Forced evolution: Can we mutate viruses to death?

Nov 10, 2008

It sounds like a science fiction movie: A killer contagion threatens the Earth, but scientists save the day with a designer drug that forces the virus to mutate itself out of existence. The killer disease? Still a fiction. The drug? It could become a reality thanks to a new study by Rice University bioengineers.

The study, which is available online and slated for publication in the journal Physical Review E, offers the most comprehensive mathematical analysis to date of the mechanisms that drive evolution in viruses and bacteria. Rather than focusing solely on random genetic mutations, as past analyses have, the study predicts exactly how evolution is affected by the exchange of entire genes and sets of genes.

"We wanted to focus more attention on the roles that recombination and horizontal gene transfer play in the evolution of viruses and bacteria," said bioengineer Michael Deem, the study's lead researcher. "So, we incorporated both into the leading models that are used to describe bacterial and viral evolution, and we derived exact solutions to the models."

The upshot is a newer, composite formula that more accurately captures what happens in real world evolution. Deem's co-authors on the study include Rice graduate student Enrique Muñoz and longtime collaborator Jeong-Man Park, a physicist at the Catholic University of Korea in Bucheon.

In describing the new model, Deem drew an analogy to thermodynamics and discussed how a geneticist or drug designer could use the new formula in much the same way that an engineer might use thermodynamics formulas.

"Some of the properties that describe water are density, pressure and temperature," said Deem. "If you know any two of them, then you can predict any other one using thermodynamics.

"That's what we're doing here," he said. "If you know the recombination rate, mutation rate and fitness function, our formula can analytically predict the properties of the system. So, if you have recombination at a certain frequency, I can say exactly how much that helps or hurts the fitness of the population."

Deem, Rice's John W. Cox Professor in Biochemical and Genetic Engineering and professor of physics and astronomy, said the new model helps to better describe the evolutionary processes that occur in the real world, and it could be useful for doctors, drug designers and others who study how diseases evolve and how our immune systems react to that evolution.

One idea that was proposed about five years ago is "lethal mutagenesis." In a nutshell, the idea is to design drugs that speed up the mutation rates of viruses and push them beyond a threshold called a "phase transition." The thermodynamic analogy for this transition is the freezing or melting of water -- which amounts to a physical transition between water's liquid and solid phases.

"Water goes from a liquid to a solid at zero degrees Celsius under standard pressure, and you can represent that mathematically using thermodynamics," Deem said. "In our model, there's also a phase transition. If the mutation, recombination or horizontal gene transfer rates are too high, the system delocalizes and gets spread all over sequence space."

Deem said the new results predict which parameter values will lead to this delocalization.

A competing theory is that a mutagenesis drug may eradicate a virus or bacterial population by reducing the fitness to negative values. The new mathematical results allow calculation of this mechanism when the fitness function and the mutation, recombination and horizontal gene transfer rates are known.

Without theoretical tools like the new model, drug designers looking to create pills to induce lethal mutagenesis couldn't say for certain under what parameter ranges the drugs really worked. Deem said the new formula should provide experimental drug testers with a clear picture of whether the drugs -- or something else -- causes mutagenesis.

Source: Rice University

Explore further: Magnetic materials that change their properties when heated could pack more data onto hard drives

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

How an 'evolutionary playground' brings plant genes together

Aug 29, 2011

Plants produce a vast array of natural products, many of which we find useful for making things such as drugs. There are likely to be many other plant natural products that remain undiscovered or under-exploited, and research ...

Understanding DNA Repair and Cancer

Dec 03, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- A protein that plays a key role in copying DNA also plays a vital role in repairing breaks in it, UC Davis scientists have found. The work is helping researchers understand how cancer cells can resist radiation ...

Recommended for you

RHIC's perfect liquid a study in perfection

Jun 18, 2013

(Phys.org) —When heavy ions (the nuclei of heavy atoms such as gold and lead) collide at high energies at Brookhaven National Laboratory's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and Europe's Large Hadron Coll ...

