<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for profvrr</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/profvrr/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/profvrr/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2018 13:34:13 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Viral glycoproteins are not always randomly distributed</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2018/08/16/viral-glycoproteins-are-not-always-randomly-distributed/#comment-4045731136</link><description>&lt;p&gt;They localize at the tips of virus particles in the absence of cells.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2018 13:34:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Living on the edge of parasite inevitability</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2018/05/31/living-on-the-edge-of-parasite-inevitability/#comment-3929547607</link><description>&lt;p&gt;There is no evolutionary selection for longevity. All that matters for organisms, from single to multicellular, is to reproduce. After that, and raising offspring, nothing else matters. Humans can probably biologicaly live to 120 years but most do not for a variety of reasons. One day we will probably extend that but I agree that other adaptations will be required. See 'Oxygen' by Nick Lane for a great treatment of this topic.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2018 00:15:36 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Humpback whale respiratory virome</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2018/05/17/humpback-whale-respiratory-virome/#comment-3927985277</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Not yet published, but a preprint is available: &lt;a href="https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201805.0184/v1" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201805.0184/v1"&gt;https://www.preprints.org/m...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 02 Jun 2018 15:04:53 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: TWiV 489: CD4 Hunter</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2018/04/15/twiv-489-cd4-hunter/#comment-3861229985</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Download links for iOS or Android are in the show notes. They are mobile games, not desktop games.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2018 12:20:48 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Long read sequencing reveals poxvirus evolution through rapid homogenization of gene arrays</title><link>https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/01/09/245373#comment-3704871054</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Currently discussing this paper on This Week in Virology with Nels! Up Sunday.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:26:29 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Trial By Error: The School Absence Study, Revisited</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2018/01/02/trial-by-error-the-school-absence-study-revisited/#comment-3690233154</link><description>&lt;p&gt;If anyone is having trouble with their comments not showing up here, please send me an email and I'll add your email to the whitelist. vincent@virology.ws&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:18:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Your face matters to science</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2017/06/29/your-face-matters-to-science/#comment-3393169729</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think it's not just a face that would attract people to science communicators, and this study did not address any of them. Voice, nostalgia, patience are some of them, as you say. Frankly I don't think it matters what you look like. If people like what you are doing, they will stay.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:01:24 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The first human virus discovered</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2017/06/14/the-first-human-virus-discovered/#comment-3363499155</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thank you, I've fixed the error.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:28:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Intestinal dysbiosis in ME/CFS patients</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2017/04/27/intestinal-dysbiosis-in-mecfs-patients/#comment-3281607008</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is the first step. Next, you can check the plasma of patients to see if the predicted metabolite alterations are observed. If you wanted to get microbial samples from the intestinal wall - an invasive procedure - your study would be very very difficult, if impossible to achieve with the same number of patients.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2017 08:12:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Intestinal dysbiosis in ME/CFS patients</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2017/04/27/intestinal-dysbiosis-in-mecfs-patients/#comment-3280801277</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Gut bacteria produce metabolites which are absorbed into our circulation and used; an example is vitamin K. When specific bacteria are missing, one can look at the genes these bacteria have, what metabolites they would normally produce and what would therefore be missing.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 29 Apr 2017 15:22:41 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: I have always marched for science</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2017/04/20/i-have-always-marched-for-science/#comment-3271237208</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thank you Kevin for the kind words. I know that I should not need validation of these activities, but I thought in a virology class that there would be more enthusiasm. Perhaps the students don't yet appreciate how important science is to everyone's lives, but so fragile if we don't support it.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:47:21 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The viruses in your blood</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2017/03/23/the-viruses-in-your-blood/#comment-3221131433</link><description>&lt;p&gt;My guess is that it is cell associated DNA (inside the cells or stuck to them). I agree that the blood virome is probably larger - other studies suggest that. I have an email in to Eric Delwart who can hopefully provide more information. The methods section is very thin on how the DNA was prepared - not good! Science papers are supposed to enable you to repeat the results.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:45:51 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Viral RNA is not infectious virus!</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2017/02/17/viral-rna-is-not-infectious-virus/#comment-3161593987</link><description>&lt;p&gt;(+) strand RNA is indeed infectious, but only when introduced into cells under certain conditions. Such RNA is not infectious under the conditions of a plaque assay, nor is it likely to initiate infection in another person by transmission. The non-infectious RNA detected by plaque assay is likely fragments of RNA, not the entire genome - PCR only assays for short stretches of RNA.