Virus-driven energy theft: honeybee model

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: August 22, 2016

The Buzz about Honey Bee Viruses August 18, 2016

Similar to other co-evolving host—pathogen relationships, honey bee viruses have likely evolved mechanisms to overcome and/or evade bee immune responses. For example, several honey bee infecting Dicistroviruses (i.e., IAPV, KBV, and ABPV) encode a DvExNPGP motif at the 5′ terminus of their genomes, suggesting these honey bee-infecting viruses encode putative viral suppressors of RNAi similar to the Dicistroviruses Cricket paralysis virus and Drosophila C virus [52]. In addition, viruses may manipulate host gene expression to enhance virus entry, replication, and/or exit. A more complete understanding of honey bee antiviral defense and viral counter-measures may lead to the development of strategies that reduce virus infection in bee colonies.

Virus-driven theft of quantized energy links amino acid substitutions to the stability of the virus instead of linking nutrient energy-dependent codon usage from natural selection of nutrients to RNA-mediated amino acid substitution and the stability of supercoiled DNA in all living genera. These researchers place ecological variation and energy-dependent ecological adaptation into the context of co-evolving host—pathogen relationships.
They may never understand how RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry is biophysically constrained in the context of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in any species. They will probably continue to tout the pseudoscientific nonsense of neo-Darwinian theories.

Reported as: Q&A with Honey Bee Researcher Michelle Flenniken August 19, 2016 in PLOS Blogs, which supposedly offers Diverse perspectives on science and medicine

You have been blocked from entering information on this blog.

Obviously, PLOS Blogs does not want my perspective, which is why I have this blog. Others know where to come for accurate information of cell type differentiation in all living genera, despite censorship at the PLOS Blogs and in many other forums for information exchange. The information exchange is typically limited to those who believe in ridiculous theories.

For comparison, during the past two decades, Anna Di Cosmo and her group linked everything known to serious scientists about natural selection for energy-dependent codon usage and RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry from the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in marine microbes to the physiology of reproduction in all invertebrates and all vertebrates. They presciently included the accurate representations of biologically-based cause and effect portrayed in “Codon identity regulates mRNA stability and translation efficiency during the maternal-to-zygotic transition.

The amino acid optimality code (Fig 6) provides an alternative perspective on sequence changes between paralogs in evolution and human disease.

See, for example: Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction 

Future work on O. vulgaris olfaction must also consider how animals acquire the odours detected by the olfactory organ and what kind of odour the olfactory organ perceives. The OL acting as control centre may be target organ for metabolic hormones such as leptin like and insulin like peptides, and olfactory organ could exert regulatory action on the OL via epigenetic effects of nutrients and pheromones on gene expression (Kohl, 2013; Elekonich and Robinson, 2000).

See also my invited review of nutritional epigenetics: Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems, which was returned without review. Nobel Prize-winning works include experimental evidence to support the claims of serious scientists. Invited reviews are not considered. Thankfully, works by Anna Di Cosmo and by Eugene Daev can be considered. When other serious scientists realize that Anna’s group and Eugene’s group have already linked everything known about energy-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry to biodiversity they will probably also recognize that neo-Darwinian theorists are the cause of all pathology. The theorists failed to link virus-driven energy theft to mutations and all pathology via the honeybee model organism or any other model organism.  The magnitude of the failure can only be viewed in the context of past failures.

See: 8 scientific papers that were rejected before going on to win a Nobel Prize

Peer review is still a problem, but invited reviews that are returned without review attest to the fact that the ignorance of theorists must repeatedly be overcome.

See instead: Eugene V. Daev -Chronology

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: