HIV is evolving to become less deadly, and may eventually become almost harmless - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30254697[/url] [quote]HIV is evolving to become less deadly and less infectious, according to a major scientific study. The team at the University of Oxford shows the virus is being "watered down" as it adapts to our immune systems. It said it was taking longer for HIV infection to cause Aids and that the changes in the virus may help efforts to contain the pandemic. Some virologists suggest the virus may eventually become "almost harmless" as it continues to evolve. More than 35 million people around the world are infected with HIV and inside their bodies a devastating battle takes place between the immune system and the virus.[/quote]

Wait so, it's basically just kind of, devolving? in a way? many HIV victims as a result of having HIV are getting more and more effective at combating it with powerful meds + tons of medicine (All to combat aids) so what, basically, by becoming less severe, it's technically extending its lifespan, of course, it's far less deadly as well. I've heard of HIV and it's immunization to medicine/antibiotics so this kinda throws me off.

Makes sense to me.

This doesn't make much sense imo, if it were adapting to our immune systems wouldn't that mean it's learning ways to go around it/becoming stronger? I mean i'm no biodoctorologist but that's what i'd think it would mean.

[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;46615267]This doesn't make much sense imo, if it were adapting to our immune systems wouldn't that mean it's learning ways to go around it/becoming stronger? I mean i'm no biodoctorologist but that's what i'd think it would mean.[/QUOTE] to be fair, we're working really hard to combat the symptoms but if there are none to combat, we won't combat the virus, and might even know we have it

[QUOTE=J!NX;46615245]Wait so, it's basically just kind of, devolving? in a way? many HIV victims as a result of having HIV are getting more and more effective at combating it with powerful meds + tons of medicine (All to combat aids) so what, basically, by becoming less severe, it's technically extending its lifespan, of course, it's far less deadly as well. I've heard of HIV and it's immunization to medicine/antibiotics so this kinda throws me off.[/QUOTE] well, yes, the ones that survive are essentially the ones that have different proteins, those that affect the white blood cells less severely, and as a result, it devolves, and means that it "evolves" at the same time.

[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;46615267]This doesn't make much sense imo, if it were adapting to our immune systems wouldn't that mean it's learning ways to go around it/becoming stronger? I mean i'm no biodoctorologist but that's what i'd think it would mean.[/QUOTE] Either the host dies or uses extremely powerful antiretrovirals to suppress it. Not exactly good strategies for long-term reproduction.

Pathogenic biology is [I]weird[/I]. But, if it means people live their natural lifespans and can live closer to normal lives, good.

[QUOTE=andololol;46615279]well, yes, the ones that survive are essentially the ones that have different proteins, those that affect the white blood cells less severely, and as a result, it devolves, and means that it "evolves" at the same time.[/QUOTE] that makes the most sense to survive the virus must basically be harmless it seems perfectly reasonable. After all, that's what NATURALLY would happen. People with nasty effects don't spread it as much, thus that strand dies out.

[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;46615267]This doesn't make much sense imo, if it were adapting to our immune systems wouldn't that mean it's learning ways to go around it/becoming stronger? I mean i'm no biodoctorologist but that's what i'd think it would mean.[/QUOTE] I think what this implies is that the virus is evolving to survive; killing off the host would just end the wild ride right there unless a necrophiliac came to play. If it's harmless, it will be able to reproduce and infect tons of potential hosts and thrive with it's short-lived children. I'm not a biologist though, I know fuckall about viruses besides what I was taught in Nature and Biology-classes. [editline]2nd December 2014[/editline] gosh, jinxed again!!

[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;46615267]This doesn't make much sense imo, if it were adapting to our immune systems wouldn't that mean it's learning ways to go around it/becoming stronger? I mean i'm no biodoctorologist but that's what i'd think it would mean.[/QUOTE] the point of a virus isn't to kill the host but to spread as much as possible. the host dying is bad for the virus because it dies with the host. if a virus is easily transmitted and does little to no harm to the host then it is perfectly acclimated to the host's immune system

[QUOTE=J!NX;46615245]Wait so, it's basically just kind of, devolving? in a way? [/QUOTE] It's not devolving, it's evolving. It wants to live, not kill people. By being less harmless it only gets to live longer.

