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

I've played enough plague inc to know this ruse

[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] You are correct. It applies in nearly exactly the same way. The laws of natural selection can really be applied to virtually everything, depending on what you're asking. [editline]1st December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=A_Pigeon;46615950]I've played enough plague inc to know this ruse[/QUOTE] I remember when this joke was done with Pandemic. Ah Madagascar, how I knew ye.

[QUOTE=Richoxen;46615853]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.[/QUOTE] Sounds nice in theory, and that could partially be done, but it wouldn't really work. Aside from the fact it's considered unethical from most of the scientific community to engineer a virus and release it, the wild type strains of a virus will generally always survive and outcompete the modified strain. Consider that if you released a less deadly strain, it may have just lost all its virulence factors as well. The reason a strain is deadly in the first place is because it will aggressively outcompete a strain to reproduce. The deadly side effect of the virus isn't something intentional so much as a byproduct of it trying to reproduce. Alternatively, all you may do is introduce a lesser virus which won't compete with the other virus because they don't need to; they may take up a different niche. Furthermore this genetically engineered virus would be as much of an issue if not more than the other because it would survive better, just as you said. And in the game of evolution, that's a step up. It's practically why this entire article about AIDS was written. It's becoming less deadly, but surviving better. Somewhat on the same topic, strains known as "lab strains" are the strains of bacteria generally used for lab experiments. It's the reason we don't get sick looking at a dozen plates of E.coli or Serratia. Because they have nutrients and growth factors supplied, they have no reason to be pathogenic. In a sense, they have artificially "devolved" in a manor that is actually evolving. While they don't cause disease, they grow much faster not having to code for these virulence factors. Which is also of course why they're beneficial to have in lab. However, a [I]lab strain[/I] will not be able to outcompete a [I]wild-type[/I] strain outside of the lab in a natural environment. Lastly, in terms of ethics I can't see any credible research institution doing this. I recall once hearing from a professor about a strain of a virus in Australia with the ability to kill half of the rabbits it infected. However, with a change in just [I]one[/I] base-pair, the virus went from being 50% lethal, to 100% lethal. A 100% lethal virus. If we can't test medications on humans, I can't imagine releasing a modified virus on them either. Anyway, interesting question you had. [editline]2nd December 2014[/editline] [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 would assume that before AIDS was diagnosable or treatable, a short life cycle with aggresive symptoms was advantageous since people were unknowingly spreading it anyway at the same rate. However after more people became aware of the virus over 30 years ago, we've taken preventative measures to stop it from infecting others and slowing it down, which leads the virus to requiring a long term approach.

[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] If you die, the disease dies; it's become less afflictive so you both survive; aka it an propagate to others which is what virii are normally supposed to do.

[QUOTE=J!NX;46615245]Wait so, it's basically just kind of, devolving?[/QUOTE] Devolution is not really a biological concept; the opposite of evolution is stagnation. In terms of evolutionary biology evolution is just a change in a population over time, it doesn't have to be beneficial to the species to be evolution (Even though in this case it could be). [editline]1st December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=GarrysModRP;46616023]the wild type strains of a virus will generally always survive and outcompete the modified strain. [/QUOTE] This has been used to our advantage a few times. A while back I saw a study where they took patients with severally resistant strains off of their meds for awhile, then hit the virus with a broad spectrum treatment after a few generations and had greater effects. [editline]2nd edit[/editline] Apparently it has since fallen out of favor, while the wild type reemerges and can be better treated the long term outcome is about the same. [url]http://www.aidsmap.com/Reversion-to-drug-sensitive-virus/page/1729528/[/url]

[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] You're forgetting that it is counter-productive (in evolutionary terms) for a virus to kill us, and most methods of HIV transmission require a living host to do so. The virus is adapting because being non-lethal (and not manifesting the AIDs symptoms) is actually beneficial for its transmission. So strains that take longer to be detected are transmitted to more hosts, and so on. [editline]2nd December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=imptastick;46616147]Devolution is not really a biological concept; the opposite of evolution is stagnation. In terms of evolutionary biology evolution is just a change in a population over time, it doesn't have to be beneficial to the species to be evolution (Even though in this case it could be). [/QUOTE] This. Evolution is not a directed thing, it just happens, and is mostly random (especially in a viral setting where there is no traditional breeding/swapping of genetic material). The virus is evolving, and actually it is beneficial for everyone involved - Us, because it is less deadly, and it because in evolutionary terms, being less deadly means it is more likely to be transmitted because it is not killing or socially isolating its hosts as easily.

So basically we've domesticated AIDS?

