News: Viruses that adapted to high temperatures may jump species more easily.
Ye Old One
Sunday, December 27, 2009 17:53 IST
Washington: A team of scientists is all set to investigate whether
viruses that have adapted to higher temperatures can jump species more
easily, which could shed light on the characteristics of
host-switching viruses such as the avian flu or H1N1.
The team, which consists of a computational biophysicist, an
evolutionary biologist and a mathematician, is from the University of
Idaho.
According to Marty Ytreberg, professor of physics and the
computational biophysicist of the group, "If it turns out that our
idea is right, it could have enormous implications."
The virus being studied is known as bacteriophage X174.
It was the first genome ever sequenced and often is used by scientists
who study evolution because it has a small genome and multiplies
quickly.
This allows mutations and evolution to occur rapidly.
Through previous experiments together, the team observed mutations
that allow the virus to survive in higher temperatures might also
increase the stability of the capsid - the protein shell that encloses
the genetic material of a virus.
If true, this increased stability may make the virus more mutable,
more likely to mutate and thus have an increased ability to jump
hosts.
To test the theory, the virus will be subjected to mutations that are
known to enable it to survive at higher temperatures.
Then, the team will investigate if this ability results in more
stabilizing mutations than the original strain that lives at lower
temperatures.
The team also will investigate whether or not the stabilizing
mutations allow the virus to switch hosts more easily.
For this project, Ytreberg will use computational modeling to analyze
if the mutations stabilize the capsid.
Paul Joyce, professor of mathematics and statistics, will use
statistical and spatial modeling to explore how these beneficial
mutations spread through a structured environment.
--
Bob.
All-seeing-I
> Viruses that adapted to high temperatures may jump species more easily
>
> Sunday, December 27, 2009 17:53 IST
>
So they are going to subjected it to mutations that are already known
to enable it to survive at higher temperatures so they can see it will
subject itself to mutations?
What bologna
Glenn
> Viruses that adapted to high temperatures may jump species more easily
>
> Sunday, December 27, 2009 17:53 IST
>
>
> Washington: A team of scientists is all set to investigate whether
Perhaps you aren't aware that posting whole articles is a no-no?
Ye Old One
It is not.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Burkhard
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:09:51 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Dec 28, 1:21 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> Viruses that adapted to high temperatures may jump species more easily
>
> >> Sunday, December 27, 2009 17:53 IST
>
> >>http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_viruses-that-adapted-to-high-t...
>
> >> Washington: A team of scientists is all set to investigate whether
> >snip
>
> >Perhaps you aren't aware that posting whole articles is a no-no?
>
> It is not.
>
> --
> Bob.
Well, technically that rather depends on the license the original
website uses. Creative commons/public domain etc type of licenses
typically allow unlimited reuse. With all others it depends. In this
particular case, DNA has an "all rights reserved" notice which means
unless explicitly granted, re-publication is normally prohibited.
They sell the article rights through 3D syndication, so of course, if
you have bought the rights from them or have a copyright subscription
to their service, you can repost to the extend that license allows. If
not, then you are technically violating their IP rights, though
enforcement of this is virtually non-existing (though apparently, the
Murdoch empire is developing software that automatically detects
unlicensed republication and issues take down notices.)
Posting the link only is best practice, as it does not undermine the
advertisement based business model of the original publishers.
Glenn
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:09:51 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
Thank you, I just couldn't resist the temptation of changing the
subject.
el cid
I disagree, on the very last paragraph. Posting a link only is
yet another spam posting. If someone understood the story, they
could comment on it (in their own words which is apparently not
within somebody's abilities), explaining why they think it is
important, what is controversial (if that be the case), perhaps
what the implications are. Even something personal about how
the article inspires one, makes them feel etc. would be
better than simply posting a link or brain dead cut and pasting.
Many have, of course, said the same before, but at least I'm
composing this fresh with all the typos and mangled grammar
(misplaced commas and annoying parentheticals) which are sadly
not unique to my style.
Glenn
But you are disagreeing with a strawman.
Glenn
I apologize. I don't know what came over me.
Ye Old One
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On 29 Dec, 11:46, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:09:51 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 28, 1:21 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> >> Viruses that adapted to high temperatures may jump species more easily
>>
>> >> Sunday, December 27, 2009 17:53 IST
>>
>> >>http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_viruses-that-adapted-to-high-t...