[QUOTE=HJ23;46615345]It's not devolving, it's evolving. It wants to live, not kill people. By being less harmless it only gets to live longer.[/QUOTE] Exactly this - but it doesn't "want" anything at all. The stronger variations that kill faster are less likely to spread, because they make the infected develop symptoms earlier and prevent them from spreading it easily. The weaker variations that have less severe symptoms and kill less quickly are more likely to spread, because they can stay under the radar for longer. What's happening is that the really strong variations aren't getting the opportunity to spread, and weaker variations are. So, really, the "strong" variations is weaker than the "weak" variation - less symptomatic and deadly HIV is more likely to survive and spread, so it will beat out the more dangerous type. I don't know shit about viral pathology so it may be vastly different than bacterial pathology, but that's more along the lines of how evolution works. There's absolutely nothing that it "wants" to do, it's just more likely to survive.

[QUOTE=J!NX;46615245]Wait so, it's basically just kind of, devolving? in a way? many HIV victims as a result of having HIV are getting more and more effective at combating it with powerful meds + tons of medicine (All to combat aids) so what, basically, by becoming less severe, it's technically extending its lifespan, of course, it's far less deadly as well. I've heard of HIV and it's immunization to medicine/antibiotics so this kinda throws me off.[/QUOTE] Not really devolving- the purpose of any life form is to survive and reproduce. If the HIV virus can't spread well enough anymore due to drugs being used , then it has to take other strategies. If its surviving and reproducing, its succeeding in evolving.

so is this degeneration?

[QUOTE=.Isak.;46615397]Exactly this - but it doesn't "want" anything at all. The stronger variations that kill faster are less likely to spread, because they make the infected develop symptoms earlier and prevent them from spreading it easily. The weaker variations that have less severe symptoms and kill less quickly are more likely to spread, because they can stay under the radar for longer. What's happening is that the really strong variations aren't getting the opportunity to spread, and weaker variations are. So, really, the "strong" variations is weaker than the "weak" variation - less symptomatic and deadly HIV is more likely to survive and spread, so it will beat out the more dangerous type. I don't know shit about viral pathology so it may be vastly different than bacterial pathology, but that's more along the lines of how evolution works. There's absolutely nothing that it "wants" to do, it's just more likely to survive.[/QUOTE] So its natural selection: virus edition.

Yay, now we don't have to donate anymore, or work for a vaccine. gg guys

[QUOTE=J!NX;46615245]Wait so, it's basically just kind of, devolving? in a way?[/QUOTE] No, it's evolving. Killing the host is not the point of an organism; staying alive is the point of any organism, but some organisms are really dumb and end up killing the host as it replicates itself. This kind of organism is called a virus. Unfortunately for us, viruses end up propagating the species before killing the host, so whether or not they kill the host is sometimes inconsequential to whether or not they reproduce. Whether or not a virus can reproduce can be affected by two main categories: How easily does it spread, and how fast does it kill the host. If a virus spreads really easily, and doesn't kill its host (the cold), it will become super common. If a virus spreads under the correct conditions, but kills its host incredibly quickly (Ebola), it will be less likely to propagate (in humans; we still are trying to find the source of Ebola in Africa. Fruit bat guano has been hypothesized to be the source of Ebola for quite a while. Monkeys too.) The reason Ebola is a complicated virus in terms of crisis-level management, is that it is an extremely dumb virus. It kills most of its hosts within a few weeks of infection, and can only spread once symptoms present. Once they do present, the victim has a few days to live (without treatment). This means that in under-populated areas of Africa, Ebola generally only kills a few people at time, since you could go a few days without contacting anybody outside of your community. However, in highly populated areas (Monrovia), where public health is abysmal and sanitation simply does not exist, infection can occur easily. The people in Liberia have no plumbing. They go outside and simply shit on the ground. Without education, people don't know how to protect themselves against infection. This is what decimated the population of Europe during the black plague: lack of basic hygiene. What this all means for countries like the US is that with correct procedures being taken, a virus like Ebola could be contained. If there is a lack of foresight going into its management, we could end up like Liberia. Now AIDS is a different thing altogether. Nowadays, HIV is very hard to get with protected sex, and even harder to get from heterosexual sex. The highest rate of prevalence is with Male-Male homosexual partners. [url=http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/]Source: CDC[/url]. With drugs that manage HIV better and better, it is no longer a death sentence. And with better public health education, it is becoming harder to get with correct protection and testing. A virus often evolves in a few ways: 1. Become Drug resistant. This protects the virus from being killed, but with a virus like HIV (which would become AIDS if drug resistance is developed), this would actually lessen the chance of reproduction since AIDS victims would die, or otherwise NOT lead normal lives of having sex, etc. 2. Develop new means of spreading (I.e, become airborne). For some reason, in this event, viruses tend to lose virulence ([url=http://www.virology.ws/2014/09/18/what-we-are-not-afraid-to-say-about-ebola-virus/]Source: Virology.ws, 1[/url], [url=http://www.virology.ws/2012/03/01/influenza-h5n1-is-not-lethal-in-ferrets-after-airborne-transmission/]2[/url]). 3. Become less lethal. As stated before, less lethality means higher chance of spreading. It also means that humans are less likely to try to kill it. In fact, some humans [i]go out of their way to get sick[/i] with relatively harmless viruses, so as to obtain the virus early on and develop and immunity to it. So-called "pox parties" are where parents will knowingly infect their children with chicken pox, so that the child doesn't get it later on in life. One could not imagine such a measure for HIV or AIDS.

Kind of interesting timing but my mother, who's a nursing research professor, just gave a speech tonight at a university talking about HIV and aids and she saying that HIV and Aids are increasing in occurrence in Africa and the United States, despite three decades of trying to fight it. If you've got HIV aids in the United States or any major developed country you are still better off because of the retrovirus treatments that are now available basically get you to the point that you won't die from the virus, but that doesn't do you any good if you don't get the retrovirus. Only 1 in 14 children with aids in Africa get the treatment. Also it isn't sex that transfers HIV in the US, it is mostly from IV drug use. In my state the majority of infected people got the virus through their drug use. Here in Indiana you can get your retrovirus medication for free as well but it is still a growing problem, not a shrinking one.

[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;46615267]This doesn't make much sense imo, if it were adapting to our immune systems wouldn't that mean it's learning ways to go around it/becoming stronger? I mean i'm no biodoctorologist but that's what i'd think it would mean.[/QUOTE] Well a virus is all about proliferation, not necessarily destroying it's host. I've always wondered why we haven't found more beneficial viruses, always seemed odd that they all seem to be about killing us, woulda thought there would be greater evolutionary fitness in tweaking and improving the host.

Interesting how my Microbiology professor was just talking about AIDs today while we discussed pathogenicity. Anybody who reads this and thinks it's good news doesn't understand the concept of viral evolution. Organisms don't "intentionally" devolve naturally if they are successful; Viruses themselves don't "intend" to kill the host. In the game of evolution, it's all about what works best. It's a balance between exploiting the host, while maintaining replication and transmission. As some have mentioned, it's not devolving, it's evolving. When you consider that AIDs is becoming more resistant to treatment and less deadly, it leads to a virus which is harder to detect, and easier to spread now that you're still alive. A virus which kills its host too easily is ineffective if it can't transmit to a new host. If an AIDs infected individual dies, the virus can't replicate. If the individual doesn't die (and better yet doesn't show symptoms), it can be transmitted to a new host. You're looking at a virus without a vaccine for over three decades, that's becoming more resistant to treatment, and able to spread between more individuals without them knowing. Way to go nature, you win again.

This sounds eerily similar to how the Andromeda strain ended up.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;46615435]so is this degeneration?[/QUOTE] More like discarding properties that has unwanted effects on it's lifespan.

[QUOTE=bravehat;46615585]Well a virus is all about proliferation, not necessarily destroying it's host. I've always wondered why we haven't found more beneficial viruses, always seemed odd that they all seem to be about killing us, woulda thought there would be greater evolutionary fitness in tweaking and improving the host.[/QUOTE] i asked myself this question a while ago, the problem is, life loves the lowest level of energy required, so while a virus might have a greater survival chance improving its host and making it more transmitable, its much easier to build up trillions of itself and shotgun to the next host, bacteria however are interesting in that there are overwhelmingly more helpful ones than bad ones which is at odds with what viruses do [editline]1st December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=GarrysModRP;46615603]Interesting how my Microbiology professor was just talking about AIDs today while we discussed pathogenicity. Anybody who reads this and thinks it's good news doesn't understand the concept of viral evolution. Organisms don't "intentionally" devolve naturally if they are successful; Viruses themselves don't "intend" to kill the host. In the game of evolution, it's all about what works best. It's a balance between exploiting the host, while maintaining replication and transmission. As some have mentioned, it's not devolving, it's evolving. When you consider that AIDs is becoming more resistant to treatment and less deadly, it leads to a virus which is harder to detect, and easier to spread now that you're still alive. A virus which kills its host too easily is ineffective if it can't transmit to a new host. If an AIDs infected individual dies, the virus can't replicate. If the individual doesn't die (and better yet doesn't show symptoms), it can be transmitted to a new host. You're looking at a virus without a vaccine for over three decades, that's becoming more resistant to treatment, and able to spread between more individuals without them knowing. Way to go nature, you win again.[/QUOTE] ya but in the end, does it matter if people aren't developing AIDS? i mean its still reproducing and taking resources, but if its not a death sentence and doesn't really impact the host then is it not any worse than gut-bacteria who reproduce through our shit

