The entry of a virus into the host cell always implies the alteration of certain intracellular molecular relationships, some of which may involve the recovery of ancient cellular activities. In this sense, viruses are archaeological tools for identifying unexpressed activities in noninfected cells. Among these, activities that hinder virus propagation may represent cellular defense mechanisms, for example, activities that mutagenize the viral genome such as ADAR-1 or APOBEC activities. Instead, those that facilitate virus propagation can be interpreted as the result of viral adaptation to-or mimicking-cellular structures, enabling the virus to perform anthropomorphic activities, including hijacking, manipulating, and reorganizing cellular factors for their own benefit. The alternative we consider here is that some of these second set of cellular activities were already in the uninfected cell but silenced, under the negative control of the cell or lineage, and that they represent a necessary precondition for viral infection. For example, specifically loading an amino acid at the 3'-end of the mRNA of some plant viruses by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases has proved essential for virus infection despite this reaction not occurring with cellular mRNAs. Other activities of this type are discussed here, together with the biological context in which they acquire a coherent meaning, that is, genetic latency and molecular conflict.
Keywords: RNA world; biocommunication; biosemiotics; negative archaeology; viral quasispecies.
© 2023 The Authors. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The New York Academy of Sciences.