>>
>> >> Washington: A team of scientists is all set to investigate whether
>> >snip
>>
>> >Perhaps you aren't aware that posting whole articles is a no-no?
>>
>> It is not.
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>
>
>Well, technically that rather depends on the license the original
>website uses. Creative commons/public domain etc type of licenses
>typically allow unlimited reuse. With all others it depends. In this
>particular case, DNA has an "all rights reserved" notice which means
>unless explicitly granted, re-publication is normally prohibited.
May work in India, does not work outside.
>They sell the article rights through 3D syndication, so of course, if
>you have bought the rights from them or have a copyright subscription
>to their service, you can repost to the extend that license allows. If
>not, then you are technically violating their IP rights,
I do assure you that no rights are being violated.
> though
>enforcement of this is virtually non-existing (though apparently, the
>Murdoch empire is developing software that automatically detects
>unlicensed republication and issues take down notices.)
He may try. Though how they would issue one on usenet is beyond me :)
>
>Posting the link only is best practice,
No, because very few stay there.
> as it does not undermine the
>advertisement based business model of the original publishers.
--
Bob.
Glenn
Burkhard
Ah, but that is not a legal issue, and my comments were only on that
aspect - common sense is outside my professional field of
competence ;o)
Burkhard
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:00:54 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 29 Dec, 11:46, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:09:51 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >On Dec 28, 1:21 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> >> Viruses that adapted to high temperatures may jump species more easily
>
> >> >> Sunday, December 27, 2009 17:53 IST
>
> >> >>http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_viruses-that-adapted-to-high-t...
>
> >> >> Washington: A team of scientists is all set to investigate whether
> >> >snip
>
> >> >Perhaps you aren't aware that posting whole articles is a no-no?
>
> >> It is not.
>
> >> --
> >> Bob.
>
> >Well, technically that rather depends on the license the original
> >website uses. Creative commons/public domain etc �type of licenses
> >typically allow unlimited reuse. With all others it �depends. In this
> >particular case, DNA has an "all rights reserved" notice � which means
> >unless explicitly granted, re-publication �is normally prohibited.
>
> May work in India, does not work outside.
You might want to consult the Berne convention and the 1996 WIPO
Copyright Treaty that clarifies its application to the internet. In
the UK, the Copyright, Design and Patent Act implements the relevant
provisions domestically. India, the US (as google's legal seat) and
the UK are all signatories to the Berne convention and thus recognise
each others copyright regimes
> >They sell the article rights through 3D syndication, so of course, if
> >you have bought the rights from them or have a copyright subscription
> >to their service, you can repost to the extend that license allows. If
> >not, then you are technically violating their IP rights,
>
> I do assure you that no rights are being violated.
>
You might want to reconsider this. Try Hector MacQueen, Graeme
Laurie, Charlotte Waelde, Abbe Brown: Contemporary Intellectual
Property: Law and Policy OUP 2007 Especially Chapter 3 for a down to
earth introduction ot the issue.
Our Journal also has frequent articles on the topic here:
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/scripted.aspx
if you want to keep up to date.
> > though
> >enforcement of this is virtually non-existing (though apparently, the
> >Murdoch empire is developing software that automatically detects
> >unlicensed republication and issues take down notices.)
>
> He may try. Though how they would issue one on usenet is beyond me :)
>
2 targets: the archives, and in particular google for the infringing
content. The ISP of the infringer under the controversial "three
strike rule" currently debated .
el cid
> On 29 Dec, 14:14, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 8:00 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Posting the link only is best practice, as it does not undermine the
> > > advertisement based business model of the original publishers.
> > I disagree, on the very last paragraph. Posting a link only is
> > yet another spam posting.
> Ah, but that is not a legal issue, and my comments were only on that
> aspect - common sense is outside my professional field of
> competence ;o)
I think that not enough attention is paid to common sense.
Just today I was trying yet again to grasp the issues involved
in Bell's Theorem, the Copenhagen Interpretation and the EPR
paradox all of which entangle with this this whole issue
of not being able to simultaneously know a particles momentum
and position and abstractions about an observer.
How does this relate to common sense?
There seems to be a similar principle at work in the universe
that balances the validity of a common sense observation
and the ability of others to recognize it contemporaneously.
To support this hypothesis, I suggest that one be a parent
to teenagers in need of common sense advice and to then
wait about 10 years, though the principle works with
siblings, co-workers and students. At root this works as
an inequality so while there is a prohibition for
instantaneous recognition, there's no guarantee that
recognition (observation) of common-sensical advice will
happen within the lifespan of the universe.
I'm convinced there's a unified field theorem in there
somewhere as the gravity of the advice matters.
john wilkins
Common sense is the combination of primate sensory dispositions and the
shared cultural assumptions of your early years, that's all. If the
latter included quantum phenomena, it would become common sense.
el cid
That sir, is a neo-Jungian corruption of my Platonic ideal.
Further, it takes me a full day of drinking to get here
while you philosophers can do it while drinking a morning
coffee, and that's just not right.
john wilkins
I greatly object to being called Jungian, even of the neo variety.
Ye Old One
I am.
>
>> > though
>> >enforcement of this is virtually non-existing (though apparently, the
>> >Murdoch empire is developing software that automatically detects
>> >unlicensed republication and issues take down notices.)
>>
>> He may try. Though how they would issue one on usenet is beyond me :)
>>
>
>2 targets: the archives, and in particular google for the infringing
>content. The ISP of the infringer under the controversial "three
>strike rule" currently debated .
>
>>
>>
>> >Posting the link only is best practice,
>>
>> No, because very few stay there.
>>
>> > as it does not undermine the
>> >advertisement based business model of the original publishers.
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>
--
Bob.
Burkhard
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:23:35 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
1928, at which point the latest your claim "May work in India, does
not work outside" became wrong the latest, I somehow doubt if your
self assessment is accurate.
Xavier Onnasis
news:c503390a-1331-4a32...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 29, 4:54�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 29 Dec, 14:14, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Dec 29, 8:00 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> > > Posting the link only is best practice, as it does not
>> > > undermine the advertisement based business model of the
>> > > original publishers.
>
>> > I disagree, on the very last paragraph. Posting a link only is
>> > yet another spam posting.
>
>> Ah, but that is not a legal issue, and my comments were only on
>> that aspect - common sense is outside my professional field of
>> competence ;o)
>
>
> I think that not enough attention is paid to common sense.
science abandoned common sense centuries ago
(now we use math instead)
<standard disclaimer>
I'm pretty sure I pirated this gem from some other
now forgotten (by me) poster in this group
</standard disclaimer>
>
> Just today I was trying yet again to grasp the issues involved
> in Bell's Theorem, the Copenhagen Interpretation and the EPR
> paradox all of which entangle with this this whole issue
> of not being able to simultaneously know a particles momentum
> and position and abstractions about an observer.
>
> How does this relate to common sense?
>
> There seems to be a similar principle at work in the universe
> that balances the validity of a common sense observation
> and the ability of others to recognize it contemporaneously.
> To support this hypothesis, I suggest that one be a parent
> to teenagers in need of common sense advice and to then
> wait about 10 years, though the principle works with
> siblings, co-workers and students. At root this works as
> an inequality so while there is a prohibition for
> instantaneous recognition, there's no guarantee that
> recognition (observation) of common-sensical advice will
> happen within the lifespan of the universe.
>
> I'm convinced there's a unified field theorem in there
> somewhere as the gravity of the advice matters.
>
>
UNIFIED FIELD THEORY
By Tony Nardo
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/old89/relativity.858.html
In the Beginning there was Aristotle,
and objects at rest tended to remain at rest,
and objects in motion tended to come to rest,
and soon everything was at rest,
and God saw that it was boring.
Then God created Newton;
objects at rest tended to remain at rest,
but objects in motion tended to remain in motion,
and energy was conserved
and momentum was conserved
and matter was conserved,
and God saw that it was conservative.
Then God created Einstein,
and everything was relative,
and fast things became short,
and straight things became curved,
and the universe was filled with inertial frames,
and God saw that it was relatively general
but some of it was especially relative.
Then God created Bohr,
and there was the Principle,
and the Principle was Quantum,
and all things were quantified,
but some things were still relative,
and God saw that it was confusing.
Then God was going to create Furgeson,
and Furgeson would have unified,
and he would have fielded a theory,
and All would have been One,
but it was the Seventh Day
and God rested,
and objects at rest tend to remain at rest.
--
XO