An ERV or “endogenous retroviruses” come in a very wide variety of flavors. Some are used for mammalian placenta formation, some are partially responsible for diseases, and the parts of some end up playing various roles in gene regulation and expression. There are over 20 “families” of Human ERVs (HERVs) with several thousand individual sequences. While many
MMTV (Mouse Mammary Tumor Virus) and FeLV (Feline Leukemia Virus) are examples of endogenous and exogenous viruses.
ERVs can provide a wonderful ancestry marker to identify related species after ancestral gamete insertions. Over the generations, mutations accumulate within an ERV which can result in a number of possible outcomes ranging from the adoption of a retroviral promoter by another gene or the adoption of a retroviral gene to produce a product which is beneficial for the organism. Because the insertion point of an ERV is random, multiple locations of a very similar ERVs can indicate multiple insertion events. If you’re really interested in ERVs, read some of Abbie’s posts at the aptly named ERV.
Below the fold is a repost from Mors dei 1.0 relating to misinformation about ERVs.
Well, some Creationist (not IDiot, the regular idiot), posted a little snippet as a comment over on ERV. It’s down at comment #6, but for easy of reading, I’ll copy the entire thing here…
We fully expect you to NOT post this, but we’ll give it a whirl anyway.
Please refer to:
Does this person expect it not to be posted because it is complete nonsense? I certainly think that’s why it wouldn’t be posted…
“How is it that ERVS are Considered Copies of Disease Producing Exogenous Retroviruses but None Have Been Proven to Directly Cause Disease?”
Ok, it’s poor English and complete fiction; in the event you are unfamiliar with multiple sclerosis, I suggest reading up on it. Other HERV-induced diseases include a wide variety of auto-immune conditions and some cancers. Additionally, we would expect those disease-causing HERVs to lose functionality if those humans are to survive; if they are completely functional and cause severe disease, the carrier dies, ERV goes away.
“By Chance, What Made ERVS Evolve into “The Cure,” Instead of Remaining Disease Related Viruses?”
Portions of ERVs (notice the last “s” is in lower case?) with beneficial uses are kept, those with extremely deleterious or no effects undergo much more mutation.
“By Chance, What Made ERV Elements Change From Viral Activities to Cellular Activities and Create New Essential Genes?”
In the event you still don’t get the effect selection plays on the survival of genes, and remain unable to comprehend how mutations arise and are selected for/against, then perhaps you should take a few remedial courses in biology; ERVs seem to be far out of your league…
“ERVS Created the Specie-Specific Regulatory Network that Controls the Expression of Cells in a Collective Manner. What Came First ï¿½ the Host or the Regulatory Network?”
This is a false dichotomy; neither came first, here’s a generalized narrative, retrovirus invades germ cell–>germ cell produces gamete–>infected gamete forms zygote which grows up to be adult (if virus doesn’t kill it)–>virus loses some functionality due to mutations–>genome adapts to include ERV as functional element or ERV slowly disappears… I know, that’s really simplified, but I figured I wouldn’t make your brain explode just yet…
“By Chance, What Made ERV LTRS Immediately Turn into Essential Gene Regulators Upon Insertion?”
In the event you don’t know what an LTR is, it is a “Long terminal repeat” which is used for insertion into the host DNA; now, what happens is after dsDNA is formed, LTR-specific integrases put the DNA into the genome. Now, they are presenting evidence that the TF (transcription factor) binding site was present in the consensus sequence of the original retrovirus, it didn’t “turn into” anything, it just happened to contain the consensus sequence for the TF in the original consensus sequence of the retroviral integrase because it is present in many related species… no magic…
“By Chance, What Made LTRS Gain Transciptional Abilities for Essential Genes?”
To quote ERV (Abbie), “Its possible that a retrovirus plops down next to a gene, and the genes like ‘Whoa! Ur a better promoter! I keepsies you!!'” Neat, huh?
“Misc. Examples of biased and inaccurate research and publications:”
I could explain each and every one of these papers, but then how would you learn?
Please note that there are about 50 + research articles referenced so we look forward to your rebuttal.
(If you can restrain yourself, it would serve all of us well if you would debate without insults and foul language.)
Posted by: who is your creator | August 25, 2008 4:52 PM
Yes, you cited so many papers, too bad you didn’t use them to present an actual argument. Using all those papers, I suppose makes you smart; keep in mind citing lots of research papers does not mean they support your conclusion.