Could CRISPR work on a virus?

[Tinker Grey]

Is there some idea in the future that this technology could rid us of all our ills? If not, how many? And, of course, what about viruses?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting. I am very unqualified, but CRISPR appears to be more of a "designer" approach. One case at a time, where vaccines are more of a "One size fits all" treatment.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Is there some idea in the future that this technology could rid us of all our ills? If not, how many? And, of course, what about viruses?

CRISPR could be used for great good or great evil. A virus could be altered to be super virulent using the technology. I found this on google:
Most viruses have either RNA or DNA as their genetic material. The nucleic acid may be single- or double-stranded. The entire infectious virus particle, called a virion, consists of the nucleic acid and an outer shell of protein. The simplest viruses contain only enough RNA or DNA to encode four proteins.

 

[Ophiolite]

Is there some idea in the future that this technology could rid us of all our ills? If not, how many? And, of course, what about viruses?

Good question. This is a four year old article from Nature " A CRISPR/Cas9 and Cre/Lox system-based express vaccine development strategy against re-emerging Pseudorabies virus"

From the abstract:

Virus evolves rapidly to escape vaccine-induced immunity, posing a desperate demand for efficient vaccine development biotechnologies. Here we present an express vaccine development strategy based on CRISPR/Cas9 and Cre/Lox system . . . . . . . . . By CRISPR/Cas9 system, the virulent genes of the newly isolated strain were simultaneously substituted by marker genes, which were subsequently excised using Cre/Lox system for vaccine safety concern. . . . . The combination of these state-of-art technologies greatly accelerated vaccine development. . . . . . . . This is, to our knowledge, the first successful vaccine development based on gene edit technologies, demonstrating these technologies leap from laboratory to industry. It may pave the way for future express antiviral vaccine development.

One imagines several advances in the last four years. The recent BBC Horizon program looked at the current pandemic. One portion explored an approach that is synthetically building the proteins by which Covid-19 attaches to cells. These proteins should trigger an immune system response, generating anti-bodies that would deal with the actual virus. While I don't think CRISPR was mentioned, it seems - to this complete non-expert - that it would involve the same or comparable technology.

 

[sfs]

The lab I work for has been applying CRISPR to both detect and treat viral infections.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The lab I work for has been applying CRISPR to both detect and treat viral infections.

How hard a process is this to scale? That is to say, how hard would it be to scale a solution to treat 100 people, 1000, 100,000 ,etc?

 

[sfs]

How hard a process is this to scale? That is to say, how hard would it be to scale a solution to treat 100 people, 1000, 100,000 ,etc?

I don't think it would be that hard to scale, but the therapeutic application is a long way from working yet -- the hard part is getting the necessary components into the patient's cells. Diagnostic applications are much closer to reality and could be scaled easily.

 

[Tinker Grey]

therapeutic application is a long way from working yet -- the hard part is getting the necessary components into the patient's cells

Are you optimistic? If it were to work, how many years out? 1, 5, 10, 50?

 

[sfs]

Are you optimistic? If it were to work, how many years out? 1, 5, 10, 50?

It's not really my field (I'm a geneticist), but I wouldn't say I'm exactly optimistic -- most exciting new ideas in medicine don't pan out, plus I'm a natural pessimist. But it is an intriguing possibility. My guess would be something like five years before we'd have any idea whether it could work in people or not.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It's not really my field (I'm a geneticist), but I wouldn't say I'm exactly optimistic -- most exciting new ideas in medicine don't pan out, plus I'm a natural pessimist. But it is an intriguing possibility. My guess would be something like five years before we'd have any idea whether it could work in people or not.

Thanks for your time. I heard an encouraging story on NPR about this technology and I was ... um ... encouraged. But I had to figure that paradigm shifting results were some years down the road.

 

[mindlight]

The lab I work for has been applying CRISPR to both detect and treat viral infections.

Is the detection rate potentially any faster than a standard PCR? Would it cost more? How would treatment work. If you edit a single example of a virus don't you just create a new version of the virus and create a new problem. The normal strain would still exist unedited elsewhere in the same body. Or can you write antibodies into a person with CRISPR or at least stimulate a response from the immune system to trigger it to produce antibodies. Your oneliner seems rather open ended , just interested in how it is focused.

 

[sfs]

Is the detection rate potentially any faster than a standard PCR?

Yes. It wouldn't be faster than other forms of rapid diagnostic test, though.

Would it cost more?

No.

If you edit a single example of a virus don't you just create a new version of the virus and create a new problem.

The treatment would work by cleaving the virus, not editing it.

Your oneliner seems rather open ended , just interested in how it is focused.

I included links in the one-liner.

 

[mindlight]

Yes. It wouldn't be faster than other forms of rapid diagnostic test, though.

No.

The treatment would work by cleaving the virus, not editing it.

I included links in the one-liner.

What do you mean "cleaving" the virus? Cleaving to what?

 

[Tinker Grey]

What do you mean "cleaving" the virus? Cleaving to what?

The other meaning of cleave--to shread or rip apart. (Yea, English)

 

[mindlight]

The other meaning of cleave--to shread or rip apart. (Yea, English)

That is why verbose people are sometimes more precise and easier to understand. He did not really answer the question.

Unless CRISPR can somehow target the virus throughout an entire body how does ripping apart some viruses actually help eliminate the virus. Or is this tool only targeted at the nodal points of greatest infection shredding the virus at the doorway to the cells before it uses up the cells life replicating itself.

Not sure how CRISPR could be productively used as a medical tool and what advantage it would actually give that is not already available by alternate means. Diagnostically we already have PCR testing and other methods. Simple vaccines based on samples of the inert virus would innoculate us from catching it in the first place. So CRISPRs niche would have to be hand to hand combat.

But if CRISPR is a tool that can shred the active virus while the patient is sick with it then how would it be superior to the antiviral drugs that are also available or may become available for this purpose and how could it cover the whole bodies infection as these antiviral drugs are designed to do by spreading through it.

 

[sfs]

The other meaning of cleave--to shread or rip apart. (Yea, English)

Note that with one meaning the verb is transitive, and intransitive with the other. If you cleave to something, you're sticking to it; if you cleave it, you're splitting it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Note that with one meaning the verb is transitive, and intransitive with the other. If you cleave to something, you're sticking to it; if you cleave it, you're splitting it.

Yup

 

[sfs]

Unless CRISPR can somehow target the virus throughout an entire body how does ripping apart some viruses actually help eliminate the virus.

Yes, it could target the virus throughout the body, just like any other antiviral therapy. Ideally, you might create a delivery mechanism that preferentially delivers it to the tissues most affected by the virus.

Not sure how CRISPR could be productively used as a medical tool and what advantage it would actually give that is not already available by alternate means. Diagnostically we already have PCR testing and other methods.

PCR requires sending a sample to a lab. This CRISPR approach could be done without lab equipment by a nurse or community health worker anywhere in the world.

Simple vaccines based on samples of the inert virus would innoculate us from catching it in the first place.

That's why nobody gets the flu these days, I guess.

But if CRISPR is a tool that can shred the active virus while the patient is sick with it then how would it be superior to the antiviral drugs that are also available

The first sentence of the piece I linked to: "Many of the world's most common or deadly human pathogens are RNA-based viruses -- Ebola, Zika and flu, for example -- and most have no FDA-approved treatments." For most viruses, either there is no antiviral drug or the drugs don't work very well. This approach could be programmed to attack most viruses.

or may become available

This is one of the antiviral drugs that may become available. Could some other approach work better? Of course -- but we won't know what works best until we try lots of approaches.

 

[mindlight]

Yes, it could target the virus throughout the body, just like any other antiviral therapy. Ideally, you might create a delivery mechanism that preferentially delivers it to the tissues most affected by the virus.

PCR requires sending a sample to a lab. This CRISPR approach could be done without lab equipment by a nurse or community health worker anywhere in the world.

That's why nobody gets the flu these days, I guess.

The first sentence of the piece I linked to: "Many of the world's most common or deadly human pathogens are RNA-based viruses -- Ebola, Zika and flu, for example -- and most have no FDA-approved treatments." For most viruses, either there is no antiviral drug or the drugs don't work very well. This approach could be programmed to attack most viruses.

This is one of the antiviral drugs that may become available. Could some other approach work better? Of course -- but we won't know what works best until we try lots of approaches.

Cool may God bless your research which sounds very worthwhile.

Now for my idiot question: but I have to know. How would a CRISPR detector work? Of course I want to see a non invasive Star Trek tricorder but I suspect you take a sample of blood or something and put it into a mobile machine of some sort. Is that right? How big is the machine. One day could you put it into your pocket and could the same machine having analysed the sample, perhaps in synch with larger computers elsewhere, process a antiviral response that could then be injected back into the person using the raw material of the sample given. Could that one day work in minutes rather than hours?

 

[Cimorene]

The lab I work for has been applying CRISPR to both detect and treat viral infections.

Whoa you work for that lab?

Ok THIS is totally why Ella & I had suggested a section for coronavirus or public health bc there's ppl like you that could give totally solid info for it that could be easy to find. I mean I pretty much never come here anymore so it was just random I saw this 1 post, otherwise I never would have. Maybe you could ask & they'd listen to you.