[QUOTE=bravehat;46615585]Well a virus is all about proliferation, not necessarily destroying it's host. I've always wondered why we haven't found more beneficial viruses, always seemed odd that they all seem to be about killing us, woulda thought there would be greater evolutionary fitness in tweaking and improving the host.[/QUOTE] Viruses aren't always parasitic depending on which side you analyze. In fact there are some mutualistic viruses. For instance, the Polydnavirus are a family of insect viruses that occur in wasps. They contain Ichnoviruses (IV), and Bracoviruses (BV). Interestingly, evidence suggests they evolved independently of each other. However, the virus infects a wasp and inserts into its genome and it only rarely replicates in a particular part of the ovary. When the infected wasp finds a caterpillar in which to lay its eggs, it transmits the virus. The virus alters the immune system of the caterpillar to prevent the phagocytic hemocytes from killing the eggs. Furthermore, the virus alters the host's development and metabolism to be beneficial for the parasite eggs. So maybe its mutualistic for the wasp, but not so much for the caterpillar. Of course, we can also make use of artificially modified viruses for reasons such as DNA insertion through a suicide vector from lambda phage into E.coli to code for different metabolic pathways, antibiotic resistance, etc. [editline]2nd December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;46615660]i asked myself this question a while ago, the problem is, life loves the lowest level of energy required, so while a virus might have a greater survival chance improving its host and making it more transmitable, its much easier to build up trillions of itself and shotgun to the next host, bacteria however are interesting in that there are overwhelmingly more helpful ones than bad ones which is at odds with what viruses do [editline]1st December 2014[/editline] ya but in the end, does it matter if people aren't developing AIDS? i mean its still reproducing and taking resources, but if its not a death sentence and doesn't really impact the host then is it not any worse than gut-bacteria who reproduce through our shit[/QUOTE] Well, for one we actually need our intestinal flora for a plethora of reasons. Many people would argue your transient gut-bacteria are mutualistic bacteria. Without it, you would be more prone to actual disease causing bacteria. It's one reason babies can get sick easier is because they don't have the natural flora yet to protect them from otherwise opportunistic pathogens in their gut, and the same reason why you can get a yeast infection from antibiotics that kill your gut-bacteria. However I don't see AIDs having anything but a parasitic relationship. I suppose if you're concerned with dying from AIDs it's not such bad news, but as an overall approach to the virus, it's an issue.

Most other infections aim to just infect and kill the host as long as they have a method to spread to another host It's pretty impressive that this one is being selected for longevity. I suppose the more leathal ones don't allow the host to survive long enough to spread it. I wonder, if it has gone through enough generations to actually notice a change in "behavior", then does this mean that there isn't enough being done to prevent acquisition of it in the first place?

I wonder if we could intentionally evolve deadly viruses to survive better, but be less deadly. Then release them in an attempt to breed out the deadlier strain.

What confuses me is that, to the virus right now, not being so deadly is an evolutionary advantage. If not killing us is literally better for the virus, how (and why) did it evolve to be so deadly in the first place?

[QUOTE=Nikita;46615894]What confuses me is that, to the virus right now, not being so deadly is an evolutionary advantage. If not killing us is literally better for the virus, how (and why) did it evolve to be so deadly in the first place?[/QUOTE] I imagine in other organisms that it infected, the host's reproductive cycle (& life cycle) were short enough for it to spread at a favourable rate. Once it started infecting humans the host would probably stop procreating as unsafely once they were aware of the infection until they died. In other words, I believe that if it transitions into a state that is less deadly and causes less symptoms, it will spread more efficiently as the host may not be as knowing towards being infected

People don't realize this but most viruses in the human body are harmless. It makes sense, really. If they kill their host, they all die too, so in order to reproduce more effectively they need to keep the host alive. The process of natural selection applies to even viruses.