[QUOTE=GarrysModRP;46616023]Sounds nice in theory, and that could partially be done, but it wouldn't really work. Aside from the fact it's considered unethical from most of the scientific community to engineer a virus and release it, the wild type strains of a virus will generally always survive and outcompete the modified strain. Consider that if you released a less deadly strain, it may have just lost all its virulence factors as well. The reason a strain is deadly in the first place is because it will aggressively outcompete a strain to reproduce. The deadly side effect of the virus isn't something intentional so much as a byproduct of it trying to reproduce. Alternatively, all you may do is introduce a lesser virus which won't compete with the other virus because they don't need to; they may take up a different niche. Furthermore this genetically engineered virus would be as much of an issue if not more than the other because it would survive better, just as you said. And in the game of evolution, that's a step up. It's practically why this entire article about AIDS was written. It's becoming less deadly, but surviving better. Somewhat on the same topic, strains known as "lab strains" are the strains of bacteria generally used for lab experiments. It's the reason we don't get sick looking at a dozen plates of E.coli or Serratia. Because they have nutrients and growth factors supplied, they have no reason to be pathogenic. In a sense, they have artificially "devolved" in a manor that is actually evolving. While they don't cause disease, they grow much faster not having to code for these virulence factors. Which is also of course why they're beneficial to have in lab. However, a [I]lab strain[/I] will not be able to outcompete a [I]wild-type[/I] strain outside of the lab in a natural environment. Lastly, in terms of ethics I can't see any credible research institution doing this. I recall once hearing from a professor about a strain of a virus in Australia with the ability to kill half of the rabbits it infected. However, with a change in just [I]one[/I] base-pair, the virus went from being 50% lethal, to 100% lethal. A 100% lethal virus. If we can't test medications on humans, I can't imagine releasing a modified virus on them either. Anyway, interesting question you had. [editline]2nd December 2014[/editline] I would assume that before AIDS was diagnosable or treatable, a short life cycle with aggresive symptoms was advantageous since people were unknowingly spreading it anyway at the same rate. However after more people became aware of the virus over 30 years ago, we've taken preventative measures to stop it from infecting others and slowing it down, which leads the virus to requiring a long term approach.[/QUOTE] Damn ethics, always getting in the way of my ideas. But thanks, that was actually really informative.

[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] It's not so much that HIV is evolving, it's that the strains that are surviving are the ones not killing the host

good thing most of america doesn't believe in evolution, so HIV will have to just stay the same .... because evolution has no practical application other than making people feel anxious about their purpose in life right?

[QUOTE=Mingebox;46616443]So basically we've domesticated AIDS?[/QUOTE] I'll buy a litterbox

This is neat. It's definitely the most advantageous path for a virus or other pathogen to take. I imagine it's how the good bacteria that hang out in our guts and on our skin started out - as somewhat dangerous before simmering down and figuring out (in that weird and sort of indirect way that evolution figures stuff out) that a cooperative relationship gives greater chances of survival than a combative one. I wonder if all pathogenic disease would eventually evolve similarly?

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46616784]It's not so much that HIV is evolving, it's that the strains that are surviving are the ones not killing the host[/QUOTE] That's what evolution is. Evolution is just the compounding result of many generations of natural selection.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;46616443]So basically we've domesticated AIDS?[/QUOTE] Soon we'll have it sent on hunting missions through our veins to destroy cholesterol buildup like packhounds.

[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;46615950]I've played enough plague inc to know this ruse[/QUOTE] I know you're joking, but I probably would have no idea what's going on in this thread if I hadn't played Plague Inc.

People saying this makes it less dangerous are wrong, it makes it heaps worse. The reason this ebola strain spread was because it kills ~60% of people rather than the usual 90%, it kills less and therefore spreads easier.

Does this mean the virus will evolve into something so harmless that it no longer matters if people get infected?

[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] A most efficient illness is the one that spreads infinitely without harming the host as the host will be there for longer to spread it. It's funny but it's in the best interest of these illnesses to be as harmless as possible, because we won't care about them and will let them spread freely.

It's dangerous to view viruses as having "intentions" or evolution as having "goals." Viruses are not sentient and do not "want" to survive longer. It is simply that strains of the virus that are better equipped to survive will survive longer and will replicate until they become the dominant or sole strain of the virus. Viewing evolution as having intentions is as dangerous a premise as something like creationism. The human eye is so capable (although it still has flaws) not because evolution [i]intended[/i] to create a capable eye, but because more capable eyes developed from mutations in genes, and humans with more capable eyes were thus more likely to survive and pass their "capable eye genes" onto their children.

