In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice typically produce antibodies that destroy the virus by binding to proteins on its surface. Mice infected with a herpesvirus generally develop keratitis, a degenerative disease affecting part of the eye. Since proteins on the surface of cells in this part of the eye closely resemble those on the herpesvirus surface, scientists hypothesize that these cases of keratitis are caused by antibodies to herpesvirus.
Which of the following, if true, gives the greatest additional support to the scientists'
hypothesis?
A. Other types of virus have surface proteins that closely resemble proteins found in
various organs of mice.
B. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections,
and these mice contract herpes at roughly the same rate as other mice.
C. Mice that are infected with a herpesvirus but do not develop keratitis produce as
many antibodies as infected mice that do develop keratitis.
D. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections,
and these mice survive these infections without ever developing keratitis.
E. Mice that have never been infected with a herpesvirus can sometimes develop
keratitis.
I am not able to understand the meaning of this last line of the argument.
Since proteins on the surface of cells in this part of the eye closely resemble those on the herpesvirus surface, scientists hypothesize that these cases of keratitis are caused by antibodies to herpesvirus.
I am esp confused with these three words:antibodies to herpesvirus
Can somebody please explain this to me.
Here is what I think it means:
That scientist hypothesize that these cases of keratitis are caused by antibodies reaction to herpesvirus.
That would eventually lead to the understanding that while antibodies against herpes virus are developed, the protein in the eye, that resembles the protein on the surface of herpesvirus, becomes the unwanted victim of antibodies.
If my above interpretation is correct, then I would say that I don't think that the above conclusion is able to drive the point conveniently that it should.
Which of the following, if true, gives the greatest additional support to the scientists'
hypothesis?
A. Other types of virus have surface proteins that closely resemble proteins found in
various organs of mice.
B. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections,
and these mice contract herpes at roughly the same rate as other mice.
C. Mice that are infected with a herpesvirus but do not develop keratitis produce as
many antibodies as infected mice that do develop keratitis.
D. There are mice that are unable to form antibodies in response to herpes infections,
and these mice survive these infections without ever developing keratitis.
E. Mice that have never been infected with a herpesvirus can sometimes develop
keratitis.
I am not able to understand the meaning of this last line of the argument.
Since proteins on the surface of cells in this part of the eye closely resemble those on the herpesvirus surface, scientists hypothesize that these cases of keratitis are caused by antibodies to herpesvirus.
I am esp confused with these three words:antibodies to herpesvirus
Can somebody please explain this to me.
Here is what I think it means:
That scientist hypothesize that these cases of keratitis are caused by antibodies reaction to herpesvirus.
That would eventually lead to the understanding that while antibodies against herpes virus are developed, the protein in the eye, that resembles the protein on the surface of herpesvirus, becomes the unwanted victim of antibodies.
If my above interpretation is correct, then I would say that I don't think that the above conclusion is able to drive the point conveniently that it should.
If you've liked my post, let me know by pressing the thanks button.
