Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Retuning Bacteria

Gene-silencing techniques for bacteria could mean better treatments for infections and more-efficient biofuel production.

By Katherine Bourzac

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
Silencing bacteria: Duke University graduate student Sara Morey and civil- and environmental-engineering professor Claudia Gunsch are developing a method for silencing genes in bacteria.
Credit: Duke University

Researchers at Duke University are hoping to develop methods to reversibly turn off harmful or unwanted genes in bacteria. If they succeed, gene silencing could be used to treat persistent infections by turning off antibiotic resistance genes in bacteria and in environmental and industrial applications, including water filtration. The technique could also make it possible to engineer bacteria to more efficiently make biofuels and other industrial products.

The Duke researchers, led by environmental engineer Claudia Gunsch, hope that gene silencing in bacteria will be as useful as it has been in so many other organisms. Gene silencing by a pathway called RNA interference has proved a powerful tool for biologists, who have used the technique to silence particular genes in order to study their functions in development and disease in animals from yeast to worms to mice. And RNA-interference-based therapies that work by shutting down genes involved in macular degeneration and other diseases have shown great promise in clinical trials. But RNA interference doesn't work in bacteria, which don't have the necessary molecular pathways.

Although still in very early stages, Gunsch's work has shown hints of success. Instead of the short pieces of RNA used to induce RNA interference, Gunsch used short single strands of DNA to silence a test gene in yeast. She is now testing the technique in bacteria.

In one promising application of the Duke work, the gene-silencing methods could be used in water filters. Gunsch presented proof-of-concept data for this application at the American Society for Microbiology meeting last week. For gene-silencing water filters, DNA would be embedded in a gel that would filter the water right at the sink. Waterborne pathogens, including bacteria, often mutate and become resistant to the existing treatment methods, ultraviolet light and chlorination. "Chlorine-resistant bacteria are starting to show up," says Gunsch. The advantage of gene-silencing filters would be that the genes they target could be changed as the pathogens mutate.

If Gunsch can get bacterial gene silencing to work, says James Collins, a biomedical engineer at Boston University, metabolic engineering of microbes to produce biofuels and drugs would be a good application. Designing organisms to efficiently make a particular end product, such as ethanol, without wasting energy and fuel making side products is challenging. Most metabolic engineering is binary: researchers give a microbe a gene or delete it. "But in many cases, the better way to go would be to tune down the expression of a gene, then allow it to come on at other stages," says Collins.

However, Gunsch and her coworkers face enormous challenges. Bacteria do have gene-silencing mechanisms, but they're different from those in other cells, says Susan Gottesman, chief of the biomedical genetics section at the National Cancer Institute's laboratory of molecular biology. Gottesman says that it could be possible to draw on bacterial pathways to induce gene silencing, but previous attempts have not met with much success. And Gottesman is skeptical that the Duke researchers will be able to overcome the hurdles that have prevented other labs from developing gene-silencing techniques for bacteria.

Gunsch acknowledges that the work is in its early stages. The Duke researchers will have to prove that they can target bacterial genes and get the silencing agent, whether RNA or DNA, into bacterial cells efficiently. "Our results seem to indicate that it's possible," says Gunsch.


Comments

  • What about zinc fingers?
    Sazhu on 06/12/2008 at 12:13 AM
    Posts:
    3
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    Engineered zinc-finger proteins, with different functional domains attached, can up-regulate, down-regulate, or alter genes.  They work in bacteria or anything else with DNA.  Its an elegant and already proven technology -- will probably become more widely used as Sangamo and Sigma-Aldrich make kits available this fall.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • malignant genes
    tfrijnts on 06/12/2008 at 3:18 AM
    Posts:
    6
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    could this be used to silence malignant genes in humans?
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Frankenstein's Microbe
    MakeSense on 06/12/2008 at 8:01 AM
    Posts:
    77
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    We can sometimes forget just how prevalent and important microbes are to the correct running of our ecology and agriculture. Tampering with microorganisms in order to give them new capabilities or to turn off genes may produce unintended consequences.

    It's happened before. Dr. Elaine Ingham, Professor of Microbiology at Oregon State University, recounted that a bacterium engineered in her lab to produce alcohol from biomass had been approved by the EPA for field tests. Fortunately she found it was fatal to plants beforehand. If it had been released into nature, that one artificial species could have wiped out agriculture on a large scale, possibly a global scale. She concluded that U.S. regulatory procedures for testing the risks associated with genetically engineered microbes are “completely inadequate” and treats the risks related to such engineered organisms as unacceptable.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Frankenstein's Microbe
      dmm on 06/16/2008 at 3:29 PM
      Posts:
      145
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
      This is false.  See http://www.biotech-info.net/green_lobby.html for the story, originally published in Nature Biotechnology, of the exposure of her fraud and of her subsequent retraction and apology.  Perhaps "fraud" is too harsh.  From what I can tell, reading between the lines, she got what she thought were astounding results, rushed out a paper and went public, citing the not-yet-refereed paper.  By the time the referees pointed out her errors, she was already committed, having made a big splash in green circles, so she made a few changes and re-submitted to a lesser journal, hoping no one would notice.  You can call this "over-enthusiasm coupled with exaggeration, followed by pride-induced cover-up" if you like.  Many (if not most) scientists have been guilty of the same (though on smaller scales) at least once in their careers.  But anyway, we all agree that it's bad science!  ;-)
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Hubris
    mek on 06/12/2008 at 11:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    Microbes evolve far faster than we do.  Have we not learned anything through the creation of superbugs that we are looking to create even stronger ones?  Selecting organisms naturally OK, making stronger ones is shear stupidity.  Though this tries to weaken organisms I expect that like the use of antibiotics it will result in stronger microbes.  This type of hubris will inevitably lead to our demise.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Hubris
      dmm on 06/16/2008 at 3:57 PM
      Posts:
      145
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
      This is a misconception.  The use of antibiotics (ABs) does not result in "stronger" microbes.  On the contrary, organisms like methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are genetically defective.  In the wild, their genetic changes are normally a burden to reproduction.  In the absence of wide-spread AB use they are outcompeted by regular S. aureus, and they are a tiny minority of the population.  If you were put on a desert island with no ABs, you'd be much better off with a MRSA infection than a regular Staph infection.  Of course, with no ABs, you might be dead either way, but your odds of surviving would actually be higher with MRSA.

      Not every attempt to protect ourselves from bacteria is hubris.  Boiling water is not hubris.  Neither is chlorinating water, despite the fact that it artificially selects for bacteria that can tolerate it (not to mention that it produces teensy amounts of carcinogens).  We do what we can in an imperfect world.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Fascinating
    amberfoxfour on 06/12/2008 at 4:47 PM
    Posts:
    1
    Now that was quite a fascinating study. Very interesting indeed.

    JT
    http://www.FireMe.To/udi
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Frankenstein microbe  hoax
    coloradoengineer on 06/13/2008 at 11:29 AM
    Posts:
    1
    http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2001m05.3/msg00172.htm

    Dr. Ingham apparently never wrote any such article, the journal referenced doesn't have any record of such a paper, the FDA never heard of her research, much less approved relasing such a microbe.

    Apocryphal tales of impednding apocalypse are enjpyable as bedtime ghost stories, but have no place in the cool light of reality.

    How can gene suppression be thought of as 'strengthening' any microbe, anyway? Those genes are there for a reason.
    Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review November/December 2008
Sun + Water = Fuel
An MIT chemist has opened the way to making hydrogen fuel from water using sunlight.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology