Thread

Virus Stole a Human Gene and Won't Let Go of It

100 points · 40 comments · gumby

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

readthenotes1 · 1790700532 · focus · HN ↗
This must be microbe awareness day.
Earlier iirc someone posted
<a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/cancer-infections-9.7361622" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/cancer-infections-9.7361622
1. pxc · 1790717125 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
  1. titanomachy · 1790722007 · focus · HN ↗
    In the context of "things that cause diseases", "pathogen" covers both. But that isn't exactly an answer to your question.
pazimzadeh · 1790701650 · focus · HN ↗
Seems par for the course since our adaptive immune system is based on an old viral/transposon recombinase.
Transposon Molecular Domestication and the Evolution of the RAG Recombinase
<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6494689/" rel="nofollow">https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6494689/
Here is the actual study:
Escape of the BC200 gene to a human poxvirus reveals its persistent transposition in primates
<a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aeh3441" rel="nofollow">https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aeh3441
1. shevy-java · 1790716277 · focus · HN ↗
  Is VDJ recombination based on viruses or transposons?
  It's the first time I hear this. Can't yet say much about it until I can verify that.
  1. pazimzadeh · 1790728561 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, the RAG transposon inserted itself into a variable domain exon about 500 million years ago. Here’s a more recent paper on this:
    Origin of immunoglobulins and T cell receptors: A candidate gene for invasion by the RAG transposon
    <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40614193/" rel="nofollow">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40614193/
    > It's the first time I hear this. Can't yet say much about it until I can verify that.
    How are you going to verify it?
initramfs · 1790702424 · focus · HN ↗
This brings a whole new meaning to sores. Has this infection been previously identified?
chedieck · 1790705457 · focus · HN ↗
Can't read through the paywall
1. MC995 · 1790705715 · focus · HN ↗
  <a href="https://archive.ph/PpKtR" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/PpKtR
Daklone · 1790709234 · focus · HN ↗
Ah yes, the NYT paywall.
Here you go everyone: <a href="https://archive.ph/PpKtR" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/PpKtR
odmcownckexnn · 1790711756 · focus · HN ↗
Can we please start banning articles with paywalls from being posted at all?
If I cannot read without a subscription (or a damn paywall removed), it shouldn’t be posted here. This is tantamount to posting an ad for an NYT sub.
1. creatonez · 1790712495 · focus · HN ↗
  The HN rules are that paywalled content can be posted only if it's trivially bypassable via a free tool. The NYTimes links work on fresh IP addresses as part of a free allowance for new readers, which is why the proxy-based archive website archive.today is able to get through. I'm not a big fan of this being allowed, but there is some thought to it at least, they aren't just allowing anything.
  1. ectospheno · 1790712634 · focus · HN ↗
    It is a shame that the free tool of choice is a site that put a DDOS attack in its captcha. So my options are not read the article or... not read the article. Nice.
    gpm · 1790713427 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  2. ojihgfhoniyfc · 1790712798 · focus · HN ↗
    That’d be sensible reasoning IF the articles were already posted with a paywall-free url, but they are not, so as it stands these are essentially just ads.
    creatonez · 1790713215 · focus · HN ↗
    IIRC the staff will usually elevate bypass links to the top whenever they see them posted in the comments
    kdkdkdkwkd · 1790715106 · focus · HN ↗
    Again, why not require the bypassed link right from the gate, then? You’d sidestep people complaining about it and wouldn’t little the comment section with people posting alternative links or asking for them.
    NYT is the only one profiting getting free publicity for their subscription service here.
    Aquitard · 1790716240 · focus · HN ↗
    Did you create three accounts just to reply? And if so why not stick to just one?
    gumby · 1790716358 · focus · HN ↗
    I speculated in a different reply that it’s to reduce dups. Two people could post the same article, but if they used different paywall-bypassers they would appear as separate submissions.
    _ifton · 1790798010 · focus · HN ↗
    Link the original article with a paywall flag. If paywall, require paywall-bypasser, and link both articles to submission.
    gumby · 1790716284 · focus · HN ↗
    My understanding is you’re not supposed to post paywall-cutting links but it’s ok to post them as comments. Perhaps to prevent dupes? Or perhaps there is no such rule.
    jasomill · 1790770436 · focus · HN ↗
    People do it all the time for LWN. NYT offers subscribers a similar ability to generate free links to paywalled content.
    FYI, many US public libraries offer free access to NYT subscription content (which can be used to generate free links).
    creatonez · 1790818052 · focus · HN ↗
    The NYT subscriber links recently changed, it now requires making a free account to use the link.
2. Terr_ · 1790721567 · focus · HN ↗
  IMO a good approach would be to surface the status of links to readers, with an icon for "pay-walled" or "register-walled", then see how organic voting affects things.
  1. tedd4u · 1790725161 · focus · HN ↗
    I like that idea but aren't we supposed to read the article before voting?
    Terr_ · 1790739723 · focus · HN ↗
    If I were to post a link to something nobody can read, is everybody a bad person who downvotes it unread?
    Accessibility is itself a meaningful feature for curation feedback, and sometimes it's a question between two similar submissions, where all else being equal the accessible version ought to win.
3. Mistletoe · 1790722724 · focus · HN ↗
  I’m just always amazed that this many HN readers pay for the NY Times or any of the other publications constantly posted here with paywalls.
4. metalman · 1790723849 · focus · HN ↗
  while that would be nice, generaly there are many knowledgeable comments several pay grades abovethe nyt staff, here in the comments, which if you wait for them to build and then do a page search for your terms of interest, can often take you painlessly to a susinct synopsis of the issues under discussion
5. baranul · 1790773184 · focus · HN ↗
  Probably the problem is ignored because of well known archive sites that circumvent the subscription issue. But, I do agree with the suggestion of marking posts as paywalled, to give people more choice on whether to open them.
shevy-java · 1790716221 · focus · HN ↗
There was no theft involved. "Genes" are not "owned".
1. AnimalMuppet · 1790718130 · focus · HN ↗
  If the virus didn't evolve the gene on its own, then "stole" seems like a fair description of how it got it.
  1. wormius · 1790720524 · focus · HN ↗
    You wouldn't download a gene, would you?
    Mistletoe · 1790722819 · focus · HN ↗
    I’d actually love to, can I swap out many of mine with LeBron and Albert Einstein? Anyone got the torrent link?
  2. bell-cot · 1790728537 · focus · HN ↗
    I suspect the original author's copyright had expired, so the gene was public domain.
  3. SideburnsOfDoom · 1790756205 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
meatbundragon · 1790726322 · focus · HN ↗
Gift link since people were complaining about the NYT paywall - <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/28/science/virus-molluscum-human-gene.html?unlocked_article_code=1.E1E._UgM.f790r9d_Sp7u&smid=url-share" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/28/science/virus-molluscum-h...
1. ninju · 1790798462 · focus · HN ↗
  Or if you don't want to share your email address with NYT
  <a href="https://archive.ph/PpKtR" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/PpKtR
  1. meatbundragon · 1790841493 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you have to type in your email even with the gift link?
    creatonez · 1791155374 · focus · HN ↗
    Yep. They recently changed it to require a free account.
rolph · 1790727447 · focus · HN ↗
[delayed]
theflyingelvis · 1790770688 · focus · HN ↗
Looking forward to the alex jones take on this /s

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.