THE NATURE OF VIRUSES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 11
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 24, 2011
• Sequence Number: 200
• Publication Date: July 14, 1954
• Content Type: REPORT

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
THE ATATURE OF VI'iitJSES
Mikrobiologiya, Vol 22, No 2, pp 316-24
Moscow, Mey-Jun 1953
A complete understanding of the historical development of living matter, 1+'
it is to be in accord with the tenets of dialectical materialism, requires the
acceptance of the postulate that organisms which were structurally simpler than
the most primitive cells existed for a lor:g time prior to the emergence of the
cellular forma of Life. This precellular stage of development was, in turn,
preceded by the slow evolution of organic substances (11). Can we assume
then that precellular types of orgarisms still exist today? The answer to this
question would be entirely conjectural, if we did not know of the existence of
viruses, a fact which D. I. Ivanovskiy first discovered in 1892 (6, 7),
The following argumer:t can be made in support of the proposition that
viruses represent a type of precellular organisms.
Despite the advanced evolutionary stage of contemporary animal and plant
forma, organisms con still ?`: found that are structurally representative of
all previously existing forms of life. These organisms range from the Rickettsiae,
which stand ,just on the threshold of cellular organization, to the highest phanero-
gamous plants and mammals.
In giving rise to new species and classes of plants and animals, the process
of evolutionary development did not destroy the previous forms of organisms. On
the contrary, paleontological data confirm the fact tltut all the principal func-
tional types of plants and animals, irrespective of the time when they origi-
nated, hove their representatives ever, today, Since evolution proceeds riot only
by changes from higher to lower types of organisms, taut by clrar:ges within the
species themselves, ar,d since present conditions favor the survival of the most
varied types of cellular organisms, including the most primitive, it must
necessarily be accepted that precellular forms ura r:o exception to this rule.
Consequently they inhabit the earth today ir. various Forms.
Pathogenic viruses oriEinate froth the freely living precellular organisms
which comprise a specialized type of obligate, intracellular parasite. Zt ?,ust
be recognized that there are numerous anu diverse precellular organisms xhich
lead a saprophytic existence, One may assume that the study of viruses will
lead to the future discovery of freely Jiving ultramicroscopic organisms. How-
ever, it is not necessary to consider, as ~11'ber did, that "saprophytic viruses,"
or more exactly saprophytic precellular? organisms, car, only live in a protoplas-
mic medium. In this context, *.,he term "saprophytic" is devoid of all meaning.
Precellular organisms may have inhabited media which were replete with organic
substances, i.e., the remains of dead ur;imals, plants, or micro-organisms, since
their organizatwn as freely living forms was probably more complex than that
of viruses. They may hove possessed certain enzymatic ~atems, and ultimately,
ir. the capacity of commensals or symbionts, they may have utilized the biochemi-
cal activities of cellular bacteria (3),
The concep+,ion which has been outlined above seemed to us to be most closely
in accord with the requirements of materialistic biology, u field in which new
frontiers in the theory of development have been opened by the works oi' I. V.
Michurin, T. D. Lysenko, and 0. B. Lepeshir:skaya,
Viruses fill in the gap which existed in tiro evolutionary scale as it was
known tc biology prior to the discoveries of D. Z. Ivanovskiy.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
We can not agree with Kalina, who not only re,~ects the possibility that
precellular forms still exist today, but assumes, on the contrary, that the
development of the earth has already proceeded beyond the point where exlst-
er~ce of precellular forms is possible, and that ail living beings have now
reached a high stage of evolution
It ie w
ll k
.
e
nown that such a conclusion
does not agree with the actual facts. Kalina, in one way or another, associates
the origin of all viruses with the filterable forms of bacteria. He writes:
'Inasmuch as monocellular microorganisms have existed during every phase of the
evolutionary history of life, the development of viruses from them may likewise
hatiQ been going on during that entire time, and may have been completed gust
prior to our era. The disintegration of microorganisms within organisms into
filterable i'orms arrested the development of the microorganisms. The phenomena
of stabilization occurred at a very early stage -- the stage of precellular
forms. The last step in this process was the loss of independent enzymatic
systems and development of complete dependence on the metabolism of the host
cells. This is the way that viruses were formed."
