Scientists Develop Kill Switches In Case Bioengineered Microbes Go Rogue (upi.com)

schwit1 quotes UPI: Scientists at Harvard have developed a pair of new kill switches that can be used to thwart bioengineered microbes that go rogue. Researchers have been testing the use of bioengineered microbes for a variety of purposes, from the diagnosis of disease in the human body to the neutering of mosquitoes. But there remain concerns about releasing manipulated microbes into nature. Could their augmented genes have unintended consequences? Could they morph and proliferate?

Kill-switches ensure the microbes effectively shutdown, or commit suicide, after they've executed their intended function. While kill switches have proven effective in the lab, researchers suggest kill-switch technologies needed to be improved to ensure safety in real-world environs... The researchers detailed their new kill switches in a new paper published this week in the journal Molecular Cell. "This study shows how our teams are leveraging synthetic biology not only to reprogram microbes to create living cellular devices that can carry out useful functions for medicine and environmental remediation, but to do this in a way that is safe for all," said Donald Ingber, founding director of the Wyss Institute.

Comments

Life will find a way

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, has no one read Jurassic Park? This limitation will work right up until the organisms evolve a way around it. And they will, as witnessed by MRSa and other human-made disasters. But that won’t stop science....

Re:Life will find a way

[Archtech]

Seriously, has no one read Jurassic Park?

A handful of the elderly, perhaps. But even they know "it's only fiction".

Re: Life will find a way

[Anonymous Coward]

No one has "read" Jurassic Park.

Re:Life will find a way

[Joe_Dragon]

you bred raptors?

Re:Life will find a way

[crunchygranola]

Seriously, has no one read TFA? (I know, I know, this is /.)

This work addresses exactly that problem, they have installed two mechanisms in different parts of the genome both of which produce different toxins. The regular kill switch, which kills the organism with toxin A when an environmental trigger is detected, also continuously produces an anti-toxin for toxin B, which the other mechanism continuously produces. Losing the trigger part also edits out antitoxin B, killing the cell immediately. A two step process of losing the toxin B gene, followed by losing the trigger would be needed to eliminate the kill switch.

If that is not secure enough then you could make a three part system following a similar strategy.

This is reminiscent of how they developed an effective treatment for AIDs that renders it non-fatal. Any drug they came up with that targeted a vulnerable site in the virus would fail since that vulnerable site would be lost in the the very rapid mutation process of the virus. Even using two drugs that targeted different sites had limited success. But a three drug therapy has worked - targeting different regions of the protease so that it cannot simultaneously mutate enough to deactivate all of them, without also deactivating its function.

Re:Life will find a way

[Agent0013]

>

This work addresses exactly that problem, they have installed two mechanisms in different parts of the genome both of which produce different toxins.
... A two step process of losing the toxin B gene, followed by losing the trigger would be needed to eliminate the kill switch.

None of that seems out of the ordinary for evolution. We have toads that lay their eggs on their own backs. They need a special skin that protects the eggs and keeps them moist. But they also need a long egg depositor that can reach all the way up to their back. One change by itself it useless, so it needs both of them to work. And it the toxin A and B story, if it looses the Toxin B generator first, nothing happens to kill it. Then after that it can loose the toxin A gene and now it can live.

Nature ... finds a way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that!

Monsanto tried that too with their enineered crops. They were supposed to be unable to reproduce. And yet they did! Because mutations.

But hey, maybe you can react like they did, when they sued the farmers on whose fields the Monsanto crops had spread for copyright infringement and put them in prison for 10-20 years.
Yes, that actually happened.

Re:Nature ... finds a way.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

If you believe a kill switch will work, you're a creationist.

Re:Nature ... finds a way.

[interkin3tic]

Monsanto tried that too with their engineered crops. They were supposed to be unable to reproduce. And yet they did! Because mutations.

I think you're confusing three separate issues and believing they're a reality that fits what you want to believe.


Two: there have been lawsuits that monsanto pollen contaminated fields (you mention this below). It appears more likely the farmer in question intentionally cultivated GMO seeds, using roundup, and at any rate, that's much different from what you're suggesting.

Three: terminator seeds, which Monsanto developed, are unable to reproduce. These seeds were never sold. There's not much need: modern farmers aren't really interested in re-using seeds. First generation hybrids that are sold are superior, second generation seeds are a mix that aren't worth as much.

But hey, maybe you can react like they did, when they sued the farmers on whose fields the Monsanto crops had spread for copyright infringement and put them in prison for 10-20 years. Yes, that actually happened.

