CRISPR kills HIV and eats Zika 'like Pac-man'. Its next target? Cancer

Authored by wired.co.uk and submitted by candiedbug
image for CRISPR kills HIV and eats Zika 'like Pac-man'. Its next target? Cancer

HIV has no cure. It’s not quite the implacable scourge it was throughout the 1980s and 1990s, thanks to education, prophylactics, and drugs like PrEP. But still, no cure. Genetically-modified humans: what is CRISPR and how does it work? Genetically-modified humans: what is CRISPR and how does it work? ADVERTISEMENT

Part of the problem is HIV’s ability to squirrel itself away inside a cell’s DNA – including the DNA of the immune cells that are supposed to be killing it. The same ability, though, could be HIV’s undoing. All because of CRISPR. You know, CRIPSR: the gene-editing technique that got everyone really excited, then really sceptical, and now cautiously optimistic about curing a bunch of intractable diseases.

Last week, a group of biologists published research detailing how they hid an anti-HIV CRISPR system inside another type of virus capable of sneaking past a host’s immune system. What’s more, the virus replicated and snipped HIV from infected cells along the way. At this stage, it works in mice and rats, not people. But as a proof of concept, it means similar systems could be developed to fight a huge range of diseases — herpes, cystic fibrosis, and all sorts of cancers.

READ NEXT Scientists 'breed' terrifying red-eyed mutant wasps...because they can Scientists 'breed' terrifying red-eyed mutant wasps...because they can

Those diseases are all treatable, to varying degrees. But the problem with treatments is you have to keep doing them in order for them to work. “The current anti-retroviral therapy for HIV is very successful in suppressing replication of the virus,” says Kamel Khalili, a neurovirologist at Temple University in Philadelphia and lead author of the recent research, published in Molecular Therapy. “But that does not eliminate the copies of the virus that have been integrated into the gene, so any time the patient doesn’t take their medication the virus can rebound.” Plus treatments can — and often do — fail.

Gene therapy has promised to revolutionise medicine since the 1970s, when a pair of researchers introduced the concept of using viruses to replace bad DNA with good DNA. The first working model was tested on mice in the 1980s, and by the 1990s researchers were using gene therapies — with limited success — to treat immune and nutrition deficiencies. Then, in 1999, a patient in a University of Pennsylvania gene therapy trial named Jesse Gelsinger died from complications. The tragedy temporarily skid-stopped the whole field. Gene therapy had been steadily getting its groove back, but the 2012 discovery that CRISPR could make easy, and accurate, cuts on human genes, added more vigor.

READ NEXT WIRED Awake: 10 must-read articles for March 29 WIRED Awake: 10 must-read articles for March 29

CRISPR as an agent for curing HIV has its own problems. For one, it has to be able to snip away the HIV from an infected cell without damaging any of the surrounding DNA. HIV mutates and evolves, so Khalili and his co-authors couldn’t just program their CRISPR system with a single genetic mugshot. Instead, they had to target enough unchanging sections that were also critical to the virus’ survival.

Their next challenge was delivering the system to a critical mass of infected cells. First, you have to get it past the immune system – which is programmed to attack any foreign object entering the body. They did this by packing their CRISPR system inside another type of virus called AAV (short for adeno associated virus). “AAVs are a very small helper virus, they can’t actually replicate in a cell on their own unless they have another virus there to help it along,” says Keith Jerome, a microbiologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre in Seattle. “The great thing about AAVs is they cause essentially no immune system response in humans.” The death of Gelsinger in 1999 was due to the fact his therapy involved corrected genes and an actual adenovirus (a weakened cold virus) which acted like a vector, as opposed an AAV. AAVs are currently being used as vectors in clinical trials for haemophilia A and B with minimal side effects.

But still, doctors hoping to prescribe AAV-based gene therapy have to be aware of patients’ prior exposure.

