Re infectivity of naked viral DNA

[Patrick O'Neil]

On 22 May 1995, ncel wrote:

> > Try the same plant experiment: no abrasive, no rubbing.  Just add a drop 
> > of TE plus viral DNA or RNA and watch for infection.  Another test would 
> > be to add the same polynuc into liquid solution for growing seedlings and 
>   > see if the resulting plants end up with infection of appropriate virus.  
> > 
> 
> If no "special manipulations" are allowed, then plants are susceptible
> neither to free RNA/DNA nor to any viruses (intact nucleoproteins) as 
> well! 
[...]
> Your proposed experiment (spraying of viruses or free RNA/DNA onto intact 
> plants) has been made numerous times, always with negative results.

I would certainly hope that such had been done since it is so basic.
> 
> All this is just a bit of very basic plant virology; more details can be 
> gleaned from any pertinent textbook, such as the excellent one by R.E.F. 
> Matthews (Academic Press). Ted Diener 
> 

My main reason for bringing up the experiments and whatnot is, again, my 
disagreement with the idea of injecting DNA or RNA from a virus and 
either getting infectious particles or immune response for the purpose of 
inoculation.  The original post on this SEEMED to imply that injection 
(to my readin eyes this meant intraveneous) of said nucleic acids was all 
that was required.  I objected to this idea...intepreted as I just 
said.  I have held and continue to hold that it is ENTIRELY different if 
the injection means direct, intracellular injection.  By problem with 
this was the implication that intact polynuc floating about in the 
extracellular matrix was simply going to get into surrounding cells 
somehow and induce infection or production of viral protein product for 
immunity purposes.  Perhaps the whole thing is simply a misunderstanding 
on what is meant by INJECTION OF VIRAL NAKED DNA OR RNA.

Thank you for your answer.

Patrick