Virulence and host range

[PANGELETTI at bmg.bhs.uab.edu]

Hi, I wanted to comment on the viral virulence discussion.  I'd just 
like to point out that Ryan (ryan at mbcf.stjude.org) is correct about the 
increased pathogenicity being due to an extension of host range.  There 
are dozens of examples of this.  The LightKeeper(?) then responded by 
asking whether this could explain why "the virus seems transmissible via 
air in monkeys but not in humans."  The answer is no, dude.  The 
question of whether a virus is airborn is quite a different issue from 
pathogenicity and immune response.

Original shmoots:       

ryan at mbcf.stjude.org whacked the keyboard to produce:

>I expect that Ebola pathology in that host is
>much less rapid and/or pronounced. My guess is that the dramatic 
pathology of
>Ebola infections in humans is due to its poor adaptation to using 
humans as
>hosts. If humans are incidental to the natural history of Ebola (that 
is, if
>Ebola has evolved in a stable relationship with some other host), then 
this
>virus's limited success in human populations is not a problem for the 
virus.


Would this explain why the virus seems transmissible via air in
monkeys but not in humans?

Cheers. 
Peter C. Angeletti
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Adenovirus interactions with host cells
PAngeletti at BMG.BHS.UAB.EDU
or 
zm00016 at uabdpo.uab.dpo.edu