Evidently Kalina did not express his idea correctly when he wrote: "i.(pno_
cellular organisms have existed during every phase of the evolutionary history
of life."
It is clear to every materialist that the emergence of cells was preceded
by the slow evolution of precellular living beings, and, consequently, that
there was a long period in the evolutionary history of life when monocellular
microorganisms did not exist. This was the period when the precellular, virus-
like forms, which inhabited the biosphere of the earth and laid the ground for
the evolutionary emergence of the simplest cells, flourished. The more primi-
tive organisms are, the more adaptable they are and the more rapidly can they
ad~uet to changing conditions of life. The bacteria that emerged in the early
eras of life are omnipresent even today. They inhabit places where no other
forms of life are able to exist.
A high degree of adaptability can also be ascribed to the precellular
forme of life, and this in turn compels us to expect that they are widely dis-
persed in nature, We do not know tY,e properties of contemporary free-living
precellular forms, since discoveries ir. this field are still relegated to the
future, but we can discuss the wide range of adaptability of phytopathogenic
viruses, In this respect, viruses far exceed pathogenic bacteria. It is a
well-known fact that intracellular, obligate parasitism involves a high degree
of specialization on the part of the parasites. The host cycle in the case of
obligate parasitism is extremely small, and often 1s limited to s few or even
a single species of macroorganisms. Quite she contrary is t:?ue of phytopatho-
genic viruses, ~,rere the number of possible hosts is comparatively large. The
virus of tobacco mosaic is capable of multiplying in the cells of 236 investi-
gated species representing 33 families; the cucu:.iber mosaic virus, in 191
belongingetoe2~nfamiliesfatheialfalfa mosaicovirus,cin 92cspeciesibe8origingito
28 families; etc,
The host cycle for the enumerated viruses is undoubtedly ever. higher than
these figures indicate, since the experiments were carried out with oni;; a limited
number of species. This astounding capacity to adapt to the conditions or .,le
prevailing in phylogenetically distinct species of plants attests to the enormous
potential vitality of viruses and compels us to presuppose a similar potentiality
in free-living prece11u1ar forms. The same conclusions may be reached from a
study of the proven capacity of several phytopathogenic viruses to multiply i ;hin
the organisms of certain insects.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
As far as the advancement cf ,cier~ce is concerned, it is more useful
~ in4uir'e into the existence of free living precellular forms and to try to
discuver instances of them than to shutoff Baia avenue ui approacn anu rep_
resent ,1'_ the simplest forms of life merely as different manifestations of
the more complex cellular forms. Naturally this does not mean, that organisms
genetically related to the filterable forms of bacteria have not, due to our
inadequate knowledge of the sub3ect, been arbitrarily included among the viruses.
It seems to us (s) that it would be inexpedient to impose limitations on the
investigations of this matter and (b) that the more widely we utilize various
approaches to the problem, the more rapidly we will be able to solve the general
enigmas of virology.
A survey of all the multiform precellular organisms, represented by the
phytopathogenic and zoopathogenic viruses, reveals their varying degrees of
complexity. A number of viruses are composed only of nucleoproteids, These
are the simplest forms of life known to science. Other viruses have lipoids
as well as nucleoproteids ir. their composition. Apparently some of the viruses
attain a relatively high heterogeneity and are composed of a still greater num-
ber of varied substances, This gradation of complexity in the organization of
viruses reflects, to a certain degree, the course of the evolutionary process
from living nucleoproteids to cellular beings. Notwithstanding the specializa-
tion of viruses as obligate parasites, we can still delimit the important role
of nucleoproteids as essential components of living systems.
In a number of p}~ytopathogenic and zoopathogenic viruses, the nucleopro-
teids consist of a single substance. Engels famous definition of life (19, 20),
which states that the simplest organisms are made up of livi:ig proteins, can
be literally applied to these viruses, In this respect a need has arisen for
more precise definitions of the commonly accepted concepts concerning the higher
proteins. First of all it should be pointed out that life is a property of
definite systems of living matter, Even the simplest of living substances, the
nucleoproteid viruses, are known to be complex and heterogeneously organized.