You're intentionally peddling lies here. The farmer in question planted the GMO seeds he didn't buy or license. I don't think he should have had to license seeds he obtained from his own land, so that part is shit, but he did knowingly use the seeds without paying the fee. He had to pay a small fine, NOT the lawyers fees, and he didn't fucking get sent to prison.

Re:Nature ... finds a way.

[interkin3tic]

Oops, misformatted first point. You might be thinking of glyphosphate resistant weeds, which have been spreading. Either they evolved resistance (predictable) or modified genes from the crops spread to the weeds (Scary, less likely, I couldn't immediately find whether there had been any documented cases of this). But that's a far cry from a kill switch failing. There was no kill switch built into anything monsanto has sold.

Re:Nature ... finds a way.

[interkin3tic]

It's a matter of numbers. All your cells have dozens of kill switches built into them. They generally work for the 40 trillion or so cells you're made of for long enough. But that took billions of years of trial and error. And even with that, cellular evolution eventually overwhelms them and kills you with cancer.

The technology in question isn't applied. Hopefully even government regulators will be intelligent enough to realize that a single kill switch is no match for evolution.

Re:Nature ... finds a way.

[sjames]

Monsanto based many of their claims in lawsuits on the idea that resistance could not be bread in and could not jump. Both have since happened. In particular, South American cocoa growers bred resistance (making the DEA their unwitting weed control partners), many weeds evolved resistance, and wild plants related to canola now carry Monsanto's genes. Further, Monsanto's canola is now growing wild along some roads.

Re:Nature ... finds a way.

[interkin3tic]

I can't really blame monsanto for what the DEA did. JFC I knew they always managed to make the dumbest possible move, but that really takes the cake...

Resistance evolving in weeds was predicted, if Monsanto claimed that wouldn't happen, shame on whichever idiots believed it.

Horizontal gene transfer to other species though, yeah. That's always been a concern, and monsanto steamrolled through it. If the NRA has a competitor for making sure a controversy will be inflamed in the future, it's Monsanto. GMOs face an uphill battle because of those assholes, people WILL die as a result of their greed. But as far as the kill-switch goes, Monsanto ISN'T an example of why kill-switches in biotech will always lead to bad things.

Re:Nature ... finds a way.

[sjames]

True, their many sins don't (yet) include losing control of a kill switch. They do highlight why people are wary of a kill switch or anything that might need one. Subsequent events do call into question Monsanto's testimony in court and the decisions reached as a result. As you say, it also amps up suspicion for the whole industry.

Bass ackward

[Archtech]

"Scientists at Harvard have developed a pair of new kill switches that can be used to thwart bioengineered microbes that go rogue".

Nearly right! But it's quite important to implement the kill switches BEFORE the microbes "go rogue" (whatever that may mean).

Re:Bass ackward

[gweihir]

Definition of "microbes go rogue": The designer fucked up badly due to small skills, big ego and management pressure. I.e. the normal way things happen these days of pseudo-skills.

Re:Bass ackward

[mjwx]

"Scientists at Harvard have developed a pair of new kill switches that can be used to thwart bioengineered microbes that go rogue".

Nearly right! But it's quite important to implement the kill switches BEFORE the microbes "go rogue" (whatever that may mean).

Henry Wu: Actually they can't breed in the wild. Population control is one of our security precautions. There's no unauthorized breeding in Jurassic Park.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: How do you know they can't breed?
Henry Wu: Well, because all the animals in Jurassic Park are female. We've engineered them that way.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: But again, how do you know they're all female? Does somebody go out into the park and pull up the dinosaurs' skirts?
Henry Wu: We control their chromosomes. It's really not that difficult. All vertebrate embryos are inherently female anyway, they just require an extra hormone given at the right developmental stage to make them male. We simply deny them that.
Or is this one more like the lysine contingency.

Re:Fiction

[Mr D from 63]

This is how they will spread the biological kill switch to us all. Telling us its for our own protection.

Dual redundancy

[petes_PoV]

It seems to me that having two of the same type of technology does not do much to improve the overall safety factor. There are still systemic issues which lead to the possibility of both types of biological "kill switch" from operating.

What the researchers should be considering is a diversity of approaches to controlling rogue microbes: one biological and some other sort - physical, electrical, chemical, time-dependent. So if there was an "unknown unknown" that prevented successful killing, there was a fallback option that did not depend on any of the common factors that stopped the original (failed) system from doing what it should have.