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:17:31 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bacteriophage superspreaders</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2017/02/10/bacteriophage-superspreaders/#comment-3148321651</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Reasons for phages to direct degradation of host DNA include to increase the pool of substrates for DNA replication, and eliminate competition for the DNA synthetic apparatus. The authors did not mention if restoring nucleases to the superspreaders would improve replication.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:41:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Virology lectures</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2009/11/26/virology-lectures/#comment-2954826339</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I've updated the link to &lt;a href="http://virology.ws/course" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="virology.ws/course"&gt;virology.ws/course&lt;/a&gt;, where the lectures are updated every year.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:48:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Virology lectures</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2009/11/26/virology-lectures/#comment-2954825824</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I update the lecture videos each year at &lt;a href="http://virology.ws/course" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="virology.ws/course"&gt;virology.ws/course&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:47:57 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Twenty-five lectures in virology</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2016/05/05/twenty-five-lectures-in-virology/#comment-2808838415</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I will be revising my Coursera courses, virology I and II, based on these new lectures, in the fall of 2016.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 15:38:38 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Are viruses alive?</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2016/06/15/are-viruses-alive-2/#comment-2733271672</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I understand what you mean. Humans make up their own definitions, what do they really mean? But because I'm very involved with viruses, I had to give my own opinion here.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:05:12 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Antibodies to dengue virus enhance infection by Zika virus</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2016/04/27/antibodies-to-dengue-virus-enhance-infection-by-zika-virus/#comment-2647927338</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Just because something is expected, does not mean that the experiment to prove it should not be done. This experiment was essential (many others are also doing it) and more work needs to be done to validate it in animals and humans. I understand your desire to understand mechanisms, but first the basic observations have to be obtained.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:44:48 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: A promising Ebolavirus antiviral compound</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2016/03/03/a-promising-ebolavirus-antiviral-compound/#comment-2569517223</link><description>&lt;p&gt;What exactly are you asking?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:11:06 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Zika virus and the fetus</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2016/02/23/zika-virus-and-the-fetus/#comment-2535853274</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I am not aware of reports of viruses invading the fetus secondary to developmental damage. I've added to this article the PLoSNTD paper you sent which describes Zika virus RNA in a case of fetal demise. Thank you for sending this.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:12:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Scientists, share your Zika virus reagents!</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2016/02/12/scientists-share-your-zika-virus-reagents/#comment-2511536739</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I do understand export regulations (although in cases of new outbreaks such as Zika, these somehow have to be overcome). Even within the US (in my experience) investigators are not willing to share reagents. This is absurd, and has to do with egos. Most universities will let investigators share materials under a 'Materials Transfer Agreement' or MTA. In my experience at Columbia these are easy to get and are not an impediment to sharing.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2016 09:24:51 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Zika virus and microcephaly</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2016/02/10/zika-virus-and-microcephaly/#comment-2508684819</link><description>&lt;p&gt;We do still have this issue that Zika infection elsewhere does not seem to be causing microcephaly - but maybe that's a reporting or other issue. I've heard that re-examination of the Yap Island outbreak has revealed microcephaly, but I haven't seen those data. Other co-factors, including genetic background, other infections, environmental toxins, all seem to be involved. Of all the microcephaly reported in Brazil, we don't know the Zika status of most of the mothers and babies. I think the above cases show that Zika *can* cause microcephaly; whether it always does, and whether many of the cases have other causes, remains to be determined. It's not at all clear that Zika is causing all the microcephaly in Brazil.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:03:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Zika virus and microcephaly</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2016/02/10/zika-virus-and-microcephaly/#comment-2508680466</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Sure, exacerbation of Zika infection by a previous flavivirus is certainly possible. At the moment we don't have data to look at that possibility. Note that some of the cases in the above article were tested and found negative for dengue virus, so that wasn't involved. But in other cases it's possible.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:00:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Zika virus and microcephaly</title><link>http://www.virology.ws/2016/02/10/zika-virus-and-microcephaly/#comment-2508364562</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thank you for pointing this out. Very interesting! We should not forget that we learn a great deal from non-human viruses.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">profvrr</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:15:27 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>