It is sufficient to say that their particle weight exceeds many million, and
that besides the thousands of various amino-acid residues, each of which is
equivalent to a macromolecule or organic substance, their composition includes
ribonucleic acid, a complex chemical compound in which purine and pyrimidine
bases, carbohydrates, and phosphoric acid are combined.
In addition the virus nucleoproteid is apparently c,;-bined with certain
metals It must be remembered that this structure is representative of the
compler. virus system after it has been isolated prom the host organism. We
can assume that the structure of the virus particle is even more complex dur-
ing the period when it is vitally active in the protoplasm of the host, since it
then contains water, electrolytes, and possibly a number of protoplasmic organic
compounds with which it is combined, forming a kind of an elementary proto-
plasmir_ cell.
The results of X-ray analysis show the comparatively high degree of struc-
tural complexity of the virus micelle. Derral (24) points out that X-ray pic-
tures of the virus particles show them to be comoosed of separate protein blocks,
regularly disposed Ina ttsee-dimensional arrangement. In his opinion, the
structure of a virus micelle .corresponds more closely to a protein crystal com-
posed of a ^umber of particles than to an individual protein particle. From
what has been said, we can conclude that virus particle's are not molecules, even
though it is customary to call them molecules. For methodological purposes we
must accept the fact that there are not, acid can not be, any living molecules,
since organisms can not be converted into molecules without lcsing the property
of life or vitality.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
The application of the term "macromolecule" to the virus particle represents
a misunderstanding which ie based on the rid metaphysical practice of considering
only the quantitative side of phenomena, Wnen matter changes from a molecular
condition into a supramolecular condition, thereby formir:g living protein, a
transition from a quantitative change to a change involving acquisition of a nex
quality `.akes place from the dialectical standpoint. While preserving a number
oi' properties which are peculiar to molecules, i.e., t're _apecity to crystal-
lize, the protein acquires a number of new propet?ttes, cnief among them being
those potential capacities the development cf which causes the emergence of life.
Life '- a property of a complex system composed of a protein body and a
number of other substances and is characterized by a higher, supramolecular
level of material development.
Not long ago w?e were supporting the idea that rucleoproteid viruses are
proteins capable of transmitting infections. We assumed that the transfer by
various means of certain nucleopro*eids from the cells of one species of plant
to those of another species could lead to the accumulation of alien proteins,
acting as pathogen._ viruses.
Recently we have been obliged to abandon this concept. Experiments con-
ducted during the past fex years show that ro positive results are obtained by
inoculating plants xith alien proteins. The latest data on the biology of
virusrF a).so attest to the contradictions inherent in this hypothesis,
It must be noted that many virologists have adhered to the concept of
viruses as chemical substances. 7.31'ber (2) in 1946 wrote: "It must be pointed
out that viruses are not living microorganisms, but rather trigh-molecular pro_
teins, They do not develop every time in a diseased plant. They only reproduce
ir. it. These proteins are in no s,zty living infectious agents, although they
may possess properties characteristic of them. The essential difference between
the two types of infectious agents, bacteria aid viruses, consists of the fact
that bacteria multiply witF.!n the infected organism at their ow?n expense, while
the ultra virus types oi' her,vy proteins are reproduced at the expense of the
organism." Ti~is quotation is mute evidence o1' the fact that its author has
completely abanrioned the concept of viruses us organisms. One can not help but
be surprised therefore that in a recent article (5) Zilber remarked that he had
a1?.+ays been, together with Ivanovskiy and Gamaleyu, u consistent :efender of
this concept.
It was not bj chance that at the 19j0 meeting dedicated to the 30th anni-
versary of the death ~i ll. Z. Ivanovskiy (v, 12, lj) many virologists dei'ended
the concept of the living nature o_ viruses. The course of development oi' Michu-
rinist biology has determir:ei. the methodogy to be followed in the study of viruses
and has given a new directionto the research done by u number of Soviet scientists.
Many significant arguments can be introduced in support of the vier that
viruses are precellular organisms.
