Are RNA viruses more leathal than DNA viruses or bacteria?

Answer 1

Let's put it this way - a virus is not intrinsically more lethal if it's using RNA instead of DNA. Either can contain the same information. It's like asking if a car is more dangerous if it's blue.

HOWEVER it turns out that most of the really dangerous viruses are RNA viruses. This is probably simply because there are more of them and they mutate faster. A good analogy would be to say you're more likely to be killed by a gasoline car then a hybrid... the only reason for this is that there are far fewer hybrids!

Below you'll find a link to a (short) list of biosafety level 4 viruses (these are the ones considered most deadly and easiest to spread). Particularly the famous ones like Ebola and Marburg are RNA viruses.

Answer 2

I'd say that, pharmacologically , its more difficult to establish a proven drug that fights off RNA viruses, as they mutate more often.

DNA viruses and bacteria are genetically more stable, and are dependent on that genetic stability for their lethality. This stability can be exploited when drugs are developed to counter there lethality and depended on in the future.

One thing to keep in mind about RNA viruses, is that not all mutations they acquire are not always beneficial. They may mutate to their own demise.

So, drug-wise, the fast evoving viruses, like RNA viruses will probably never be totally controlled by human intervention (drugs).

I believe the same thought process can be said for the natural human immune system. Although the Human immune system is very nimble and adaptable, it might not be able to handle an active RNA infestation with the speed of RNA viral mutation rates.

Thanks for this very interesting question.

Pass on your good karma!

Answer 3

The lethality of any given infection is a function of its logevity within the species and mutations. The longer an infection has been infecting a host the less lethal it becomes. The less lethal strains allow the virus/bacteria to spread to other host and live longer than those that wuikly kill thier host. Things like the common cold have been infecting people for centuries and have developed to be harmless where as bugs that have freshly bridged the gap from animals to people can be very deadly. It has nothing to do with the type of infection(rna, dna, bacteria)

Answer 4

Yes, RNA viruses are more lethal than DNA viruses because RNA is single stranded whereas as DNA is double-stranded. This means that RNA can mutate more easily and these mutations can lead to serious ailments.

Answer 5

Viruses can contain either DNA or RNA or even both, but its uncommon for them to have both. Most, however do contain RNA.

Answer 6

yes that is true generally they r more lethal as they r formed only of one strand & any deformation caused in a part in the strand(as there isnt a complementary strand to mend it) so it will be changed which makes it harder to be under control
while DNA viruses r made of double helix if apart of strand is damaged it can be mended due to the presence of complementary strand therfore it can be under control
while DNA bacteria,there are alot of types which lives in human body r harmless like E.coli

Answer 7

You can't get more lethal than lethal. If a DNA virus kills you then it's just as deadly as an RNA virus or bacterium that kills you.

Some of each type cause fatal diseases, others of each type do not. The deadliest of each type all kill and are therefore all equally lethal. You can't get more dead than dead.

Answer 8

Not more lethal, as that is relative and circumstantial, but more mutagenic.

Answer 9

idk but i think dna would be more leathal cuz its the dna that basically controls everything