Monthly Archives: June 2016

Genetic Ice-nine ?

I was talking to a group of undergraduates last week and came up with an analogy to one type of gene-drive system. Different forms of water exist, on Earth's surface we are familiar with the common solid, liquid, and gas forms. However, under different temperatures and pressure solid water, or ice, can fall into alternative crystal arrangements. There are 16 known forms of ice. We are used to ice-I, but there is also an ice-II, ice-III, etc. Some forms of ice (ice-VII for example, can exist at very high temperatures, above the boiling point of water, but only at very high pressures which forces the molecules together into a crystal structure).

Phase_diagram_of_water.svg

In Kurt Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle ice-nine is a crystal form of water, based loosely on the idea of alternative forms of ice. In the book ice-nine freezes at room temperature, importantly it also causes liquid water to adopt the same crystal state converting liquid water into ice-nine and freezing it (real ice-IX has none of these properties, in the phase diagram above you can see that it only exists in a  narrow range of high pressure and low temperatures).

So, in the book there is a drama that develops to prevent ice-nine from "escaping" the lab and converting all liquid water on Earth to ice. The self catalyzing and spreading properties of ice-nine have been used as a metaphor for prions. Prions are "misfolded" proteins that, when they come into contact with the correctly folded form of the protein cause it to misfold as well. Prions are responsible for some forms of infectious diseases and can be difficult to inactivate when they contaminate a surface, and in some cases may even be passed through other living organisms like plants. Prions may also have other non-disease roles and might serve as a molecular "memory" for some fungi.

So, there are types of enzymes that cut specific DNA sequences resulting in a double-strand break. The cells has its own endogenous machinery to repair these breaks and often uses the sequence of the intact DNA strand as a template for repair (in diploids there are two copies of most DNA sequences and one can be used to repair the other). The trick is if the enzyme cuts the same position as it is inserted into the genome, then repair will copy the DNA sequence of the enzyme to the new DNA strand. In essence this converts a heterozygote (1 copy) into a homozygote (2 copies) and the gene is inherited by all of the individuals offspring rather than the normal 1/2.

drive
(The image above is from DiCarlo, J. E., Chavez, A., Dietz, S. L., Esvelt, K. M., & Church, G. M. (2015). Safeguarding CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives in yeast. Nature Biotechnology, 33(12), 1250–1255. doi:10.1038/nbt.3412)

This type of system has been demonstrated in a few organisms now. If it escaped the lab it could potentially convert the entire wild species world-wide to carry the genetic modification. In reality there would probably be some resistance due to genetic variation at the target site that is resistant to cutting by the enzyme and/or new mutations that result in resistance (double strand breaks can have a very high mutation rate when repaired, depending on the type of repair, see Non Homologous End Joining, NHEJ, and Microhomology Mediated End Joining, MMEJ).

This type of gene-drive system (there are diverse types of gene-drive and some do not have this property) might be though of as a genetic ice-nine. If it escapes the lab it could spread relentlessly and result in a permanent change to a wild species, which obviously raises a range of ethical issues. Actually I am surprised this analogy has not already been made (a Google search did not turn up any clear matches). The current hot technology to do this type of gene drive is known as CRISPR/Cas9, sometimes referred to as a Cas9 system, and there is an approach known as "in vitro CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing" or "ICE" system---ICE-Cas9 is already almost, in words, ice-nine!

One journal article "Hammond, A., Galizi, R., Kyrou, K., Simoni, A., Siniscalchi, C., Katsanos, D., … Nolan, T. (2015). A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Nature Biotechnology, 34(1), 1–8. doi:10.1038/nbt.3439" describes the use of this type of technology in a CRISPR/Cas9 approach to target and disrupt genes that lower female fertility. This publication caused quite a splash and so far I have been very quiet about it publicly. I was one of the peer reviewers of the article when it was submitted for publication; you can't discuss an article you are asked to review before it is published and generally the identity of reviewers is kept confidential---this mindset, I am realizing now, led to me avoiding going into details about the publication even after it was published. In this case there is the potential of using the technology to drive the mosquito Anopheles gambiae to, possibly, extinction by causing female infertility (the drive can still act in males and be inherited by all of a male's offspring including females which would then be infertile). In this scenario, at some point the last fertile female mates with a gene-drive male and there are no more fertile female offspring... In my review I urged caution, secure containment, and to not share the modified mosquitoes with other labs (contrary to the usual scientific custom). I also urged the authors to check on the possibility of resistant mutants arising by the repair of double stand breaks (which can have a high mutation rate and create resistant DNA sequences), and not to assume the population transformation would proceed without any new mutations. It is easy to urge caution at an early stage until the technology and implications can be further evaluated; however, diseases vectored by Anopheles gambiae are responsible for half a million human deaths a year---contributing the the ethical dilemma.