Viruses, like all living beings, are capable of repraductioe. Proliferating
under the constant conditions of a culture medium, viruses persistently preserve
the characteristics oi' their species, i. e., erhibit the capacity to inherit and
transmit species characteristics. At the same time, viruses at?e extremely adapt-
a~le -tnd, in response to specific variations in their environment, are suscepti-
ble to directed modification.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7 ~
.. vi viruses now being investigated with the use of cor,-
tempornry research methods represents a process ~f species formation, and can
be widely utilized us an argument in favor of T. L. Lyeenko's treatment of the
concept oi' species (10), The numerous strains of viruses described in litera-
t~'e, and obtained in the course of our experiments (16), are actually existing
species, which are in antagonistic relationships to each other. In mixed in-
fections, which have undergone a number of passages, some species of viruses
replace related species. The invasion of a plant by any one spec i? of virus
tends to prevent the accumulation of other related viruses in it.
established recently that antagonistic relationships can exist between some
individual species of viruses i,e, It was
potatoes and the virus causing viruienbetobaccot'etchgose u~o: is virus of
Such antagonisms between closely related species of vises haveibeen success,
fully utilized in obtaining living vaccines a?a
The biological nature of the action of these vaccinesewasicorrectlyiinaicate~ses.
by Lysenko. The use of living vaccines will undoubtedly be applied in the fu-
ture to the growing of plants.
On the basis of the features enumerated above, w'e are able to acknowledge
the fact that many characteristics typical for organisms are inherent in
viruses, The determination of the type of metabolism peculiar to viruses will
be of great significance in explaining their nature. The propagation of viruses,
in itself, testifies to their high degree of biochemical activit
of radioactive isotopes permits us to conclude that virus particles carry on
an ?.ntenaive Y? The use
A number of dataareporteduinnghenliteratureesuof the cells which the
least part of the substances which enter into therstructuretoftnewly formingt
virus particles is low-molecular material similar to amino acids and poi
tides (24, 26),
YPeP-
whith2facilitatelthersc~umulatio,~of~proteinihydrolhsisact tFst the conditions
leaves stimulate the accumulation of a vii?ua in them whenrtheytarensubsequently
subjected to conditions, favorable to the synthesis of proteins,
more slowl In control
leaves maintained under normal conditions at all times the virus accumulated
Y? It is interesting to note that the introduction of excessive
amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus into the nutrient medium of
dition which causes extreme suppressior. of their
impede the acc Plants, a con-
umulation of a virus in them, but on thehcontrarylnccelerates
it, This phetromenor, is a manifestation of the cepacity of the virus to exist
independently of the host cell, i.e,, the living mass of the virus increases
in this case while no corresponding increase occurs Sn the living mass of the
host.
When a host plant is deprived of its source of nitrogen, the proliferation
of the virus is suppressed. Nevertheless, the virus continues to increase and
gradually attains a high concentration (14) despite the dystrophic condition
of the plant, which is ac:ompanied by an over-all decline in vital functions and
the initiation of hydrolytic processes, Finally a virus can inc^~ase, although
slowly, in leaves which have been placed in a dark chamber at a tem~eruture
of 3b-35? C, i. e,, under conditions ti~hich nor?ma11y destroy plant tissue.
It is difficult to imagine a similar increase in normal cell nucleopro-
teid .~ndei? such conditions, but the virus nucleoproteids do increase in quantity,
and, if a sufficiently virulent species of virus is used, attain a s
ignificant
concentration in the course of a week. Consequently, viruses, although com-
pletely dependent on the metabolism of their hosts, have a biochemistry of their
own. This is typical for their species and enables them to increase their own
living mass under conditions which deprive their hosts of this p~+ssib111ty,
The protein of the virus is differentiated from the proteins of the host by its
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
carrying individual anti en ~ _ ~..~~a.. "' some Instances it is capable of
g groups which are related to the antigens of the host.
In these instances the virus seems to be marked in some way by those exchange
reactions in the metabolism of tht: host, which evidently participate both in
the synthesis of the proteins in the host and the formation of new virus parti-
cles.
