Subscription Center
February 18, 2011 | 7
Touted as the most accurate model to date of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), this 3-D digital simulation is among the winners of the 2010 Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge, sponsored by Science and the National Science Foundation.
The model takes into account the latest knowledge of HIV's structure and biology collected from more than 100 scientific papers, according to its creators at the Visual Science Company in Moscow.
The color orange is used to indicate parts of the particle encoded by the virus genome, whereas gray represents parts captured from the host cells. The protruding orange structures are surface glycoprotein trimers, which allow HIV to bind and fuse with the host cell. The viral plasma membrane is mostly co-opted from that of the host cell as newly formed viruses bud from infected cells. The orange structure at the center of the model is the capsid, a cone-shaped pod that holds the viral RNA and enzymes. These enzymes include reverse transcriptase, a major target for current antiretroviral drugs.
The HIV particle has a diameter between 100 and 180 nanometers. (A nanometer is one billionth of a meter.) Its genome consists of just nine genes encoding 15 different proteins. Some 33.3 million people around the world carry the virus.
"It's looks like a fuzzy ball of yarn, but as you look at it more closely it's an incredibly intricate display of the proteins from the virus itself and from the host it infects, in a very dramatic way," said Colin Norman, news editor at Science, in an interview posted to the journal's Web site for media. The winning images are set to be published February 18 in Science.
—Nina Bai
See what we're tweeting about
DNLee5 Suddenly feeling warm. Why? My fan isn't working. Look up, the powerlight to water heater is off. Another blackout #dispatchesDNLee
sciencegoddess So many exciting space events! May 31, a giant asteroid will be flying by Earth. http://t.co/cyokKwOJhy DNLee5 you look awesome!! :) @SuzieZUMO @arikia @maggiekb1
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
7 Comments
Add CommentThis miniature being might be the saviour of the species we are part of. Don't destroy it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCare to expound on that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisno more mushrooms for you ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we study life on our planet, we realise species are currently being lost at a rate that can only be described as an extinction. We know about 5 prior extinctions, this one is the sixth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe unique thing about this extinction is that it is taking place in the Holocene epoch, now expired. The Holocene has been a period of stability, life should have stabilised and flourished. It did, till we messed things up.
Scientific enlightenment and the industrial revolution changed our biosphere. We need new ethics to live in this new world. We no longer can breed at rates when 7 out of 9 children did not live to early adulthood. The median age at death was about 27 during the golden age of Greek enlightenment.
We need to sustain the biosphere. We are in no position to model the biosphere and determine what sustains it, design experiments can not be conducted on it. Data can be gathered but the variables are far too many for our best computers to analyse.
The safest option is to sustain the biosphere as we know it, for the benefit of all life. The aids virus is just another life form , part of the biosphere, as are all other microscopic life forms. They also do their bit stabilising the biosphere.
We have just realised the importance of bees in the biosphere, when they started to die out. Loose one vital species and like a spiders web loosing a vital silk, the entire web collapses.
Me: I don't think we are going to do anything to save the biosphere, we are self obsessed. The extinction will run its course, our populations will plummet, just like the stock market did (a simple rule of mathematics: Every J curve turns into an S curve).
The aids virus can stabilise our exploding population, the driver of the sixth extinction.
Looks like a shag carpeted version of hell on earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I agree that we need to be more ethical in our treatment of other species and the planet as a whole it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that we shouldn't be trying to find a cure for aids. Do you feel the same way about malaria and smallpox? If you were infected with one of these maladies would you seek treatment our would you say "Perhaps it's for the best. Let's not kill the infectious agent in me and just let me die please."? I prefer a more pragmatic approach where we find more sustainable way to utilize the resources available to us and not view every natural habatit as sites for future shopping malls. To suggest that it would be best if we just let sick people die in order to drastically reduce our population would not fly except for a very small number of people. People who have such high opinions of themselves who no doubt see themselves as worthy of surviving while most everyone else dies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMalaria, smallpox? We have eradicated the poor smallpox viruses, both Variola major and Variola minor are thought to be extinct. We should allow Malaria to keep its minimal control on our explosive population growth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo I would not seek treatment, allow natural forces to do what they must. I do not believe I am any more worthy of survival than was either Variola variants. I do call myself earthling - no mention of species or anything else, not much ego in that. The prefix tells you about me background.
In a world without science this little planet would support less than a 100M of our species, including all variants. If you believe in a god, that's the number he/she made the planet to support. If like me you don't then we need to control our population, breeding is not a fundamental right, one has to qualify to do so.
I do not lie and say smoking is good for you, asbestos has no harmful effects, the depletion of the Ozone layer is a fraud, global warming is not happening. All I say is don't do anything to increase life-spans till we control our population and stabilise the bio-sphere. I know Homo sapiens believe they are "The Wonder of the Universe" and will not do this, Darwinian principles will see us extinct in the near future.
Democracy panders to the lowest common denominator, it is fine amongst educated populations, but in the USA?