User comments : 12

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Going
4.5 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2008
The Theory of Evolution starts to give rise to evolutionary technology, the sign of a maturing science.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (10) Nov 10, 2008
Can we mutate robots back to humans? You should solve this first scientists.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2008
And let the virus live a life!Damn i wish viruses would mutate robots to death!
holmstar
4 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2008
This sounds rather dangerous. It is true that most mutations are detrimental to an organism, and the goal would be to introduce many many mutations all at once. But even with all of that, there is still a non-zero chance of creating a new virus or two that are more infectious or deadly than the original. Possibly MUCH more deadly as the new virus has never had to worry about killing its host. Viruses that have evolved naturally cannot kill their host too quickly for the risk of not being able to pass to a new host. A randomly created virus would have no such evolutionary limitations.
axemaster
4.4 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2008
I wish we wouldn't toy around with stuff like this. I like my viruses the way they are right now thank you.

As a scientist, I have to say that while this is interesting, I would much prefer if we never actually used it. We and our diseases are in balance, and have been for billions of years. Whenever I hear about something like this I get the feeling that we might be on the verge of messing with something critical and making a BIG mistake.
jeffsaunders
4.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2008
lomstar and axemaster - I think I agree to a point. I don't like my viruses the way they are right now but I am not enthusiastic about mutating them any faster than they do now.

They already mutate at such a fast rate that we are always getting sick from some new variation. These new variations will just increase and possibly the disease death rate along with it.

Plus something else. We know that viruses have a tendency to mess with DNA and RNA and there would be significant chance that anything that increased that mutation rate would have a similar effect on the host.
Dynamite
3.5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2008
as a fellow scientist, its great to come up with new ideas to ever expand our medical knowledge and abilities.. but it just concerns me that messing with viruses before we have really 'mastered' them, could be potentially deadly.

imagine a scenario like, the common cold - it is able to survive this super fast mutation problem, and them go an attack living bodies, while mutating as phenominal rates. turning the common cold from mild annoancy to a deadly killer.

but im sure all these things would all be tested under 'safe' lab conditions...
gmurphy
4 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2008
hmmm, interesting idea but risky. Evolution is the emergence of fitter solutions through random mutations. If you reconfigure a virus for more harmful mutations, a very small proportion of the virus will have a natural resistance to this effect, very shortly, the entire virus population will have an innate resistance to this lethal mutagenesis with the unknown factor of the modification to boot.
velvetpink
1.1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2008
Humans are the biggest viruses on this planet!
KB6
not rated yet Nov 11, 2008
Suppose that this is used on a retrovirus. Enough mutations are introduced to keep it from reproducing within a cell and being released, but not enough to prevent some of the induced mutations from being introduced into the genome. Couldn't a later virus infection activate or even pick up some of those induced mutations, leading to "surprising", ugly consequences?
E_L_Earnhardt
1.5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2008
Engineers compare thermodynamics effects to the TENTH of a degree! I suspect virus's do the same!Further, I suspect living cells are as critical!
Great work!, but please be exact!
Wicked
not rated yet Nov 15, 2008
Everyone is saying how dangerous it is to introduce genetic changes. Yet these occur in thousands of species every day with no oversight. Arguments about nature being in balance don't make sense. There are a limited number of hosts, so viruses that propagate efficiently become common. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think viruses evolve to keep their hosts alive. I tend to think that some of the hosts are immune to the viruses, so that the hosts and viruses can both survive. Otherwise both would just die off and neither would evolve.

Could the common cold become super deadly, or is this a urban legend? What are we basing this on? Why hasn't it done so already?

More news stories

DNA constructs antenna for solar energy

Researchers at Chalmers University of Technology have found an effective solution for collecting sunlight for artificial photosynthesis. By combining self-assembling DNA molecules with simple dye molecules, ...