There may be no large negative results, from a general human perspective, if Anopheles gambiae were driven to extinction by genetic technology. Apart from the specific ethical questions of driving the extinction of and/or permanently genetically modifying this mosquito, the big worry in this case is unintended side effects and the unknowns associated with the technology and the broader ecological role of Anopheles gambiae. However, what about other species and other applications? At some point this type of technology might be used for economic convenience rather than unambiguous humanitarian efforts. And there is also the potential of intentional malicious use of the technology---something that I am quite concerned about when I go through various hypothetical scenarios as a mental exercise. While the precision (including species specificity*, which will become important in a moment) and flexibility of targets is new, the potential for threatening unintended consequences of genetic modifications in the wild is not. One  example is viral immunocontraception for invasive wildlife control. Rabbits have multiplied like crazy in Australia and have been disruptive to the environment as well as agriculture. People have investigated using viruses to infect the rabbits that are modified to contain part of a reproductive protein, ZP3, found on the surface of mammalian eggs. When the rabbits immune system fights off the viral infection it is also tricked into attacking the female reproductive system rendering the rabbits sterile. I have heard people that have worked in this field say that there was not thought to be a great deal of potential of unintended consequences if the virus infected Australian mammals because they are marsupials with quite different ZP3 DNA sequences, and the probability of a wild rabbit escaping Australia to another continent with the virus is exceedingly low. ...and this is the point where I pause in the story to see if people jump to the next conclusion... Humans live in Australia and have a ZP3 sequence that is more similar to rabbits; the probability of a human moving between continents is very high. To be clear, there is no evidence that genetically modified viruses have affected human fertility, and I know of no case where an immunocontraception application has jumped species boundaries; however, despite a low probability of occurring the possibility is serious enough to warrant careful consideration and unintended consequences in this case start to sound like another science fiction story, Children of Men.


  • In some cases this type of system is predicted to potentially spread across some species borders, but I don't want to go into the details of this here.

Tenure!!!

Yeehaw!!! I got the notice today, I (Floyd Reed) made tenure, effective July 1st!, with a promotion to Associate Professor, effective August 1st! (I guess for the month of July I will be a tenured Assistant Professor, which is a strange combination). Thanks to everyone out there that had a role in helping me get to this point! Also, thanks to the external reviewers of my tenure application---I do not know who most of you are by name so I cannot thank you personally but there is a chance you might read this.

skiing

I can't say enough how much of a relief this is---I get to keep my job and continue my career. I am not being overly dramatic; a lot of people outside of academia don't realize that you get one shot at this and if you don't get tenure that's it, you're fired. I am also getting too old, career-wise, to be hired at an assistant professor level elsewhere and tenure-track jobs within a particular field are few and far between.

I had my concerns about not getting tenure. There has been an ongoing university budget crisis with a hiring freeze. I have not been able to bring in a federal (NSF, NIH, NASA) grant here at UH, and this is not for a lack of trying. However, it is also widely recognized that the current funding situation in the US is abysmal. I did however get some in-state non-profit  research funding which was a plus. I have also had difficulty bringing in graduate students. I think part of this is related to moving here from Germany and not having connections in Hawai'i and the US/Canada West/West Coast, where a lot of graduate students here are from. However, this is beginning to change as I make more connections here. I also had to serve as a witness in two internal investigations, which put me in very awkward positions as a non-tenured professor (I am not allowed to go into detail about who was involved or why and this statement does not imply any individuals in particular). On the positive side I have been successful in conducting and publishing research despite a general lack of funding (currently 31 total publications with 3,185 total citations, an H-index of 18, 2 patent applications, and an i-10 index of 21 since 2011 with 11 publications since August 2011 when I started here at UH). Some of my past publications in Science and Nature Genetics have literally become textbook examples of evolutionary genetics. I have also been teaching a wide range of classes at both the undergraduate and graduate level, one of which is a core class for biology majors and has large enrollment, and received positive teaching evaluations which was also a plus. Finally, I have been an invited speaker both nationally and internationally and attended invitation only workshops, which helps show that I am established within the field.