READ NEXT WIRED Awake: 10 must-read articles for February 16 WIRED Awake: 10 must-read articles for February 16

In order to get approved for human use, this type of CRISPR-borne cure would have to be both safe and effective. This study got part of the way but was going strictly for efficacy: Does this work? Khalili and his co-authors treated mice and rat model with strains of HIV that were latent; hiding away in cellular DNA—and others where the HIV was actively replicating. Then they used it on mice grafted with human cells. In all three cases, HIV rates went down significantly.

Other good news on the safety front: there’s no evidence their trial made any off-target cuts. Ageing is a disease. Gene therapy could be the 'cure' Ageing is a disease. Gene therapy could be the 'cure'

They’ll now need to run more experiments to make sure that’s absolutely the case, probably using primate models since their DNA is closer to humans. They also have to make sure the treatment gets rid of enough HIV, so it doesn’t just replicate itself back to harmful levels. “In actual human patients there’s no way that a CRISPR gene therapy will ever get 100 per cent of HIV,” says Paul Knoepfler, a stem cell biologist at UC Davis. “How highly efficient will be ‘efficient enough’ to make a clinically meaningful impact?”

READ NEXT CRISPR should be used to combat disease, not make designer babies (yet) CRISPR should be used to combat disease, not make designer babies (yet)

Khalili believes he can get close enough. According to him, the CRISPR system doesn’t need to eliminate all the HIV-infected cells, just enough so an HIV-patient’s immune system can get strong enough to take care of the rest on its own. “I strongly believe in the gene-editing strategy, and with my 30 years in HIV research, I think this is the one that is going to take us to the end.”

He’s not the only optimist. “The advantage of using a virus as your delivery system is it can infect virtually every cell,” says Jianhua Luo, a pathologist at the University of Pittsburgh. Luo is using a similar CRISPR-in-a-virus system to target cancerous DNA in cells.

And curing HIV could be a proof-of-concept for other diseases – even genetic diseases people are born with. Although the virus starts as a simple infection, once it becomes part of a person’s chromosome, it essentially becomes a genetic disease.

How CRISPR-Cas13a enzymes behave like Pac-man The CRISPR-Cas13a family, formerly referred to as CRISPR-C2c2, is related to CRISPR-Cas9, which is leading biomedical research and treatment into gene editing. However, while the Cas9 protein cuts double-stranded DNA at specific sequences, the Cas13a protein – a nucleic acid-cutting enzyme referred to as a nuclease – latches onto specific RNA sequences. This means it not only cuts that specific RNA, but runs amok to cut and destroy all RNA present. “Think of binding between Cas13a and its RNA target as an on-off switch — target binding turns on the enzyme to go be a Pac-Man in the cell, chewing up all RNA nearby,” researcher Alexandra East-Seletsky said. This RNA killing spree can kill the cell. Three of the new Cas13a variants also cut RNA at adenine. This difference allows simultaneous detection of two different RNA molecules, such as from two different viruses.

READ NEXT Genetically-modified humans: what is CRISPR and how does it work? Genetically-modified humans: what is CRISPR and how does it work?

Since the HIV research was published, a team of biologists at University of California, Berkeley, described 10 new CRISPR enzymes that, once activated, are said to "behave like Pac-Man" to chew through RNA in a way that could be used as sensitive detectors of infectious viruses.

These new enzymes are variants of a CRISPR protein, Cas13a, which the UC Berkeley researchers reported last September in Nature, and could be used to detect specific sequences of RNA, such as from a virus. The team showed that once CRISPR-Cas13a binds to its target RNA, it begins to indiscriminately cut up all RNA making it "glow" to allow signal detection.

Expand your mind with WIRED's picks of the best podcasts

Two teams of researchers at the Broad Institute subsequently paired CRISPR-Cas13a with the process of RNA amplification to reveal that the system, dubbed Sherlock, could detect viral RNA at extremely low concentrations, such as the presence of dengue and Zika viral RNA, for example. Such a system could be used to detect any type of RNA, including RNA distinctive of cancer cells.

