|
Post by cagnazzo on Apr 28, 2009 14:27:54 GMT -5
Antichrist, I missed class anyway, share your questions -_-.
And Vene, it is more cell bio, I basically was using the word at its root value of tiny life study. I kind of was mixing it up with molecular biology, which is what I should've said.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 28, 2009 14:52:46 GMT -5
Now I feel bad that you missed your class. Does this count as tutoring?
Going back to the personality thing.
I've always considered dark tortoiseshells as off. The cats we've had with personality disorders have all been dark tortoiseshells (and one Siamese that cornered the vet).
Black cats are my favourites because they are so personable.
Friends of mine asked me what kind of cat to get because they're more of a dog person, I've told every one of them to go for large male tabbies, they've all seemed happy with their purchase.
The thing is, it's not just my cats I've seen this with. I went to a friends today and met his new cat (black) it decided to torture the puppy. It was funny to watch, but it seems to be the same behaviour I've seen in other black cats. I also know people who are hung up on a certain color, and it's not the looks. My sister loves her tri-colors, can be tortoiseshell, calico or mackerel, but that's her favourite color.
Another point is (sorry, not kitties) I have a niece who does not look like me, but our personalities are almost identical. The thing is, is that I had very little contact with my niece in her formative years. I also have a nephew who is almost identical, personality wise, to his uncle that he has had almost no contact with. Neither of these children had the same upbringing either my brother or I had, so it's really made me wonder just how much of our personality is genetic.
Even with me, I was always an outcast in my family, always the "strange" one. I just don't fit into my family. I do slightly remember a great uncle that was like me though. I can't remember much because he died when I was about 6, but if I had to pick someone in my family that I am like, it would be him.
I know these are questions that science is just starting to touch, but its stuff I lay awake at night thinking about.
***************************************************************************
One kitty question:
Last year I was sick with a really bad cold, one by one my kitties got sick. The first few I took to the vet and paid the bucks to have them tested for all the viruses, but once they all came back negative and I noticed what was happening I didn't bother.
My vet says there's no way that the cats could of caught my cold. But looking at where flu's come from, why couldn't a cold jump the species barrier? What if it wasnt a cold?
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Apr 28, 2009 15:07:32 GMT -5
One kitty question: Last year I was sick with a really bad cold, one by one my kitties got sick. The first few I took to the vet and paid the bucks to have them tested for all the viruses, but once they all came back negative and I noticed what was happening I didn't bother. My vet says there's no way that the cats could of caught my cold. But looking at where flu's come from, why couldn't a cold jump the species barrier? What if it wasnt a cold? Don't feel bad about making me miss class - it was only half because of this. I forgot my wallet which has the ID I need for the bus at my apartment, and decided it wasn't worth going to miss half of the class. Ok, so swine flu. I am once again going to go in depth. Viruses are basically little bits of DNA and enzymes wrapped in protein. They get into cells, and the DNA manages to get itself into the host cell's DNA, so the host cell will copy the virus DNA and make virus parts without really realizing what is happening. The way it gets into the cell is key - usually, the protein shell of the virus will have parts of it that bind to certain things called receptors that cells have on them, and will dump its DNA into the cell. It might also get absorbed whole, I'm not actually sure. Anyway, the reason viruses are usually species-specific is because species don't always share the exact same version of a receptor. There are two ways of overcoming this - the virus can either bind to a receptor that multiple species DO have (or at least bind to one species perfectly and bind enough to the other to infect it), or the virus can make a shell that attaches to two different receptors. Here's where things get a little weird. Consider pigs as "in between" humans and birds. They have some bird receptors humans don't, and some human receptors birds don't. Remember how avian flu was going to come through pigs? That is why. If, just by coincidence, a single pig cell was infected with both a human and a bird flu virus, they could undergo something called an antigenic shift - The viral DNA could become a mix of the two, and express both the bird and human receptors. This means that at this point, there's a new type of virus hybrid with DNA from two sources, with a protein shell that has two receptors so it can bind to bird and humans (and pigs, who share the receptor). This basically means that birds and humans are now vectors for each other, and can spread the disease directly. So, that answers your swine flu question. Sometimes viruses are transferrable, but have different effects (other primates, for example, will die if they get herpes). However, very few viruses work well in multiple species, so despite everything I just said, it's extremely unlikely that you gave your cat any disease. Diseases that don't rely on receptors, such as ringworm, can be easily spread, but viruses tend to stick with one host.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 28, 2009 15:15:12 GMT -5
What about bacterias? Could they jump?
