Is HIV genetic

Is HIV a genetic virus?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081019212510AAk1fLG

No. It is considered an STD. Which can come from either sexual contact, breastmilk, from a mother’s to a baby’s blood during pregnancy, or direct blood contact (i.e. sharing needles). If it was genetic, it would passed down from generation …

How to Learn About Special Protections for HIV, Alcohol, and Subs…?

http://www.cportho.com/cpo-npp.htm

Special privacy protections apply to HIV-related information, alcohol and substance abuse treatment information, mental health information, and genetic information. Some parts of this general Notice of Privacy Practices may not apply to the…

Does residual virus replication during successful HAART lead to H…?

http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/17578212/Does_residual_virus_replication_during_successful_HAART_lead_to_HIV-1_genetic_evolution

Journal of HIV therapy [No abstract available]

Related Questions Answered on Y!Answers

Is genetic immunity to HIV evidence of evolution?

Q: Apparently, a prostitute in Nairobi has genetic immunity to the HIV virus. How, exactly, and is this evidence of evolution?

A: A single individual with a mutation does not constitute evolution. If she does not leave offspring who have the same mutation, then no evolution has occurred.Or if the implication is that, by being a prostitute, this woman has *developed* a resistance to HIV by repeated exposure to it, then this is also NOT evolution. Evolution is change in the *population*, not in an individual.But if this woman has a mutation that is spreading into the population, then that is not just *evidence* of evolution, that *IS* evolution … by definition (a change in the allele frequencies within the population).So the evidence would be if there are other people she is related to (such as cousins, or her children if she has any) that also have this same immunity to HIV. That would be evidence of a *heritable* mutation that is increasing in the population … i.e. evolution.—– Aside to John —–This need to emphasize this as ‘microevolution’ is Creationist nonsense. Since microevolution is just a name that scientists give for the *study* of evolution at or below the level of the species … evidence of microevolution is evidence of evolution. Period.Evolution is a *process*. What we call microevolution is the study of how that process works (natural selection and genetic drift). What we call macroevolution is the study of the *results* of that process over longer and longer timescales (the bigger and bigger changes in structures over bigger and bigger time, and the branching of new species, genera, families, orders, etc.) To accept evidence of the *process* while rejecting the evidence of its *results* holds no water as a logical argument. In other words, accepting microevolution while rejecting macroevolution is like accepting microgrowth of a tree (the fact that its cells are dividing), while rejecting that macrogrowth can occur (the tree gets taller) as a result of it!

How does AZT (azidothymidine) find the HIV genetic code?

Q: AZT works by reverse transcriptase inhibitor (RTI), and it is said to have a 300 to 500-fold greater affinity towards a cell with HIV. If AZT is a relativly small molecule, how does it have this much greater affinity towards the cells with HIV?

A: being viral, hiv uses reverse transcriptase to replicate, normal cells dont.

HIV, why lysogenic, how they get their genetic code inserted into the host, how the code is inserted into the ?

Q: HIV, why lysogenic, how they get their genetic code inserted into the host, how the code is inserted into the

A: Your question is unclear. Lysogeny helps the virus remain latent in the host for longer periods. A clearer question will lead more satisfactory answers.