"? (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777150)

What they meant to say was "28 Days Later".

teh zombies (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777224)

analyzed lung tissue samples from the dead monkeys and identified a never-before-seen adenovirus, which they named titi monkey adenovirus (TMAdV), or "T-virus."

What could possibly go wrong? (0)

ficuscr (1585141) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777234)

Hasn't Hollywood taught us anything?

Workers never listen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36777498)

When I said to inject the monkey, I meant with the needle!

In other news... (1)

ATestR (1060586) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777694)

New Virus Jumps From Infected Computers To IT Workers.

Not the first time (2)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#36777706)

This happened back in 1987 at NAMRL (Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory) where 3 handlers (plus one of the handlers' wives - the first human-human transmission) were infected with B-virus (cercopithecid herpesvirus 1, Herpesvirus simiae), two of which later died. From what I was told (from health care workers that cared for them at the time) it was quite a horrible way to die; herpes lesions covering almost their entire bodies.

http://www.brown.edu/Research/Primate/lpn26-3.html

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>