It is interesting to note that a chemical difference apparently hoe been
established between one of the pyrimldine bases entering into the composition
of bacteriophage T2 and the corresponding base of its bacterial host (29)? This
Se the first indication of a specific chemistry of viruses which distinguishes
them qualitatively from the chemistry of the host. This may also serve as a
demonstration of the synthetic potentialities of viruses and their capacity for
assimilation.
Although there has been very little study of the metabolism of viruses,
and our knowledge of the physiological conditions attendant upon the reproduc-
tion of viruses is still completely inndequate, data exist which convince us
that physiological metabolism takes place ir. viruses, ,just as it dues in ce11u-
lar organisms. The acceptance of this position is the acceptance oi' the livinE
nature of viruses, since the first and principal manifestation of life is the
process of physiological metabolism, If this process is absent, a protein
body can not be considered alive even thocgh it preserves its structure and
viability.
Z11~ber does not agree with this position (5)? ne expresses surprise at
my treatment of this question. Evidently he considers any interruption in the
vital activity of viruses impossible. T'ne resolution of this question is possi-
ble, in my opinion, under two conditions: (e) the nvailabilit;~ n.' a srientift-
cally valid criterion for the presence or absence of Life and (b) strict
adherence to this criterion in the evaluation of the various pheromera observed
in nature.
The criterion for the presen^_ or absence of? life elaborated by Engels
(19, 20), which is in accord with tits tenets of diaLecticai materialism, is
the basis of Michurinist biolo~?y. Life is ti;ou~ht of as the physiological
process or metabolism which is curried on by a protein substance in its rela-
tionship with the cor:di*ions of life. I1', ucwcver, this relationship 1s dis-
rupted, if' the protein: substance is isolutec i'rom Liie conditions of life for a
period oi' time, and th_.p;iy;,loloLicll proses:: o:' uxtuboLisn: is susperdec9, can
we then say that tiie substance exhioi.ts Li :'e uciivit.y^ ~'videntiy not, inrsmuch
as Liters is no life process, kre we obilged? ,a.der these circumstances, to
assume that there wiil be un i^,:rediute destruction. o!' such u protein substance,
that it will lose its pi~sicocliemical structure, or that it will be irreversibly
denntured7 Evidently not, Is it possible to rest~rc the vital activity oC
such a protein, substance by returning it rap,dly enough to the conditions of
life? We nay yes, on tits basis of known viroLoEical facts. Tile conditions
necessary to support the lire or' vi:?uses erist within the protoplasm of the host.
Nevertheless, some virts es maintain their viability for er.tendeci periods in vitro.
Zt must be admitted, therefore, that tits dependence of the physiological
metabolism oC viruses on the cells of the :.ost has been eraggerated. Viruses
can carry on a reduced metabolism in an aqueous solution. We can deprive u virus,
i.e., tobacco ..,osaic virus, of water au3 gases, precipitate it in a crystalline
fon~ frum a saturated solution of ammonium sulfate, or freeze it at very low
temperatures, keeping it under these conditions for as long as 10 years, and
still many of its particles will preserve their original state, and when intro-
duced ante the cells of a susceptible plant will regr,in their vitality. If we
do not wish to depart from our accepted criterion fo:? the presence or? absence
of life, we must admit that the vital activity of a virus is interruoted when
it is isolated from the conditions of life. The virus temporarily ideas its
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7 ~
STAT
ce*tain period of time.f NaturaPlyssuchhinterruptionsucan not exceedtspecific
time limits. Many viruses are destroyed very rapidly in vitro, and even the
most stable viruses are irreversibly d-natured with the passing of time.
Without metabolism any protein, even virus protein, is doomed to destruction,
but the rapidity with which the irreversible denaturatior; and destruction of
proteins takes place depends on the characteristics of their physicochemical
structure, and varies within wide limits.