[QUOTE=mokkan;46618185]People saying this makes it less dangerous are wrong, it makes it heaps worse. The reason this ebola strain spread was because it kills ~60% of people rather than the usual 90%, it kills less and therefore spreads easier.[/QUOTE] Well it depends on what you subjectively consider to be 'worse'; more infections and a better prognosis or fewer infections and a worse prognosis

[QUOTE=PolarEventide;46618341]It's dangerous to view viruses as having "intentions" or evolution as having "goals." Viruses are not sentient and do not "want" to survive longer. It is simply that strains of the virus that are better equipped to survive will survive longer and will replicate until they become the dominant or sole strain of the virus. Viewing evolution as having intentions is as dangerous a premise as something like creationism. The human eye is so capable (although it still has flaws) not because evolution [i]intended[/i] to create a capable eye, but because more capable eyes developed from mutations in genes, and humans with more capable eyes were thus more likely to survive and pass their "capable eye genes" onto their children.[/QUOTE] Of course I am personifying an not-even-lifeform that's definitely not sapient about it's evolutionary development, but the effect is as described. The illness that can stay hooked in the carrier all their life without shortening it will be the one that spreads the most and gets to evolve the most. Since (in most places) we don't eat our dead, and don't let other animals eat our dead, killing your human host is a dead end and you don't benefit to the gene pool anymore. Taking it easy, making them sneeze for a bit and then kicking back into dormancy is the way to go. Again, I am well aware I am using a personification on an inanimate object, but this is the way it pans out. Even historically, the initial outbursts of illness, be it bacterial or viral, usually have the worst effect early on and the effects dull and mellow out over time, as the less murderous and potent strains that don't immediately incapacitate their host manage to infect the most of them.

[QUOTE=mokkan;46618185]People saying this makes it less dangerous are wrong, it makes it heaps worse. The reason this ebola strain spread was because it kills ~60% of people rather than the usual 90%, it kills less and therefore spreads easier.[/QUOTE] There are different types of ebola, and the one that has a mortality rate of 90%(zaire) has been the cause of most outbreaks, the other types of ebola have a much lower mortality rate. Ebola reston doesn't even kill humans. Besides, like others said, ebola is a 'dumb' virus and kills its hosts off quickly. You can't compare HIV and ebola in this situation. [editline]2nd December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=PolarEventide;46618341]It's dangerous to view viruses as having "intentions" or evolution as having "goals." Viruses are not sentient and do not "want" to survive longer. It is simply that strains of the virus that are better equipped to survive will survive longer and will replicate until they become the dominant or sole strain of the virus. Viewing evolution as having intentions is as dangerous a premise as something like creationism. The human eye is so capable (although it still has flaws) not because evolution [i]intended[/i] to create a capable eye, but because more capable eyes developed from mutations in genes, and humans with more capable eyes were thus more likely to survive and pass their "capable eye genes" onto their children.[/QUOTE] Which is why it will evolve to cause less and less harm in humans so they survive as long as they can, there are viruses and bacteria that live inside every human that are harmless, but used to be incredibly deadly a very long time ago.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;46618961]The immune system will attack a foreign body regardless of whether it's harmless or not, so a successful virus is going to have to evade or mess with the immune system long enough to move to another host, which usually causes illness as a side effect.[/QUOTE] So a supervirus of the future would be like a forced upgrade to our immune system that makes it treat the virus as its own while simultaneously making us immune to every other infectious disease? Because that would give the virus seriously good chances at the natural selection game.

[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] it's not devolution, it's evolving to be less deadly because it can only be transmitted via body fluids and what good is a dead host [editline]2nd December 2014[/editline] most viruses do not kill their host on purpose and only as a result of the symptoms they produce to transmit to another host, like intense coughing and diarrhea CAN kill but it also transmits the disease to other hosts and is a good tradeoff for the virus, a perfect virus would be able to transmit without causing any bodily damage so that the host can continue infecting others but pretty much every form of transmission requires it to manipulate the body and damage it in some way to create symptoms, it's identical to any species in any habitat that wishes to exist in that habitat without destroying it

Thank you HIV.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;46619188]Or just kill the immune system, works for HIV[/QUOTE] except it doesn't because the host then dies

[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] No, it's actually evolving to become better at spreading. Most diseases don't actually benefit from your death, that's more of an unfortunate sideeffect of them spreading. What is happening is that the disease is able to infect you and spread trough you without actually killing you, thus becoming much better at actually spreading. [QUOTE=Nikita;46618993]So a supervirus of the future would be like a forced upgrade to our immune system that makes it treat the virus as its own while simultaneously making us immune to every other infectious disease? Because that would give the virus seriously good chances at the natural selection game.[/QUOTE] Virii like these already exist. In that they infect you, make it impossible for a number of close viriito target your cells and don't cause anything significantly bad for you.

If viruses evolve to become harmless, why are there still so many harmful viruses?

[QUOTE=Krinkels;46619339]If viruses evolve to become harmless, why are there still so many harmful viruses?[/QUOTE] Theres multiple kinds of strategies to an extent. Remember that the goal of a virus isn't to kill you, it's to propagate itself. Some just do this very aggressively.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;46619350]Theres multiple kinds of strategies to an extent. Remember that the goal of a virus isn't to kill you, it's to propagate itself. Some just do this very aggressively.[/QUOTE] Exactly.