OK..............so a virus can produce a toxin.................geesh. There are other definitions of toxins. The term "toxin" means the toxic material or product of plants, animals, microorganisms....including but not limited to bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa. End result remains the same...........the body trying to rid itself of viral toxins.A virus is not a toxin, it is a virus. Its' simplicity is misleading. The process of killing a virus and removing heavy metals has no similarity so using the same term is just lazy.
Medical Definition of toxin
- : a colloidal proteinaceous poisonous substance that is a specific product of the metabolic activities of a living organism and is usually very unstable, notably toxic when introduced into the tissues, and typically capable of inducing antibody formation
@Remy maybe I missed something in my google search, but if you have something that shows that it does induce oxidative stress, it would be good to see it so that it would help the original poster decide.
I do have comments and cites that call into question the study you posted but I'm waiting to put them in a new thread so as not to continue to take this one off topic.
Acyclovir is a prodrug...it is converted to the active, toxic drug by viral thymidine kinase through a process called oxidative phosphorylation. Oxidative phosphorylation by definition creates ROS, and thus oxidative stress.The truth is you cannot find one study because your were incorrect saying it increased ROS.
But acyclovir most certainly causes oxidative stress in the kidney.Our study confirms that QUIN toxicity may be caused by ROS generation via the Fenton reaction. This, however, applies only for unnaturally high concentrations that were used in attempts to provide support for the neurotoxic effect. In lower concentrations, we show that by liganding iron, QUIN affects the Fe(II)/Fe(III) ratios that are beneficial to homeostasis. Our results support the notion that redox chemistry can contribute to explaining the hormetic dose-response effects.
I was empathizing with Tammy's frustration at the nit picking of the definition of toxin. And I have not changed one thing about that comment. If I did it would show that it was edited. Not edited. People have a habit of rewriting the way things are to suit their purposes. The same thing happened to @RemyNo, this is insulting, and I notice you removed the headslam.
If you just posted this to begin with, or said that ypu did not have the time right now, instead of just replying "Google" you could have saved us all a bunch of time. Note that I never said you were wrong, I just wanted the source.Acyclovir is a prodrug...it is converted to the active, toxic drug by viral thymidine kinase through a process called oxidative phosphorylation. Oation by definition cHR for a whileates ROS, and thus oxidative stress.
This is why earlier drugs like AZT were so very toxic...because they were not so selective for viral TK and created mass havoc all through human cells as well as viral ones. But the ROS produced by the phosphorylation of viral TK still has to be cleaned up somehow...it doesn't just go away.
The study you posted regarding quinolinic acid may be a bit out of date. Later studies, like this one from 2013, suggest that quinolinic acid is not actually toxic in normal concentrations. So I don't think it is possible to extrapolate that something that happens to rat brains under artificially created conditions not likely to ever be experienced in the human brain in real life is actually applicable to much of anything.
But acyclovir most certainly causes oxidative stress in the kidney.
So does it have differing actions at differing locations? Possibly? Probably? I'd be interested to see more research along those lines for sure. But oxidative stress isn't everything. It's (not-so) simply a byproduct of the most common chemical reactions in the human body, which is why we have a redox balance. And I think acyclovir and other antivirals are generally pretty safe drugs comparatively.
And save the lectures and assumptions, please.
This isn't exactly correct.Then Remy wouldn't post her findings, which led to Croatoan asking her to post her findings. He was immediately considered rude, and then anything else he said was considered rude. Remy comes back with her message backing up what she said, and is allowed to continue the conversation about ROS.
You're right, all the posts from that point on should have been moved to a new thread. I think it's OK for a post or two to go off topic but when it's clear it's taken on a life of it's own, that's when the whole thing needs a new thread and a new title. It's only fair to the OP.No, you posted about ROS after I did when you answered the question about it. If it was going off track you could have stopped it right there and then.