We do not know whether sucS an interruption of vital activity is
tions are peculiar
to the nuc~eopr?oteids ^f viruses only, but it is thought that similar interrup-
discovaredpthatbaeparttof t~,ecbacteriaawhichchadrbeerukilled byoaehighLtempera~
ture could be restored to life if' they were subjected to n pressure of 200 ( )
atmospheres, or if a 1100 M concentration of phenol or glycine was established
in the culture liquid, Evidently Bosiryan also observed the restoration oi' bac-
teria to vital activity (i)? Urder certain unfavorable conditions, it is possi-
ble for the spores of bacteria to lose their metabolism and vital activity, and
thus undergo a modification which enables them to preserve their viability f'or
unusually long periods of time.
An irreversibly denatured virus particle Ss like a dead body, A normal
structurewandhviability,icanvnot,ihowever,sbelcalledtaideadtboP~sicochemical
the opinion that interruption of life activit 4Y? We are of
which plays a significant role in their capacitysto aas~l property of viruses
mental conditions, and must be considered a species characteristlVes to enviroa_
anabioais is regarded as a biological characteristic typical for many species
of plants and animals, Just as
A state of physiological quiescence ir. a complex organism, which possesses
large internal resources, merely represents an extreme lowering of the rate
of metabolism, while ir. the case of virus particles, which do rot have such
resources because of their comparatively homogeneous composition, this condi_
tion represents n complete cessation o: vital uctivity. The biological roles
of both of these phenomena are evidently identical, and each of them serves
to maintain the species. The problem of how nucleoproteid viruses reproduce
is also vex?y interesting. Zil'ber, for, example (5), is of the opinion that
viruses reproduce in t!re same way as coils. We assume that the reproduction of
the virus micelles does not proceed in the same way as that of cells, but does
represent a process of neoformation. On this basis we submit that the off-
spring partici=s for all practical purposes do not contain any of the substance
of the parent particles. Evidence supporting such a possibility can be found
in various literature sources (24). It has been shown, f'or example, with the
aid of phosphorus tracer atoms, that the substance of the Fjrent particles of
bacteriophages is not actually inherited by the offspring particles.
In fire different experiments no regular transfer from the parent to the
offspring particles was observed, and the insignificant amounts of phosphorus
of parent origin which were detected in tae Lscteriopirage offspring varied by
as much as 400 perceZt, This suggests tha; in this case the tracer atoms
were rot directly inherited by the offspring particles, but were acquired by
them from the decomposition products of the parent particles. This is supported
by the fact that the inactivation of a part of the parent particles by ultra-
violet rays or X-rays does not diminish the amounts of atoms of parent origin
in the offspring, and also by the fact that in a commor. mass culture tracer
phosphorus originating in parent particles of T6 bacteriophage is transferred
to the offspring of the unrelated bacteriophage T7,
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
How do we envision the neoformation of virus particle
the parent particles whi
?
h
s
c
We su
represent centers of bioche PPose that
are introduced into cells at the time of ini'ection
new virus particles are s ~C81 reactions, and, as a result of these reactions,
substances of the tali. Ynthesized from the amino acid, polypeptide, and other
the parent particles and offsprinicochemical connections w
cess must be regarded as a tap g Particles being synthesized duringbthisepro-
formed from the substances of~theamediumoandSnotei?rom thessubstances oi' the
parent Particles, P g Particle; ere
formation. In this sense, the offspring particles represent a true neo-
n our laboratories it was,,
virus that aggregates which wereeevidentled in experiments with tobacco mosaic
formed in the individual tails within 6 hoursaaftersta111ne in structure were
the idea tnat the accumulation of a virus is broughtnaboutob This su
activity of the particles introduced at the time of PPorts
colonies of the same t Y the synthesizing
ype of virus are formed, and thatethese~colonieswareh
drawn together, to a degree which depends on tiie magnitude of t':e intramolecular
Porces, with the result that peracrystels are formed. Judging by recent inves-
tigations (22), the viruses of the polyhearon diseases of insects also
ferate locally. 4~e polyhedron is a protein mass within which the formation
of the virus particles proli-
occurs,
Another cix?cumstance which obliges us to admit that there Ss a difference
between the reproduction of tails and that of virus particles is the fact that,
in view of the occurrence of cyclosis, we are not able to speak of the constant
topography of the various P,a2'ts of protoplasm.. On the other bond, Rs far as
we can determine by means of gray pictures, the virus particle is a solid
structure within which any internal movement similar to cyclosis can not be
suspected. This bears witness to the fact that the newly forming virus parti-
cles are topographically delimited from the substance of the
and that they must, by reason of the origin of the substances enterin??