phd040813s

It has been a long road and underscores that a career in research in academia is not for everyone. This August will have been 25 years since I first went to college (1991) and 20 years since I first started graduate school (1996). In the US 50% of graduate students do not make it through graduate school and 75% of Ph.D.'s do not get a tenure track position (although there are certainly non-tenure track careers for people with Ph.D. degrees). It is hard to find data on how many Assistant Professors make it to tenure, some estimates put it as high as 80%. While this is high the remaining 20% chance carries a lot of weight with it and can't be taken lightly.

I do not mean to sound overly negative; I am extremely happy about receiving tenure. I just want the rest of the world to understand how serious this is and for people thinking about a career in academia to frankly understand (part of) what they are getting into. A job in academia has been compared to military deployment (without all of the associated military social welfare), you do not know where (geographically) you will end up, which is very different from most careers where you can control the region of the country (and the country) you will work in. Being a pre-tenure Assistant Professor is like having a 5 year long job interview where you will be asked all of the illegal questions (about your marriage status, children, religion, political views, ancestry, citizenship, age, etc.) by the people that control part of the hiring (tenure) process. At one point I was told by a chair of the department that my "problem" was that I had children and therefore was "not as committed to my work" as some other members of the department that did not have children. You have to chair committees that will put you directly into conflict with some of the faculty that will be voting on your tenure application (for example, as chair of the graduate admissions committee I had to explain to a professor in the department that the student they wanted to bring in for their lab was not admissible into the program, and stand by that despite requests for an exception) and occasionally you will be caught in catch-22 directives (e.g., this student cannot get class credit for the work in your lab and you can't have students working in your lab if they do not get class credit) where no matter what decision you make someone involved in the tenure decision making will be unhappy with you. On top of that, conducting research and publishing is one of, if not THE, most important parts of your job and a critical component of getting tenure. However, I (and I am not alone) am currently having to pay for this research out of pocket with my own personal money. Given the current funding climate you must be prepared for this. Also, contrary to the popular view, you will not be rich; professors do not get paid as much as the public thinks (the enormous salaries that appear in the newspapers are of university administrators), and you are only paid for nine months out of the year (and no it is not a vacation, you still have to work during those three summer months), and all those years of low pay as a graduate student and postdoc, with paying off college loans, and the difficulty of finding spousal employment while having to move every few years, needs to be factored in.  As you can see from why the tongue-in-cheek cartoons I have added to this post are funny, there is a disconnect between the popular public idea of tenure and the reality of tenure.

Tenure

A career in research in academia IS for people that are (either from wealthy families that support their education and career or) stubborn, tremendously self motivated, able to tolerate stress, and love critically thinking about and learning about the subject(s) within their field(s) that they are focused on. I think about genetic drift and selection when driving to the store to pick up groceries, most people do not do that. You also have to be dedicated to your work to such a degree that you will see projects through no matter what (e.g., when you end up getting scooped by another publication, the  grant application is not funded, or reviewers reject your publication). And, you will spend a lot of time having to teach classes, reply to student's emails, do committee work, go to faculty meetings, and fill out endless red tape forms for the university bureaucracy. However, at the end of the day you have a job where to a large extent you are your own boss, make new discoveries, and you get paid to do (in part) what you are truly interested in, and you get to work closely and collaborate with people that are also afflicted with curiosity and excited about the world around them. While there is obviously room for improvement, for me the trade offs are worth it.

Difference and similarity: a single gene controls more than one classical evolutionary result.

Two articles just came out in Nature:

"The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element"

"The gene cortex controls mimicry and crypsis in butterflies and moths"

pepper2A transposable element insert in cortex is responsible for the classical example of industrial melanism in moths, where a rapid change in phenotype occurred in response to an (human driven) environmental change.  Soot from coal burning causing darkened tree trunks near urban areas of England over the 1800's making it harder for the lighter colored moth to evade predation; this trend later reversed in the 1900's (less pollution and more frequent lighter moths).

pepper1

This same gene is rapidly evolving and shown to be responsible for shifts in mimicry patterns (where species pairs, one or both of which may be toxic, appear similar to avoid predation, another excellent and now classic evolutionary example) in Heliconius butterflies.

Heliconius_Mullerian