What's new

New Covid strain spreading across the UK that's less likely to cause symptoms

My (probably flawed) understanding is that mutations are copying errors and therefore random. It's not like recombination where two viruses intentionally swap stuff. By that logic, a virus could become more dangerous as easily as it could become less dangerous?

Personally, I struggle to believe it's that simple and something more isn't going on. Doesn't evolution teach us that life tries to find a way? No, I'm not getting in to a discussion on whether viruses are actually "alive". Lol But many of those who know were concerned long ago that mass vaccination, if not done right, could put evolutionary pressure on the virus and cause mutations. How, if it's only random errors?

Surely a viruses purpose is to infect, replicate, reinfect. Isn't that born out by the constant increase of transmissibility of virtually every variant? Haven't seen a less transmissible variant come out yet, have we? Evolution is about adaption, right?

Was chatting to a doctor the other day and he echoed what I've heard repeatedly from medical professionals; Covid will become no different to the flu. There'll be new versions of it, vaccinations will go on, it'll mostly take the old, and if we're really lucky over time it'll become less harmful.

But like most things in life, there's rarely any guarantees?

i think because the random error that creates a successful variant is purely down to chance. this variant had a factor that made it more transmissible, or able to survive longer outside it’s host, or some other factor that leads to it being more viable than the other variants in circulation.

i don’t think there is any reason that this is more likely to be design, than chance.
 
Extended family members (in Wales), husband, wife and two children had covid 3 months ago, now off self isolating again, pending PCR test results, is that the new strain, wtf :hmm:
 
Personally, I struggle to believe it's that simple and something more isn't going on. Doesn't evolution teach us that life tries to find a way? No, I'm not getting in to a discussion on whether viruses are actually "alive". Lol But many of those who know were concerned long ago that mass vaccination, if not done right, could put evolutionary pressure on the virus and cause mutations. How, if it's only random errors?
Doesn't the "life find a way" bit enable the best/suitable/survivable of the random errors?
 
Doesn't the "life find a way" bit enable the best/suitable/survivable of the random errors?

i think this is it. i’m not sure if there is any reason to think that “more deadly” would contribute to “survivable”. is this not how historic pandemics have eventually passed, by mutations that coincidentally increase transmissibility while causing less serious symptoms?
 
Doesn't the "life find a way" bit enable the best/suitable/survivable of the random errors?

What exactly are these random errors though, I have brain fog today, it's probably already been explained :hmm:
 
What exactly are these random errors though, I have brain fog today, it's probably already been explained :hmm:
Genetic material "makes" a thing. When it reproduces, the genetic material may mutate and produce a thing that is "better" or "worse".
 
Doesn't the "life find a way" bit enable the best/suitable/survivable of the random errors?
Yes, I would think so. Less transmissible would probably end up in extinction, more deadly could kill the host before transmission, potentially. But even so, if it's all just random why don't we ever see limited spikes in certain areas with a limited worse strain that eventually just burns itself out? Surely our testing capability would pick it up? Seems all the variants improve the viruses capabilities to endure. Which would suggest it's not *only* random errors at play but also evolutionary drive to survive?

But granted, we never know how many mutated variants die out before becoming a problem, and without detection.
 
What exactly are these random errors though, I have brain fog today, it's probably already been explained :hmm:
Viruses replicate, a bit like cloning. DNA checks the information being copied during replication to avoid copying errors. RNA doesn't check so makes copying errors. Errors lead to variants.
 
Viruses replicate, a bit like cloning. DNA checks the information being copied during replication to avoid copying errors. RNA doesn't check so makes copying errors. Errors lead to variants.

Now that we have examined influenza viral RNA synthesis, it’s a good time to step back and look at a very important property of this step in viral replication. All nucleic acid polymerases insert incorrect nucleotides during chain elongation. This misincorporation is one of the major sources of diversity that allows viral evolution to take place at an unprecedented scale. Put another way, viruses are so successful because they make a lot of mistakes.

Nucleic acids are amazing molecules not only because they can encode proteins, but because they can be copied or replicated. Copying is done by nucleic acid polymerases that ‘read’ a strand of DNA or RNA and synthesize the complementary strand. Let’s start by examining DNA synthesis. Below is a DNA chain, which consists of the bases A, G, C or T strung together in a way that codes for a specific protein. In this example, the template strand is at the bottom, and consists of the bases A, C, C, T, G, A, C, G, and G (from left to right). A DNA polymerase is copying this template strand to form a complementary strand. So far the complementary bases T, G, G, A, and C have been added to the growing DNA chain. The next step is the addition of a T, which is the complementary base for the A on the template strand:


So far all is well. But all nucleic acid polymerases are imperfect – they make mistakes now and then. This means that they insert the wrong base. In the next step below, the DNA polymerase has inserted an A instead of the correct G

Insertion of the wrong base leads to a mutation – a change in the sequence of the DNA. In general, it’s not a good idea to make new DNAs with a lot of mutations, because the encoded protein won’t function well (but there are exceptions, as we will see). But in this case, there is a solution – DNA-dependent DNA polymerases (enzymes that copy DNA templates into DNA) have proofreading abilities. The proofreader is an enzyme called exonuclease, which recognizes the mismatched A-C base pair, and removes the offending A. DNA polymerase then tries again, and this time inserts the correct G:

Even though DNA polymerases have proofreading abilities, they still make mistakes – on the order of about one misincorporation per 107 to 109 nucleotides polymerized. But the RNA polymerases of RNA viruses are the kings of errors – these enzymes screw up as often as one time for every 1,000 – 100,000 nucleotides polymerized. This high rate of mutation comes from the lack of proofreading ability in RNA polymerases. These enzymes make mistakes, but they can’t correct them. Therefore the mutations remain in the newly synthesized RNA.

Given a typical RNA viral genome of 10,000 bases, a mutation frequency of 1 in 10,000 corresponds to an average of 1 mutation in every replicated genome. If a single cell infected with poliovirus produces 10,000 new virus particles, this error rate means that in theory, about 10,000 new viral mutants have been produced. This enormous mutation rate explains why RNA viruses evolve so readily. For example, it is the driving force behind influenza viral antigenic drift.

Here is a stunning example of the consequences of RNA polymerase error rates. Tens of millions of humans are infected with HIV-1, and every infected person produces billions of viral genomes per day, each with one mutation. Over 1016 genomes are produced daily on the entire planet. As a consequence, thousands of mutants arise by chance every day that are resistant to every combination of antiviral compounds in use or in development.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of error-prone nucleic acid synthesis in RNA viral evolution and disease production. We’ll spend the next two days examining the consequences of error prone replication. First we’ll consider the implications for viruses as a population, and then we’ll discuss the outcome when a virus produces an RNA polymerase that makes fewer mistakes. Please bear with me as we diverge slightly from influenza virus; these concepts will be an important and enduring component of your toolbox of virology knowledge.

https://www.virology.ws/2009/05/10/the-error-prone-ways-of-rna-synthesis/
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom