Facebook PixelCan Viral Resistance Be Engineered in Humans?
Create newCreate new

Can Viral Resistance Be Engineered in Humans?

Image credit: Fusionanimation.co.uk / unsplash

Jamila Jul 27, 2020
Please leave the feedback on this challenge

Is the problem still unsolved?


Is it concisely described?

Bounty for the best solution

Provide a bounty for the best solution

Bounties attract serious brainpower to the challenge.

Currency *
Who gets the Bounty *
Is there any way we can genetically engineer ourselves to become resistant to viruses?

The viral protein genome-linked (VPg) binds directly to the host eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E (eIF4E); this produces more viral proteins that are essential for viral replication and the subsequent viral infection. Some Arabidopsis thaliana mutants are naturally resistant to the tobacco etch virus. Mutations in the eIF4E or eIF(iso)4E genes can confer viral resistance against potyviruses in plants.

eIF4E is the main target of viruses in plants as well as humans. Are there any humans with gene variants of the eIF4E gene or any other genes, and does this make them less susceptible to certain viral infections? Furthermore, as the results for engineered viral resistance in plants are promising, could viruses that substantially affect humans be attenuated similarly and/or could humans be engineered to have viral resistance?

[1]Saha, Shreya, and Kristiina Mäkinen. "Insights into the Functions of eIF4E-Biding Motif of VPg in Potato Virus A Infection." Viruses, 12.2, 2020, pp. 197.

[2]Ruffel, Sandrine, et al. "A natural recessive resistance gene against potato virus Y in pepper corresponds to the eukaryotic initiation factor 4E (eIF4E)." The Plant Journal, 32.6, 2002, pp. 1067-1075.

[3]Montero, Hilda, Rebeca García-Román, and Silvia I. Mora. "eIF4E as a control target for viruses." Viruses, 7.2, 2015, pp. 739-750.

[4]Lellis, Andrew D., et al. "Loss-of-susceptibility mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana reveal an essential role for eIF (iso) 4E during potyvirus infection." Current Biology, 12.12, 2002, pp. 1046-1051.

Creative contributions

Synthetic Genome Recoding

Darko Savic
Darko Savic Aug 04, 2020
George Church proposes that it would be possible to make cells resistant to viruses through a process called recoding. It could enable the construction of organisms with unambiguous alternative genetic codes. A specific codon can be replaced with a synonymous one in the degenerate 64-codon genetic code (Plotkin and Kudla 2011). Done globally with corresponding tRNA removal, this entirely removes a codon from the genome, allowing reassignment for another use (which may be no use). Recoded cells with specific tRNAs removed or used for a novel amino acid should be broadly resistant to decoding infective nucleic acid messages, such as from viruses. For example, a bacterial strain that cannot recognize a common sense codon should be unable to translate essentially any phage gene. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5849531/
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Darko Savic
Darko Savic4 years ago
I wonder how long it would take for the first virus to appear for the recoded organism
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Subash Chapagain
Subash Chapagain4 years ago
I think laboratory versions are already there. CpG recoding is indeed a brilliant approach. If all hell doesn't break lose for me, this is going to be my PhD research topic, possibly starting in 2021.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Jamila 4 years ago
This is great!!
Please leave the feedback on this idea

CRISPPR/Cas9 editing of host cells for viral resistance

Subash Chapagain
Subash Chapagain Sep 14, 2020
With viral diseases bearing the largest chunk of public health burden every year, medical scientists and researchers are starting to look into new ways of tackling the issue of viral infections. Since it seems logically impossible to silence every other viral strain out there in the environment, would it be possible to stop ourselves from getting infected? If we can’t stop the viruses from coming, maybe there is something that we can do to ourselves! One of the possible solutions can come from the widely acclaimed CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) technology for gene editing. This is a mechanism that evolved in bacteria millions of years ago, which has now emerged as a potential genetic engineering tool. The CRISPR/Cas9 protein can be used to target specific sequences of DNA which it cuts like a pair of scissors where a new DNA sequence can be inserted. A short guide RNA (gRNA) is used to direct this specific degradation of specific nucleic acids, and later on, the break is repaired by the repair enzymes [1]. There are two possible approaches to CRISPR mechanism that can be exploited: somatic cell editing [2] and germline editing. While somatic cell editing is done for a person’s body cells, germline editing involves editing the DNA in sperm, eggs and embryos that result in genetic changes in the descendants thereafter. While somatic cell editing is already in a clinical trial, germline editing is an ethically controversial approach and is restricted in a lot of nations worldwide. CRISPR/Cas9 can be theoretically used to edit the host cells in a number of ways. Host cell's immune modulation can be overexpressed against specific viral epitopes by using the editing tools. Also, the cells can be modified such that the receptor proteins on the cell membrane of the hosts that the viruses use to infect can be modified, and hence the host cells are made technically unrecognizable. One of the exciting examples of CRISPR against viral infection comes from the in vitro study in which cancer-inducing Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) was targeted. CRISPR/Cas system using HPV 16-E7 specific gRNA in the HPV-positive SiHa and CaSki cells could successfully disrupt the HPV16-E7 DNA at the specific sites that resulted in apoptosis induction and growth inhibition in these cells. However, HPV negative cells were not induced for apoptosis [3]. Similarly, the Hepatitis B virus (HBV) has also been effectively targeted both in vitro and in vivo in several independent investigations. When Huh-7 hepatocyte-derived cellular carcinoma cells were transfected with an HBV expression vector, the production of HBV core and HB surface Antigen (HBsAg) was significantly reduced when CRISPR/Cas9 system was used with eight different gRNAs [4]. When latently infected epithelial cell lines were edited using CRISPR/Cas-9 using two guide RNAs to delete a 558 base pairs portion in the promoter region of BamHI rightward transcripts (BARTs), it was seen that it significantly reduced BART miRNA expression and hence hindered the possible viral reactivation and subsequent infection [5]. In the case of latently infected cells, a similar technique has been used to inactivate Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV-1) as well. For HIV, a more futuristic approach would be to use the CRISPR/Cas9 system to target cellular genes encoding proteins required for HIV-1 infection such as CCR5, a coreceptor for HIV-1 entry. As observed by Wang et al., HIV-1 susceptible human CD4+ cells in which the CCR5 gene was disrupted using CRISPR/Cas9 became resistant to R5-tropic HIV-1 and showed a selective advantage over cells with undisrupted CCR5 during R5-tropic HIV-1 infection [6]. Hence, the examples mentioned above can serve as a primary proof of concept that somatic cell engineering can indeed confer a significant level of resistance in case of particular viral infections. References: 1. White M.K., Hu W., Khalili K. The CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing methodology as a weapon against human viruses. Discov. Med. 2015;19:255–262. 2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; National Academy of Medicine; National Academy of Sciences; Committee on Human Gene Editing: Scientific, Medical, and Ethical Considerations. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2017 Feb 14. 4, Somatic Genome Editing. 3. Hu Z, Yu L, Zhu D, Ding W, Wang X, Zhang C, Wang L, Jiang X, Shen H, He D, Li K, Xi L, Ma D, Wang H Disruption of HPV16-E7 by CRISPR/Cas system induces apoptosis and growth inhibition in HPV16 positive human cervical cancer cells. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014():612823. 4. Lin SR, Yang HC, Kuo YT, Liu CJ, Yang TY, Sung KC, Lin YY, Wang HY, Wang CC, Shen YC, Wu FY, Kao JH, Chen DS, Chen PJ. The CRISPR/Cas9 System Facilitates Clearance of the Intrahepatic HBV Templates In Vivo. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2014;3:e186 5. Yuen KS, Chan CP, Wong NH, Ho CH, Ho TH, Lei T, Deng W, Tsao SW, Chen H, Kok KH, Jin DY. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing of Epstein-Barr virus in human cells. J Gen Virol. 2015;96(3):626–636 6. Zhu W, Lei R, Le Duff Y, Li J, Guo F, Wainberg MA, Liang C. The CRISPR/Cas9 system inactivates latent HIV-1 proviral DNA. Retrovirology.
Please leave the feedback on this idea

Add your creative contribution

0 / 200

Added via the text editor

Sign up or


Guest sign up

* Indicates a required field

By using this platform you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

General comments

Darko Savic
Darko Savic3 years ago
I think about this a lot lately. Is this an area of research that is being seriously pursued?
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Shubhankar Kulkarni
Shubhankar Kulkarni3 years ago
Darko Savic, I think so. Apart from the lines of research Subash Chapagain mentioned in his contribution, B cells were engineered to recreate an antibody known to be potent against the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Using CRISPR, the researchers cut one of the antibody genes and added the gene for the anti-RSV antibody in mouse B cells. The B cells then created the RSV-targeting antibody. Up to 60% of the B cells manufactured the added antibody, which is the highest to date. The researchers then injected the genetically engineered B cells into mice and exposed the mice to RSV. The lungs of mice showed almost no RSV. As against, the control mice showed heavy viral load in their lungs. Also, when the researchers injected the modified B cells into mice with dysfunctional immune systems, the mice were able to fight off the virus 82 days later.
Reference: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/genetically-engineered-immune-cells-fight-deadly-virus-mice
Please leave the feedback on this idea