Can someone verify my logic, micro question

[SmokD]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So I hate memorizing and I prefer to make generalizations whenever possible...

If:
-Negative sense virus are required to carry enzymes to convert its genome to positive sense RNA.
-According to the table in first aid, all negative sense viruses have envelops

Then:
-Viral enzymes are carried outside the viral capsid and within the viral envelop
-Naked viruses do not carry enzymes.

I haven't heard or read anything about this, so can anyone verify this or disprove it? Thanks

 

[MrAgreeable]

So I hate memorizing and I prefer to make generalizations whenever possible...

If:
-Negative sense virus are required to carry enzymes to convert its genome to positive sense RNA.
-According to the table in first aid, all negative sense viruses have envelops

Then:
-Viral enzymes are carried outside the viral capsid and within the viral envelop
-Naked viruses do not carry enzymes.

I haven't heard or read anything about this, so can anyone verify this or disprove it? Thanks

Sorry Charlie, this is rote memorization. As a rule:

1) -RNA carry a certain set of their own enzymes to function, true.

2) ALL -RNA viruses are enveloped, period, this has nothing to do with where the enzymes are as most of the enzymes I can think of are in the capsid anyway (I'm thinking OMV, I know with Rabies and the helical shape things get confounded)

3) There are plenty of enveloped viruses that do not carry their own enzymes


POINT BEING: For step one, just memorize what virus looks like what and general facts like +RNA is infectious by itself if injected into cells and try not to get bogged down in stuff like where the enzymes are in -RNA molecules. Virology is weird and requires memorization, but try to conceptualize it in a way other than using a generalized memory device (yours is ok but has way to many loopholes), you will be happy you did it.

 

[MrAgreeable]

I had the structure of the RNA viruses memorized for about a week and I already forgot most of it. Our virology lecturers were pretty keen on the fact knowing +ve vs -ve strand was completely useless clinically.

We were "lucky" (depending on how you look at it) enough to have an entire course on Micro/Immuno and a four lecture fest based on virus structure, haha. Oh well at least we won't forget little more-or-less-useless-factoids-that-may-show-up-on-the-boards like Step I.

 

[hyrule]

From my experience, FA mnemonics are as good as it gets for viruses. One thing I wouldn't even bother memorizing is: if a virus is circular/linear. Never really encountered a Q about it.

This is really all I memorized and I do pretty well on Microbio. Then ofcourse you gotta know which viruses belong in each group. But it's not bad at all.

Naked vs. Enveloped: Naked CPR and PAPP (naked viruses)

DNA viruses: all dsDNA except parvo (it's ssDNA bc it's part-of-a virus)
- notable exceptions: pox is not icosahedral, pox replicates in cytoplasm

RNA viruses (+ strand): anything partying related (togas, coronas, california, flavor etc...). pretty straight forward.
- exceptions: reoviruses are ds RNA

 

[hyrule]

Since we're on the topic of Microbio anyways, is there a way to differentiate between arthritis caused by Gonnorrhea and Chlaymidia?

So let's say pt has joint swelling. You do an aspirate showing opaque exudate w/ high neutrophil count and intracellular organisms. Q wasn't asking what organism caused it.

Would this alone point to either one?

 

[hurdlepup]

Plus, that Chlamydia-induced arthritis is actually an autoimmune reaction, like say the person would be HLA-B27 +.

 

[iA-MD2013]

Also doesn't gonorrhea also involve a skin rash while chlamydia doesn't?