Affiliation:
1. Laboratory of RNA Archaeology Instituto de Parasitología y Biomedicina “López‐Neyra” (CSIC) Granada Spain
2. Department of Molecular Evolution Centro de Astrobiología (CSIC–INTA) Madrid Spain
3. Department of Molecular and Cell Biology Centro Nacional de Biotecnología (CSIC) Madrid Spain
4. Centro de Biología Molecular “Severo Ochoa” (CSIC‐UAM) Madrid Spain
Abstract
AbstractThe entry of a virus into the host cell always implies the alteration of certain intracellular molecular relationships, some of which may involve the recovery of ancient cellular activities. In this sense, viruses are archaeological tools for identifying unexpressed activities in noninfected cells. Among these, activities that hinder virus propagation may represent cellular defense mechanisms, for example, activities that mutagenize the viral genome such as ADAR‐1 or APOBEC activities. Instead, those that facilitate virus propagation can be interpreted as the result of viral adaptation to—or mimicking—cellular structures, enabling the virus to perform anthropomorphic activities, including hijacking, manipulating, and reorganizing cellular factors for their own benefit. The alternative we consider here is that some of these second set of cellular activities were already in the uninfected cell but silenced, under the negative control of the cell or lineage, and that they represent a necessary precondition for viral infection. For example, specifically loading an amino acid at the 3'‐end of the mRNA of some plant viruses by aminoacyl‐tRNA synthetases has proved essential for virus infection despite this reaction not occurring with cellular mRNAs. Other activities of this type are discussed here, together with the biological context in which they acquire a coherent meaning, that is, genetic latency and molecular conflict.
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,General Neuroscience
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献