Harmful algal blooms (HAB) are a global issue of the
modern world. Human population grows and so the input of algae food sources
like phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizers to aquatic ecosystems. Heterocapsa circularisquama, a
dinoflagellate widely distributed from Japan to Hong-Kong is not only a risk to
human health. Their toxic blooms, an so the blooms of may other algae species, can
cause a physical blockade of marine animals gills, generation of reactive
oxygen species and toxins. So far H.
cicularisquama blooms had a huge economically impact on the clam and fish
farms industry and might soon show ecologically consequences on the marine food
chain.
The HcRNAV single stranded RNA virus, that
infects and lyses H. circularisquama
was found in bottom sediments surrounding bloom areas. Based on their ecology,
such native algicidal viruses have been considered a potential modality for the
biological control of HABs, but there are doubts; their dispersal could lead to
further disturbance of the aquatic ecosystem.
Kang et
al. (2014) recently had a novel idea of how to the deliver algicidal
compounds to harmful algae, but avoid further disturbance of the ecosystem.
First, a capsid protein of HcRNAV34 –
single-stranded RNA virus was expressed in and purified from Escherichia coli
and was then self-assembled into VLPs in vitro. Virus like particles are in all
aspects really similar to the actual virus and share the same appropriate host
specificity, but are unable to replicate in cells. A chemically synthesized
algicidal compound (thiazolidinedione 49, TD49) was then encapsidated into
HcRNAV 34 VLPs.
In the following experiment to test the
efficiency of the new compound, TD49-encapsidated VLPs showed a more potent
target-specific algicidal effect than TD49 alone.
Although I believe that the effects of such
modification of marine viruses needs to be further studied, target-specific
VLPs used for the delivery of cytotoxic compounds to nuisance algae seem to
provide a safe environmentally friendly approach.
Even though Kang et al. (2014) idea is great, I believe
it is also necessary to concentrate on and prevent the actual problem rather
then having to deal with the consequences (Figure 1).
Fig.1: A man trying to clean up dead fish killed by a HAB. Only one of many shocking photographs showing the extend of pollution all over the world. |
Something else to think of; after infecting the
blooms with TD49-encapsidated VLPs, the algae biomass will not just
disappear. Dead sinking algal biomass leads to the depletion of oxygen and may
result in long-term benthic hypoxic zones. Such zones have been previously
associated with the occurrence of jellyfish blooms, another global issue at the
moment…
Kang BS, Eom CY, Kim W, Kim
PI, Ju SY, Ryu J, Han GH, Oh JI, Cho H, Baek SH, Kim G, Kim M, Hyun J, Jin E,
Kim SW (2014) Construction of target-specific virus-like particles the delivery
of algicidal compounds to harmful algae. Environmental
Microbiology: doi:10.1111/1462-2920.12650
Hi Tabea,
ReplyDeleteReally interesting post and a good name in the end :). I am quite interested in how the viruses are still deadly to the algae? Are they basically just using them as vectors for the algacide? If so and if they are unable to replicate, how many do they speculate they would need to control a bloom?
With regards to the underlying problem, I think you are absolutely right people need to cut down the level of pollution as its the least costly way of dealing with the issue. Although, I think that the technology looks like a really great way of saving a fish stock if you were to hit the bloom early enough.
Hi Tom,
ReplyDeleteYes the VLP have the same specificity like the virus, so therefore "attack" the algae but only really act as vectors for the algacide. The authors have not mentioned anything about the amount that would be needed. I am sure it will always depends on the size of the bloom itself.
Thanks Tabea. From re-reading the blog I get the impression that it is quite a technically demanding process to produce these VLPs? If thats the case then scaling up and adding in the costs of infrastructure and delivery, I presume they would use crop spraying air craft, it would be an extremely expensive measure, far cheaper to just cut down on the pollution in the first instance as you said.
ReplyDeleteHi Tom, Yes I think it would be quite expensive, but probably still cheaper than loss of complete cultures in the long-run!
Delete