their composition, i. e. of Parent particle
medium ~ the fact that these substances originateainnthe
tux's of therrepnoductionr of lane In regard to the external morphological
linear growth of the e? irus, the f'sct tint it may be connected withic-
that it mi ht dgregates and an increase ir. their liameters su
Finall g imitate the type of reproduction founu anion Egests
y, we are very much interested in Talmud~s B tails (27, 23),
possibility that. the new particle, durin iaea (18) concerning the
rudimentary stages within ~hpace formeQ btsasynthesis, passes throe
particle. The micro Y protein'globule of the~arentral
which is reported in~he~worY,irofstigatior. of the rirus of
respect. &ergold 2 Polyhedron disease,
( 3), is of great interest in this
To conclude, one of the qualitative differences between a nucleoproteid
virus and a cell is the fact that the assimilation products being synthesized
by the cell enter into :he internal composition of its structure, where they
facilitate growth and development which results in the cleavage of the body of
the tali, while the assimilation products oi' a virus particle do rot enter
its internal composition, but are merely temporarily affixed to tae external
,,surface ~f the bod o; into
~ii,ii?oacterial tails ittmust betassrticle by chemical bonds,
tails formed b umed that 2^ connection
Y cleavage is theoffsprin only one of the two individual
think that a certair. degree oz' nolarltygis In this case we are inclined to
the parent and offspring tails, Present in the relationship between
polarity reaches the limit at which the substance of theloffsorind ruses this
with the exception of individual atom groupings, contains practically none
of the substance P 8 Particle,
of the parent particle.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
STAT
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
STATI
the reproductive period.f It is iundoubtedlypengnged inialvery active metabolism,
thus giving rise to the intensive chemical reactions that occur. Its atomic
composition, especially in the aide chains, changes constantly. However, I
repeat that basically the substance of the parent particle is not inherited
by the offspring particle. The qualitatively distinct cellular type of repro-
duction is probably an evolutionary characteristic acquired as a result of the
increased degree of complexity ir.the organization >f living matter.
Nattua11y, at the pxesent stage in the development of virology, xe can
not arrive at a single interpretation encompassing all the complex problems
which touch upon the nature and origin of viruses. The problem is still
subject to discussion, and consideration oi' it in the literature and at con-
ferences is absolutely necessary, The increased interest in this subject
evoked by the discussion of the works of 0. B. Lepeshinskays will make possible
further progress in the investigation of viruses, the simplest precellular
forms o.? living matter,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
~?? G. M. Bosh'yan, On the Nature of Viruses and N:icrobes (0 Prirode Virusov
i Mikrobov), Medgiz, 194y
2? L? A? Z11'ber, The Virus Theory of the Origin of Malignant Tumors
(Viruanaya Teoriya Proiskhozhdeniya 21or~chestbennykh Opukholey), Medgiz,
19k6
3. L. A. Zil'ber, On the Symbiosis of Viruses and Bacteria, Uapekhi Sovremennoy
Biologil, Vol 33, p 81, 1952
k? L. A. Zil'ber, A Collectior. of Articles in Memoriam of D. I. Ivanovskiy,
Izvestiya AN SSSR, p 66, 1952
5? L. A. Zi1'ber, On the Natux?e of Viruses and Their Origin, Mikrobiologiys,
Vol 22, p 81, 195
6? D. I. Ivanovskiy, On Tvo Diseases of Tobacco, Sel'skoye h7tozyaystvo 1
Leaovodstvo, No 2, p 108, 1892
7. D. I. Ivanovskiy, Mosaic Disease of Tobacco (hiozaichnaya Bolezn' Tabaka),
Warsaw, 1902
8? G. P. Kalina, The Development of Microorganisms by Stages -- !n Objective
Reality, Mikrobiologiys, Vol 22, p 95, 1953
9? 0. B. Lepeshinskays, On the Origin, of Ce11s of Living Matter and the Role
of Living Matter in an Organism (U Proiskhoz2tderii Kletok iz Zhivogo
Veshchestva 1 Ao1' Zhivogo Veshchestva v Organizme), published by AMN
sssA; 1950
10. T. D. Lysenko, Scientific News Concerning Biological Species, Agrobiologiys,
Vol 6, 1950
11. p, I. Oparin, The Emergence of Life on the Earth (Vozniknoveniye Zhizni na
Zemle) 191
12? V. L. Ryzhkov, The Scientific Het?itage of D. I. Ivanovskiy. A Collection
of Articles in Memoriam of D. I. Ivanovskiy (Sbornik Pamyati D. I. Ivanoy-
skogo), published by AN SSSR, p 22, Ig52
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7
K. S. Sukhov, On the Origin of Viruses (0 Proiskhozhdenii Virusov), pub-
lished by'the A7:1-Union Soci
t
e
y for the Dissemination of Political and
Scientific Knowledge, 1948
?ig
:;
, '
'
.
