Dave Wessner, an infectious disease expert and professor of biology, explores the clinical merit versus the potential danger of experiments that modify the genetic makeup of viruses and give them new functions to better understand how they infect others and cause disease.
When researchers at Boston University reported that they had created a new edition of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes covid-19, media resources reported the story in some way. The article, which has not been peer-reviewed, describes the creation. of a new hybrid virus in a laboratory setting. This hybrid contained the gene for the Omicron variant spike protein inserted into the genome of the original Wuhan virus strain. Some others claimed that the studies were “irresponsible” and that a “Frankenstein” virus had been created. Other hounds presented a more nuanced view of the work.
At the heart of the practice is the clinical merit and prospective danger of so-called “gain-of-function” experiments. Common in virology, those experiments involve scientists changing the genetic makeup of potential pathogens, such as SARS-CoV-2, giving them new functions so researchers can better understand how the pathogen infects and causes disease in host organisms. Ultimately, those experiments may indicate the progress of vaccines or antivirals. This is a challenge the government has been grappling with for more than a decade.
Certainly, the intentional creation of a fatal human pathogen will have to be monitored. However, in a recent commentary, more than 150 virologists argue that the regulations do not “unduly restrict scientists’ ability to generate the wisdom necessary to protect us from these pathogens. “. “
The most recent discussion about gain-of-function experiments began when researchers at Boston University, led by Dr. Mohan Saeed, explored the basic biology of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, the variant that has long ruled the world. 2021. Knowledge shows that this variant is much more transmissible than variants beyond. However, it also appears to be less fatal than the strains beyond. Because of those observations further, Dr. Saeed and his colleagues asked a basic question: Can we elucidate what? Do Omicron mutations give a contribution to each of those properties?
To answer this question, they created what is known as a “chimeric” virus that contained the spike protein Omicron in the backbone of the ancestral Covid-19 virus. (The call comes from the Greek mythological creature “Chimera” that had the head of a lion, the body of a goat, and the tail of a snake. ) The concept was that mutations within the Omicron spike protein almost actually cause the body to recognize the virus less well, allowing it to evade the immune system, leading to what virologists call “immune evasion. “This immune leakage helps make the virus more transmissible. In creating the hybrid virus, the researchers tried to find out if those spike mutations also made us think about minimizing the lethality of this variant.
Unsurprisingly, Saeed and his colleagues found that the chimeric virus had an immune leak, just like Omicron. In addition, they observed that the chimeric virus was more lethal than Omicron when administered to mice. In fact, 80% of mice inoculated with the chimeric virus virus died. But this is compared to one hundred percent of mice that died from the original strain. Based on these results, the researchers concluded that mutations other than those of the Omicron tip gene will have to minimize the lethality of this variant.
In fact, the broader debate over feature gain reporting didn’t start with Covid-19. Much of the existing narrative dates back to 2011. That year, virologists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Erasmus Medical Center independently reported that they had genetically modified the avian influenza A/H5N1 virus to make it transmissible to ferrets. Why is it so remarkable? The A/H5N1 virus has a maximum mortality rate in humans. However, human-to-human transmission is limited. As a result, there was no large-scale outbreak of this virus in humans. But if the virus were to evolve into a more transmissible form, we may face a potentially catastrophic scenario: a highly lethal virus that spreads easily.
To investigate the likelihood of this event occurring, researchers from both establishments detected remote variants of A/H5N1 that can be transmitted between ferrets, an animal type used for aerosol transmission in humans. For obvious reasons, the implications of these experiments have raised concerns in the clinical network and among policymakers.
In reaction to those experiments, President Obama in 2014 signed into law a transitory federal ban on gain-of-function investment involving several potentially harmful pathogens. Three years later, the Department of Health and Human Services issued new rules for investment in a potential major pandemic. Pathogens.
The Boston University paper raised questions about whether the experiments deserve to have been allowed under the federal framework, illustrating the ambiguities of the process. In a statement released by Boston University, the researchers said they “have no legal responsibility to disclose these studies” to the federal government for two reasons. First, they used domestic funding resources, not federal funds. Second, they argued that the studies did not imply a gain in function. In fact, federal rules are not particularly about reveling in profits. Rather, those rules refer to studies “involving, or more likely to involve, the creation, transfer, or use of enhanced PPPs [potential pandemic pathogens]. “
Is SARS-CoV-2 considered a potential pandemic pathogen? Of course. Did the researchers foresee that their studies would create a possible advanced pandemic pathogen? Not necessarily.
This discussion led the functioning teams of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosafety (NSABB) to expand on new recommendations. A draft of those recommendations published earlier this year. On January 27, 2023, NSABB, a federal advisory organization within the Department of Health and Human Services, met to discuss the new proposal. After an era of public comment and internal conversations, the board voted unanimously to approve the project, with minor changes. However, Council members also identified that the rules were not the best and that this vital verbal exchange wishes to continue.
Some of the new recommendations seem reasonable. For example, committee members agreed that the rules deserve to apply to all studies conducted in the United States, whether federal funding or not. Similarly, the rules deserve to apply to studies conducted outside the U. S. funds. However, other adjustments seem more problematic. For example, the new proposal recommends that the rules apply to a broader organization of pathogens, not just potential pandemic pathogens. This stricter scrutiny may delay clinical studies and, in fact, create some ambiguity.
Conclusion: Regulating clinical trials is difficult. Gain-of-function experiments can provide an accurate view of the fundamental biology of microbes and potentially help us design much-needed therapies. But such experiments pose a threat and will need to be done with care and thought. NSABB members are still looking to thread this needle.
Full coronavirus policy and updates