I'm just curious because as I said, I was sick and then each cat got sick. High fevers, sneezing, weepy eyes. They all got better, but three of them were run the gambit of tests and no known virus came back as positive.
My vet just said coincidence (I didn't tell him about the 3 I didn't bring in getting sick because he would of been pissed off at me).
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Apr 28, 2009 15:34:54 GMT -5
What about bacterias? Could they jump? I'm just curious because as I said, I was sick and then each cat got sick. High fevers, sneezing, weepy eyes. They all got better, but three of them were run the gambit of tests and no known virus came back as positive. My vet just said coincidence (I didn't tell him about the 3 I didn't bring in getting sick because he would of been pissed off at me). I think bacteria jumping would be less rare, but I'm not sure. I really think you're reading more into it than exists - it's not that much of a coincidence, really. Statistically speaking, the cats are just as likely to get sick when you are as to get sick when you're healthy, and I don't see any reason to discount that. In any case, high fever is more indicative of a viral than a bacterial infection, due to the way that intracellular infections are handled. Assuming I remember my immunology, of course. As far as being negative for all viruses, they're sneaky. We can't test directly for viruses, in general - we test for the body's response to them, in the form of antibodies. Blood antibody levels take a while to rise, so false negatives can happen relatively easily. Your vet probably knows pathology better than I do, however; I'd just listen to him... Random statistic time: vet schools now have approximately 25-33% male students. Totally irrelevant, but interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 28, 2009 17:45:17 GMT -5
I think bacteria jumping would be less rare, but I'm not sure. Bacteria are nowhere near as species specific. Because they just need a place to grow with enough nutrients they have a much easier time crossing the species barrier, unlike viruses, which you already mentioned needed the proper receptor. That said, there is a difference between a bacterial infection and illness. We normally have bacteria in several locations, and this is perfectly healthy. In fact, when going on antibiotics it's not unheard of to have gastrointestinal issues as the colonies in our intestines are killed by the antibiotic. It's also more likely for women to get yeast infections as the absence of bacteria in the vagina allows fungal organisms to grow.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 28, 2009 17:48:04 GMT -5
So the cold/sick kitty thing really was a coincidence?
Okay.
Anything on the genes and personalities?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 28, 2009 17:51:23 GMT -5
As far as I know, that area of research is still so new there isn't anything definitive.
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Apr 28, 2009 18:02:25 GMT -5
I think bacteria jumping would be less rare, but I'm not sure. Bacteria are nowhere near as species specific. Because they just need a place to grow with enough nutrients they have a much easier time crossing the species barrier, unlike viruses, which you already mentioned needed the proper receptor. I was pretty sure that was the case, but didn't want to confirm it as I wasn't completely sure. Basically, it made sense to me, but I was hesitant to state it as fact. Oh, also, something I remembered on my way to class - bacteria aren't likely to be much more pathogenic than viruses. Though they can reproduce with fewer requirements than a virus, most of the really bad bacteria, like cholera, tend to release toxins that affect specific receptors.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 1, 2009 5:09:36 GMT -5
Fuckin' bookmarked, and an Exalt for cagnazzo.
ETA: Aack, mis-click! I'll do it once the system "resets" -- you can only modify karma once an hour.
I'm off to bed, I'll do it in the morning.
|
|