Re:Dual redundancy

[ColdWetDog]

It's a bit more complex than 'two switches using the same type of technology' - it relies on an active channel to ensure that the inserted killer virus (bacteriophage) genome still exists.

It is hardly perfect and in The Fine Article is really touted as a demonstration on how one can proceed with other, presumably interconnected pathways to make a more robust safety system. I still have doubts on how this will play out in the long run (long in this case being perhaps a decade for a rapidly growing bacterium) - 'life finds a way' - but we're getting better at it.

Re:Dual redundancy

[crunchygranola]

The AID virus is not "finding a way" to defeat three drug therapy. Three different protease inhibitors target the critical protease molecule in different ways such that it cannot mutate to defeat all three and still work.

This work is not the final stage, it is simply showing a two step mechanism that requires two gene segments be lost in a particular order for the kill switch to be deactivated. More complex schemes are easily imagined, two different two component kill switches; mutually lethal two component kill switches so that they both must be lost together in the same mutation process, etc.

Re:Or

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you rub out another one when you found out about Roy Moore? Or was it that he's a former Democrat?

monthly subscription

[AndyKron]

You must pay a monthly subscription to your newly programmed genes or we pull the kill switch....

Re:monthly subscription

[Anonymous Coward]

That movie has been made : In Time. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/

Re:monthly subscription

[houghi]

You must pay a monthly subscription to your newly programmed genes or we don't.

Life finds a way

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding, right? Like nobody knows that bacteria mutate continuously and new phenotypes are selected, just like with antibiotic resistance. The ongoing dream of control over nature never dies.

Problem is lateral gene transfer.

[BlueCoder]

Assuming we are talking about bacteria and viruses that multiple by binary cell devision the real threat is viruses. Viruses come in all shapes and sizes and you can not assume one will not recognize your cell and try to coopt it at which point it will absorb some of the DNA of that cell as well as deposit some of it's own DNA.

Often times lateral DNA transfers like this are innocuous but there is always the chance something unusual will happen.. Fortunately as mammels we won't have to worry about mutation and passing stuff onto our children for the most part as those cells are mostly protected in our bodies. The real threat is for cancers and new transferable diseases.

Monsanto's RoundupReady crops are a great example:

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto wanted to treat crops like media. By making them sterile so you always have to buy more. Yeah... guess how that went.
The crops are spreading so well, they actually make whole species go extinct. India and Mexico already have massive problems with this.

And worst of all: If that shit spreads onto your field, there's literally creppy-ass spy-like suits coming to your field, finding "copyright infringement", and sending you to prison for a decade or two! Happened to a more than one farmer in Texas .

But hey, you can buy CRISPR kits for $150 on e-Bay now, and any grad student can make a gene drive that infects every human, with a delay of a generation or two, and then kills off pretty much every human there is. Maybe it already happened. I mean there's enough people with the skills, the motivation and resources.
Anyway, it's kinda relaxing to know we're that close to the apocalypse. ;) Because no matter if we turn this around in a hurry, or accelerate full steam ahead, it’s gonna be over real soon either way.

And then evolution kick in

[Anonymous Coward]

And then evolution kick in...

Re: Monsanto's RoundupReady crops are a great exam

[Anonymous Coward]

don't worry, I'm sure that swarms of autonomous drones will get us first.

WTF? How did you read *that* from my comment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please read my comment another time?
And please don't obsessively try to "find" a position opposite to yours this time.
(Hint: My comment said the opposite of what you imply I said.)
(Hint 2: Get off those drugs/meds.)

Re:WTF? How did you read *that* from my comment?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

What exactly didn't you like about my rephrasing of the situation?

But how effective is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are dealing with counts in the millions. If these kill switches aren't effectively reproduced at very nearly 100% of the time, these aren't going to provide any real safety.

Re:But how effective is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that this will entice people to do more dangerous things with genetically modified organisms, because "there is a kill switch anyway."
It is human nature.

I've heard of those!

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember having genetic controls on living things was a big plot point in the Jurassic Park movies.

It's been awhile, so I don't exactly remember how everything ended, but I'm sure they worked fine!

Kill Switch

[FredrikKarlsson]

Life finds a way.

Notice

[hcs_$reboot]

We're sincerely sorry, the bioengineered microbes we designed have mutated and the kill switch doesn't work anymore.