Imagine a world where, instead of removing her breasts, Angelina Jolie could instead have taken a dose of genes that snip away the BRCA2 genes that threatened her with cancer. That’s the difference between a treatment and a cure.

Nick Stockton is a staff writer for WIRED US. This article originally appeared on WIRED. It has been updated to reference the new University of California, Berkeley research.

Correction: 23.05.2017: this piece has been updated to add more detail about how Jesse Gelsinger died and the use of AAVs in other clinical trials.

High_Valyrian_ on May 23rd, 2017 at 05:23 UTC »

As a cancer biologist working day and night with CRISPR, I'd say hold your damn horses. It's not yet a perfect system and there are still many issues with it. And since there seems to be a whole lot of misinformation going around in this comments section regarding CRISPR, let me try and clear the air.

CRISPR/Cas9 works by pairing Cas9 (think of this as a protein that acts like a scissor that cuts double-stranded DNA) with a guide-RNA that directs the Cas9 to the gene of interest. Once at the site of interest, Cas9 then cuts the double-stranded DNA and the host cell will then try to repair it and occasionally, it does a poor job of repairing the break and we end up with what is known as an indel (insertion-deletion) or frameshift mutation. Either one of these mutations can result in either:

(a) that piece of DNA no longer being able to code for the functioning protein; or (b) coding for a protein that is misshapen in some form and not able to carry out its function.

This is the basic principle of the technology and is why it holds so much promise. Using CRISPR, we could potentially knockout "bad" genes that lie at the root cause of so many diseases. However, you NEED to realize that the guide RNA is something that is constructed in a lab, based on our knowledge of the human genome. the guide RNA needs to match precisely with what we are trying to target in order for Cas9 to do it's thing (Here's a link to a video made by the Brain Institute at MIT that explains the system). However, this is by no means perfect. Very often, we get "off-target" effects i.e. the guide RNA finds another site (because biology is complicated like that) and causes cas9 to cut at an unintended site. For the lack of better words, this can really fuck shit up if the cut happens on a gene that is actually important for routine functions in the body. While scientists are working really hard to figure out how to eliminate this and make things really precise, we don't yet have a real solution and because of that, we are quite a ways away from actually putting this into patients.

So in summary, while it has potential, CRISPR is not some magic cure for all of humanity's diseases. We still need to work out kinks and figure out how to eliminate off-target effects.

It's far from a perfect system and there is still years of research to be done in the field. As a scientist, I feel like it's my civic duty to inform the public to simmer down. Yes, it's a promising technology, but for the love all that his holy please do not buy too much into click-bait bullshit articles such as the one that OP has posted. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

happiiiface on May 23rd, 2017 at 04:24 UTC »

People need to chill. Yes, CRISPR is a revolutionary technology, but as a scientist who works with Cas9, I can tell you that we're far from being able to "kill HIV" and "eat Zika 'like Pac-man'". And there are several reasons why we're far from CRISPR-based cancer treatments, too.

(to name two: (1) we don't have a good way to make targeted edits in tumor cells specifically using CRISPR, so we would have to fix mutations at the embryo stage, leaving susceptibility to mutations arising during life; (2) most cancers are caused by many mutations, so it's currently unfeasible to remove each one of these mutations using uniquely-guided Cas9 proteins.)

EDIT: Wanted to add one more thing - equally annoying as this clickbaity journalism is the irresponsible fearmongering about CRISPR. Let's avoid talking about CRISPR genocides when we literally haven't even successfully edited an embryo

EDIT 2: This comment has gotten much more reception than expected; and people seem to have many questions about CRISPR as a technology and the current state of the field. To that end I would definitely recommend watching this Kurzgesagt video, but if there are still questions I'd love to answer them. Lots of interesting discussion going on here!

shillyshally on May 23rd, 2017 at 01:07 UTC »

Radiolab did two episodes on CRISPR. Definitely worth the time to listen to both.