;
.
,.
K. S. Sukhov
On'6he Conditions Under Which`Repro9uction of Virus Nucleo-
proteids Occurs in Plant Cells, Trudi Inst Genetiki, AN SSSR, Vol 19,
p 222, 1952
15. K. S. Sukhov, The Discoveries of D. I. Ivanovskiy in the Light of Contempo-
rary Conce~te ~tgn;e~?~Dg Viruses. Cpl~ectiQq,,y,~~lrticles.in Memoriam of
D. T. Ivanovskiy~:(Sbo riilc ~Pap,yati D. I. Ivafiovsko~o), P 52
16. Sukhov and A. M. Vovk, The Variability of Tobacco Mosaic Viruses During
Passages Through the Orcanisms of Various Species of Plant, Trudi Inst
Genetiki AN, SSSR, Vol 18, p 215, 1550
17. K. S. Sukhov and G, S'. Nikiforova, physiological Conditions Which Stimulate
Che Reproduction of 't'obacco Mosaic Viruses in Plant Ce11s, Tru~i Inst
Genetiki, AN, SSSR, Vol 18, p 236, 1950
18. D. L. Talmud, Protein Structure (Stroyeniye BE?ka), published by pN, SSSR,
1940
19. F. Engels, The Dialectic of Nature (Dealectiku Prirody), Gospolitizdat,
1948
20. F. Engels, Anti-Duehring (Anti-Dyuring), Partizdat, 1934
21. F. C. Bawden and B Kaesanis, Some Properties of Tobacco Etch Viruses,
Ann. Appl. Biol., Vol 28, p 107, 1941 ,
22? F. C. Bawden and B. Kaesanis, T're Suppression of One Plant Virus by
Another Ann, Appl Biol, Vol 32, p 52, 1945
23? G. K. Bergold, Demonstration of file Polyhedral Virus in the Blood Cells
of Silkworms, Biochemica et Biophysics Acta, Vol 8,, p 397, 1952
24? I. D. Bernal and T.' Fa'nkuchen, X-Ray ard'~ryate!1lagraphic Studies of
Plant-Virus Preparations, J. Gen. Physiol., Vol 25, P 111, 1941
' 25? L. M. Kosloff, Biochemical Studies of Virus Reproduction, J. Biol. Chem.,
Vol 194, p 95, 1952
26? A. Lembke, Coacerriing-'the:Qhemical Reactivation of.Batteria (Zur Chemischen
Reaktivierung von Bakterien), Naturwiss, Vol 39, P 112, 1952
27. W. Stanley and A. Anderson, A Study of Purified Viruses With the Electron
Microscope, J. Biol. Chem., Vol 139, p 325, 1541
28? R. Steer and C:. Robley,. $lectron Microscope. Evidence, on the Mechanism of
Afultipllcation of Tomato-Stunt Virus, Phytopath, Vol 39, p 23, 1949
~9? G. R. Wyatt and S. S. Cohen, A New t'yrimidine Base From Bacteriophage
Nucleic Acids, Nature, Vol 170, No 4_3$, p 1072, 1952
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/09/14 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700190200-7