Protein engineering: security implications

The rapid pace of research in the life sciences is generating a vast amount of new knowledge that has beneficial applications in industry, agriculture and medicine but could, in some cases, be misused for warfare and terrorism. This dilemma has not escaped the attention of security experts and politicians, who worry that infectious microorganisms could be genetically modified so as to increase their pathogenicity, or that lethal viruses could be synthesized in the laboratory from their DNA sequence data. Another often overlooked area of molecular biology with a potential for misuse is protein engineering, or the design and synthesis of tailor‐made proteins for industrial or therapeutic applications (see sidebar). Of particular concern is the possibility that protein engineering could enhance the lethality and stability of known protein toxins or create entirely new ‘designer’ toxins. This article assesses the security risks that are associated with protein engineering and explores some ways of minimizing them. Protein‐engineering techniques Proteins play many roles in cellular physiology, serving as structural building blocks, catalysing biochemical reactions, performing regulatory functions and, in combination with other proteins, self‐assembling into complex molecular machines, such as the contractile fibres that are involved in cell motility or the channels that control ion flow across cell membranes. Protein engineering, which first emerged in the early 1980s, involves the use of chemical or genetic techniques to modify the structure of a protein, thereby increasing its stability or altering its physiological function or activity (Ulmer, 1983). The goal is to enhance the usefulness of proteins for commercial or medical applications, such as heat‐stable enzymes for use in laundry detergents and industrial processes, as well as new materials, biosensors, vaccines and therapeutic drugs. Another line of research aims to modify the substrate specificity of enzymes or enhance their catalytic efficiency. Protein engineering relies on the …

[1]  Unoda Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction [BWC Convention], U.N. Doc. A/Res/2826; 1015 U.N.T.S. 163; 26 U.S.T. 583; 11 I.L.M. 309 (10 Apr. 1972) , 2001, International Terrorism: Multilateral Conventions (1937-2001).

[2]  A. Ménez,et al.  Direct expression in E. coli of a functionally active protein A--snake toxin fusion protein. , 1989, Protein engineering.

[3]  Protein engineering of diphtheria-toxin-related interleukin-2 fusion toxins to increase cytotoxic potency for high-affinity IL-2-receptor-bearing target cells. , 1991, Protein engineering.

[4]  P. Marrack,et al.  Superantigens and their potential role in human disease. , 1993, Advances in immunology.

[5]  J. Tucker Dilemmas of a Dual-Use Technology: Toxins in Medicine and Warfare , 1994, Politics and the Life Sciences.

[6]  N. Arora,et al.  Cytotoxic effects of a chimeric protein consisting of tetanus toxin light chain and anthrax toxin lethal factor in non-neuronal cells. , 1994, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[7]  C. Roumestand,et al.  Scorpion toxins as natural scaffolds for protein engineering. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  J. Murphy,et al.  Fusion protein toxins based on diphtheria toxin: selective targeting of growth factor receptors of eukaryotic cells. , 2000, Methods in enzymology.

[9]  M. McCarthy,et al.  Antisense oligodeoxynucleotides as a tool in developmental neuroendocrinology. , 2000, Methods.

[10]  J. Madsen,et al.  Toxins as weapons of mass destruction. A comparison and contrast with biological-warfare and chemical-warfare agents. , 2001, Clinics in laboratory medicine.

[11]  R. Kreitman Chimeric fusion proteins--Pseudomonas exotoxin-based. , 2001, Current opinion in investigational drugs.

[12]  F. Foss Interleukin‐2 Fusion Toxin: Targeted Therapy for Cutaneous T Cell Lymphoma , 2001, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[13]  K. Aktories,et al.  The Binary Clostridium botulinum C2 Toxin as a Protein Delivery System , 2002, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[14]  R. Sullivan,et al.  Biological Toxins: A Bioweapon Threat in the 21st Century , 2002 .

[15]  Using Modified Bacterial Toxins To Deliver Vaccine Antigens , 2003 .

[16]  New considerations in infectious disease outbreaks: the threat of genetically modified microbes. , 2005, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[17]  Milton Leitenberg,et al.  Assessing The Biological Weapons And Bioterrorism Threat , 2005 .

[18]  B. Rich,et al.  Bioactive IL7-diphtheria fusion toxin secreted by mammalian cells. , 2005, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[19]  James B Petro,et al.  Biological threat characterization research: a critical component of national biodefense. , 2005, Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science.

[20]  P. Millett,et al.  The biological and toxin weapons convention. , 2006, Revue scientifique et technique.

[21]  Lisa Tabassi,et al.  Making Treaties Work: The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) , 2007 .