Why Are Viral Capsids Icosahedral? (asimov.press)

by surprisetalk 33 comments 80 points
Read article View on HN

33 comments

[−] dekhn 61d ago
We used to joke in my biophysics grad program that basically everything was determined by its surface area to volume ratio.
[−] IAmBroom 61d ago
"First, assume a spherical chicken."
[−] flobosg 61d ago
The header illustration brought to my mind, for some reason, the tomato bushy stunt virus depiction by the late Irving Geis: https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/geis-archive/gallery/geis-05...
[−] NooneAtAll3 61d ago

> even though evolution is contingent at a local level (such as a specific protein sequence or the shape of a flower), it is remarkably predictable at a global level (such as the very existence of proteins and flowers across many species)

to be fair... flowers are a very recent invention that appeared only after the dinosaurs got wiped out and clean slate allowed co-evolution of flowers and pollinators to occur

[−] yorwba 61d ago
Flowering plants (angiosperms) appeared during the Cretaceous before dinosaurs got wiped out, and there is fossil evidence of insects pollinating non-flowering plants (gymnosperms) like ferns and confers even earlier than that: https://repository.si.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/152b12d...
[−] meindnoch 61d ago

>an estimated 70 percent of viral capsids known to date are icosahedral, shaped like tiny soccer balls.

Soccer balls are not icosahedra. The archetypal soccer ball is a truncated icosahedron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truncated_icosahedron

[−] yorwba 61d ago
There are a few pictures of truncated icosahedra in the article, alongside several other shapes that are not icosahedra. The point is that they have icosahedral symmetry. The L is important.
[−] JackFr 61d ago
I was going to comment pedantically that soccer balls were dodecahedrons not icosahedrons, but in reading the article, I came to realize that truncated icosahedrons are the same as truncated dodecahedrons.

This was such a delightful realization I felt the need to comment anyway.

[−] zem 61d ago
that is indeed a delightful realisation! akin to when I noticed that a cube and an octahedron both had a cross section that was a regular hexagon.
[−] meindnoch 61d ago
Hmm. I'm sorry, but truncated dodecahedra are different from truncated icosahedra.

Truncated dodecahedra are made from twelve 10-gon and twenty triangular faces. Truncated icosahedra are made from twenty hexagonal and twelve pentagonal faces.

[−] 1-more 61d ago
And that archetypal soccer ball design is called the Telstar and named for a communications satellite, fun fact. I think before 1968 the volleyball shape was more popular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adidas_Telstar
[−] strgrd 61d ago
do you know what the modifier "like" means in the sentence you quoted, or are you just being annoyingly pedantic
[−] avereveard 61d ago
eh but also organic chemistry only does well 30 and 60 degrees
[−] dekhn 61d ago
See buckyballs as a trivial refutation of your point.
[−] HappySweeney 61d ago
Are buckyballs organic?
[−] andrewflnr 61d ago
Formally, yes. "Organic chemistry" is not too far off a synonym for "chemistry with carbon involved".
[−] IAmBroom 61d ago
"Not too far off" = "exactly defined as".
[−] andrewflnr 61d ago
I wasn't sure if there were any weird edge cases, but yeah.
[−] SAI_Peregrinus 60d ago
CO, CO2, carbonate salts like Na2CO3, or CaCO3, and cyanides like HCN, NaCN, and KCN are usually considered inorganic compounds instead of organic compounds, despite containing carbons. But the vast majority of carbon-containing compounds are considered organic, and there are no organic compounds that don't contain carbon.
[−] fc417fc802 60d ago

> there are no organic compounds that don't contain carbon

It's very much nitpicking and an edge case but now you've got me wondering if some silicone hydrocarbon analogs might not qualify. Noting that we have plausible theories about the feasibility of silicone based life.

[−] andrewflnr 60d ago

> we have plausible theories about the feasibility of silicone based life.

... Do we? Last I heard those weren't really viable due to some combination of being too stable or too unstable in all the available solvents.

[−] fc417fc802 60d ago
Maybe I'm out of date then. They looked plausible when I read about them years ago.
[−] dekhn 61d ago
I mean, I don't think diamonds are considered "organic"; same for graphite. But that's where the term "organic" itself starts to break down as a category.
[−] dekhn 61d ago
Yes! Not sure why you're asking- things don't have to be created by biological processes to be organic (this concept is totally unrelated to "organic" in the supermarket).
[−] BigTTYGothGF 61d ago
The universe seems perfectly happy to have, for example, 5-member rings tho.
[−] pfortuny 61d ago
Not in 3D.