• Preflight_Tomato@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    24 hours ago

    My wild speculation:

    Viral snares/traps? Semi-permeable membrane + RNA; the virus gets in and binds to the RNA inside, then the viral package is “spent” on fake RNA that can’t replicate. The MVP shell could keep regular cellular machinery away from the trap RNA. There are thousands of these vaults within the cell, as to create a bunch of “pits” that a virus could fall into, thus effectively slowing viral spread, even a little?

    edit: from a link in the article:

    vault protein somehow helps epithelial cells internalize P. aeruginosa, which in turn speeds the clearance of an infection. Compared to normal mice, for example, MVP-less mice were 3 times as likely to die when their lungs were infected with the bacterium

    This was mentioned as a hypothesis that was determined to be fruitless. Was this ever explored further? Different viruses, organ systems, etc.? Since it’s in a lot of different organisms, maybe some common virus that affects many different species is affected by this.

    This is very interesting.

  • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    2 days ago

    The infographic appears to be noob-friendly because of its title but then expects you to know what VPARP is and what it’s for

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    173
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    Man, it’s so wild how little we know about biology and how much we as a society spend on absolute, utter, bullshit, instead of figuring out how just the basics of us work.

    I know it was never possible before modern computers, labs, and equipment, but we really should have like 1000x the amount of basic biological research going on that we do.

    • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      81
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I got a degree in microbiology in 95 and I did not know about these. Heck I even did a rotation in an xray crystallography lab which was super into cellular structures.

      • MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        75
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        To be brutally honest, 95 was an eternity ago in microbiology terms. Human genome project didn’t complete till 2003. You must have some wild perspective on seeing us go from what are essentially a modern dark times to modern day

        • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          45
          ·
          2 days ago

          oh certainly. even at that time the xray crystallography lab was basically dying out as it was becoming more of a standard tool rather than an area of research.

    • kadup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      2 days ago

      A super important nuclear structure related to calcium mobilization was only discovered a few years ago. It will take years before it ever appears in bachelor’s textbooks, let alone high school material. Cellular biology is far for complete, and biology as a whole is still completely filled with open questions.

      We do suffer a lot with a lack of funding though. If your research isn’t immediately important for a medication, good luck working with a far from optimal budget.

    • BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Ask any expert in almost any field of science. If they’re good at their jobs, they’ll mostly tell you the same thing about their field.

      The scariest thing in the world is that you can apply that to nearly everything.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        This isn’t really true. It’s kind of true for scientists because by their nature, they work on discovering new things, but even still, the amount we know and understand about say, physics and chemistry, is way way way greater than biology.

        Like for physics and chemistry we have a very rock solid understanding of how the vast majority of reactions and interactions that effect the universe at our scale, work. Most of what physicists and chemists are learning these days is at the outer edges of what’s physically possible or studying, there’s very few questions left about common, day to day reactions, those are so well understood that they’re considered engineering and not science anymore.

        But that’s not the case for biology. We still don’t understand very basic elementary things about the human body and what parts of it even do, let alone the wider, non human biological world. There is truly more unknowns in biology than the other sciences.

    • _NetNomad@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      2 days ago

      we think about people 100 or 500 years ago and it seems absurd just how little they knew about health and the body, but hopefully we’ll look the same to our descendants in as many years

      • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        When I was much younger, the favorite restaurant my family used to treat ourselves to every so often had tables decorated with olde timey newspaper pages. Still very much legible and permanently preserved in epoxy, the advertisements fascinated me — even way back when (≈/< 1930s), the same kinds of “revolutionary” “exotic” “new” tricks that <insert expert title(s)> hate, etc. squawked their bullshit for the punters & mouth breathers. Hell, even Pompeii revealed it’s been going on for millennia… Same as it ever was. 🙇🏽‍♂️🤓😅

    • AngryRobot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The absolute, utterly bullshit is what leads to other advances and a better understanding of the basics. For example, optical storage technology is a direct result of a federally funded study on how moth eyes gather and utilize light.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Yeah, I’m not talking about developing new computer technologies as utter bullshit, I’m talking about the trillions spent on advertising for instance, or social media platforms.

    • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s astonishing to me just how confidently people, often those who’ve never even studied the body, will assert they definitely know how things work. DNA is the big one for me, as there’s an entire “layer” of genetic function which we know almost nothing about. We may have mapped the atomic structure of DNA, and identified a number of sequences of base pairs which can be correlated with certain traits, yet how DNA “folds” and why remains almost a complete mystery. Many think that scientists have reached a level where we can splice our genetic code as though it were a computer program to make it do this or that, yet in reality attempts to do so almost never work, usually resulting in sterility or death.

      • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        The mystery remains but we certainly can splice our genetic code without sterility or death. There are various FDA approved therapies doing just so to treat genetic diseases such as sickle cell, hemophilia, certain types of DMD, and retinopathies.

        • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Oh it’s certainly possible to do. Just that it’s incredibly dangerous, which is why there is an extremely rigorous testing regime in place, taking many, many years, which must be completed before any particular therapy is approved. Many proposed therapies are never able to successfully complete testing because the most common side effects by far are sterility and death.

      • Richard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not entirely true. Humans have successfully modified the genome of plants and especially bacteria in a targeted way for years now. But things are of course much more complex in humans and vertebrates in general.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I find it fascinating that researchers have been able to acquire so much structural details about vaults without figuring out their purpose. It’s possible that they’re bits of evolutionary garbage - things that don’t contribute to survival in any discernible way, but also don’t hurt anything, so natural selection doesn’t get rid of them.

    • Hugin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 day ago

      Cells make too many of them to not have a purpose. There is a large energy cost to manufacturing 10k-100k per cell. That’s enough for selection to remove them if they were useless.

      What’s probably going on is they have an important but uncommon purpose. Like a fire extinguisher. They are in most buildings but a lot of people will never see a situation where one is needed.

  • PineRune@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    2 days ago

    What if they’re only to make the cells bigger so our bodies don’t need to make so many of them to reach a total size as large as we are?

    • spicy pancake@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      that wouldn’t be an unfounded hypothesis. surface area to volume ratio is extremely important in cells. by artificially lowering the volume (by taking up a lot of it with a structure) the cell can make better use of its existing surface area

      though it looks like the volume of these structures aren’t that large comparatively

    • jaxiiruff@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      This is seriously interesting yet unsettling at the same time that these are not being studied more. For whatever reason I have a feeling that they are going to be way more important someday since all creatures have them.

      • FundMECFS@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        2 days ago

        I mean that’s biology. We can do some pretty cool stuff, but we just don’t understand how so much in the human body works. It’s so fucking complex.

        • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 days ago

          I was instantly reminded of the appendix, where for so long we thought it was just an extraneous evolutionary leftover of an organ, only to find out not all that long ago that it actually acts as a seed vault of sorts for our gut’s microbial biome to repopulate the good bacteria in case something bad happens and wipes them out.

  • oleorun@real.lemmy.fan
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 days ago

    Incredible article and read that will send me down the rabbit-hole later when I have some free time!

    Thanks for sharing!

  • A_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Nice
    ( N.B. : Typo : “TIL about vaults, the largest structures in the our cells. No one knows what they’re for.” )