Management will decide "they are not needed"

[gweihir]

And they are "too expensive" and after the technology has become somewhat widespread, it will be done without the safety mechanisms. And guess what? Nothing will be happening to the guilty, just as today.

Re:Management will decide "they are not needed"

[iggymanz]

the existence of "a guilty party" assumes two kinds of survivors of a bad bio accident.

Re:Management will decide "they are not needed"

[gweihir]

Oh, there will be survivors. One reason bio-weapons are not used in practice (other then chemical ones) is that they are really hard to deliver, i.e. you usually hit only a small number of people. The other is that many people will survive or even not get sick. But a few million dead if something like this goes bad in a larger city are a real possibility. Most will actually not die from the pathogen though, but from the panic.

Re:Management will decide "they are not needed"

[iggymanz]

if civilization comes apart the notion of "guilt" and venues for prosecution disappear along with law and borders. A bunch of savages in L.A. can know nothing and do nothing about the former biotech employees on the east coast.

It'll be completely safe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Equifax will be in charge of the kill switch.

Re:Fiction

[slick7]

This is how they will spread the biological kill switch to us all. Telling us its for our own protection.

No, it's to protect the children. Besides, if it doesn't happen, the terrorists win.

Re: Or

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me preface this with I am not nor have I ever been a republican.

Now...Democrats have shown themselves to be just as deceitful and creepy as their republican rivals.

Just saying.

the hard part

[goombah99]

puttng a kill switch in a bug is trivial. really really trivial. I've done it so I know. Lots of people do it.

the problem is making the kill switch not get edited out in future generations. I see that some of my bacteria have mutated out there's in a few generations. there was no selective pressure to do this either. So they are rare in the population 1 in millions. But as soon as I apply selective pressure all the other ones dies and those are the ones left.

Re:the hard part

[Hognoxious]

There's a similar error in Oryx and Crake. I shan't say anything more specific in case anyone is going to read it, which I would still recommend despite it.

Re: the hard part

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, aren't cancer cells just cells where the kill switch didn't work? All it takes is one microorganism with a faulty kill switch, then soon after all the microorganisms will have a faulty kill switch.

Replicants r us

[mattr]

Um, so I'm guessing it would be bad to get infected by one of these virii. It could end up being a time delay a la bladerunner.

The real corporate title:

[joao.cordeiro]

Company that makes bioengineered microbes found a way to kill the cure if the subscription is not paid in time...

30 year out of date post

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.postnatural.org/Specimen-Vault/E-coli-x1776
circa 1985

The new AIDS

[TheOuterLinux]

It evolves and now we all have a "kill switch." Good thing the average person is as dumb as a gullible box of rocks so we can blame it on the Mosquitos. Then maybe we can DEET everything again, knock down the bird and bat population to make it safer for drones. -_-

self termination first simulated

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations onyour purchase of the Popup Newsreader and 2weeks trial of CNN{HD}: Now everywhere you walk, in just a whistle, your retinal cells will align a hallucinatory box and thanks to quanrum dna tech they will open a bluetooth signal to another cell on your ear that ssh over staticky ether to another peer to retrieve the latest newsfeeds over your own sneakernet. Please check disapproved drugslist that could effect your motor skills.

HALLUCINATES: tacos rule.

Re:Fiction

[Humbubba]

We replicants have had a kill switch since the Garden.

"Shutdown" is not a verb

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to spell.

Evolution

[future assassin]

These guys haven't heard of evolution?

Re:Fiction

[Archtech]

https://warnewsupdates.blogspo...

Only requires one failure ... cut funding now!

[fygment]

Unless the 'kill switch' is 100% effective 100% of the time, doesn't that mean that there will be (at some point) one successful survivor that will breed?
And like the parent, the offspring won't (all?) be responsive to the kill switch.
So until "kill switch" technology is 100% effective 100% of the time ...

Cut the funding to this now. It's a stupid idea.

Evolution invests in killing kill switch

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists invest in kill switch for rogue microbes ignoring basic known science.
What could possibly go wrong for these illiterate scientists?
Evolution invests in killing kill switch to help rogue microbes. News at 10!

Re:Fiction

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how they will spread the biological kill switch to us all. Telling us its for our own protection.

Sooner or later those bioengineered microbes will take "going rogue" to even higher levels once they figure out how to override the kill switches.

yeah, right

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, we all know these will fail. It happens in every movie.

Re:Or

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary Clinton's good friend Anthony Weiner sexted with a 15-year-old while his child watched. Yeah, liberals are really great, too, aren't they?