Viruses Are The Ultimate Symbionts

Frank Ryan

Registered Member
Hi!

If I might introduce myself (having sojourned in the pseudoscience section for an amusing short while) I suppose I should own up and participate in real science, where I belong. I visited pseudoscience because they had already set up a humorous discussion of my book, Virolution. But I've been told I really don't belong there but rather closer to biology/genetics and even closer still to the junctional zone between evolutionary biology and medicine. In fact that is precisely what my appointment at Sheffield University comprises -- the development of the link between evolutionary biology and medicine.

See my website, ["http://www.fprbooks.com"]

I pioneered the formal definition of viruses as symbionts in books and papers, but I realise that this introduces some interesting philosophical and biological paradoxes and disagreements.

So let the debate begin.

I would like to start with the genetic locus known as ERVWE1, which is essentially the genome of a HERV-W (human endogenous retrovirus W) whose env gene codes for the protein syncytin-1, which is essential for normal human placentation. The image can be found at this url. Pehaps somebody more experienced than I am can download and display it to allow for the start of discussion.

Genes ERVWE1ID40497ch7q21.html
 
Yes, thank goodness (or thank any god you choose) our common ancestor caught that disease. After attacking and embedding in the germ cells, it spread amongst the population, and became part of the genome. Did it serve a function then, i.e. was it selected for, or did it just fix in the genome via randomness? And how were they to know that eons later it would serve so well for human placentation.

This has previously been covered, by the way, in another thread in biology here at sciforums.
 
How viral symbiosis works

Yes -- I have written about it in less scientific detail on pseudoscience, but have been encouraged to make it more scientific here.

WHY WE DON'T LAY EGGS

Among the many animals that live on land, and in the oceans, only the mammals don’t lay eggs. They protect the developing foetus within the mother’s womb for lengthy periods, so that it is born into the world as a fully formed baby. To achieve this, mammals have evolved a very special organ capable of nourishing the foetus in the womb, and all the while protecting it from being attacked by the mother’s powerful immune system. The organ that makes this possible is the placenta. We humans have the most specialised placenta of all the mammals, more deeply penetrating into the mother’s womb, and with an exquisitely fine membrane, only a single cell thick – much finer than tissue paper – that separates the mother’s blood from that of the foetus, and through which this all-important nourishment takes place. This ultra fine membrane is very unusual – its cells are fused together so their membrane have dissolved away, making up a single monolayer. Animal genes cannot fuse cells in this way. How then does our human placenta, vital to every human birth, manage to do this?
It does so with the help of very special types of viruses, which have been incorporated into our chromosomes. The discovery of these viruses has shocked the world of science, since scientists are more familiar with viruses as the cause of infectious diseases, such as AIDS and flu. But now we know that these viruses really are playing a key beneficial role in our human life story. They are known as human endogenous retroviruses – in the scientific jargon, HERVs – and they have, in essence, become an integral part of us through an evolutionary mechanism known as genetic symbiosis. More remarkably still, these viruses have a genetic make-up that is very similar to the virus HIV-1, notorious as the cause of AIDS.

What you are looking at in the ERVWE1 locus is the genetic locus, on chromosome 7, that codes for syncytin-1, one of the viral proteins that fuses the placental cells into a syncytium, which in turn is vital for normal human placental function to take place.

If you examine just the right hand side of the upper portion of the figure, between the two narrow vertical red bands, you will find that you are looking at the genome of a human endogenous retrovirus, labelled ERVWE1 (a human endogenous retrovirus of the HERV-W family), which has a very similar basic genomic structure to HIV-1, the virus that causes AIDS. The viral genes (labelled Agag, Apro-pol, and env – the latter coloured yellow) are the same genes (more correctly genetic domains, since they code for multiple functions) that you find in HIV-1, and the env gene is the genetic domain that codes for the surface envelope structures of the retrovirus. So syncytin-1 is the expressed protein product of the viral env gene. It could hardly be called a “captured” viral gene, since it remains an integral part of the viral genome, and it is promoted and further regulated by the viral 5’ LTR (regulatory dynamo known as a long terminal repeat) and the 5’ LTR of a second pair of flanking LTRs derived from a second human endogenous retrovirus, known as MaLR (these are coloured red). There are many other reasons why we should avoid regarding viral sequences as captured or the equivalent of vertebrate-derived genes, which we may come to later.

The question, then, is how has the human placenta acquired the ability to express a retroviral gene, within a viral structure, promoted and regulated by viral LTRs as part of its essential make-up?

People familiar with symbiogenesis – symbiosis as an evolutionary force – will also be familiar with a level of symbiogenesis known as genetic symbiogenesis. I propose that what we are looking at here is the symbiogenetic union of a viral genome with that of its vertebrate host – we humans.

In genetic symbiosis, we would expect that selection will work at the level of the combined genomes. Viral genes mutate very rapidly. For a virus to be not only expressed in every human pregnancy, but also for its env gene (and regulatory sequences) to be conserved over vast time periods (see figure 2, the next stage of the figure), it must have been conserved by selection as an integral part of the combined virus-vertebrate genomic union – what in symbiological terms would be terms the “holobiontic genome”.

Thus I would suggest that, just considering this single example, it demonstrates that viral symbiosis is real and important in human evolution. Viral symbiosis is clearly very different from mutations, in their original definition, of random changes in genes arising from copying errors during cell division. The genes involved here, indeed the whole viral structure working as a unit, is pre-evolved from a very different evolutionary lineage to that of its host. Moreover, it is also pre-evolved to take over and manipulate key aspects of host genetic function, which it does as part of normal infectious and replication strategies. This latter lends such viruses very considerable symbiogenetic potential when they unite, genome-for-genome, with the germline of their hosts.

Of course the human endogenous retroviruses story does not stop there. We now know of eight separate viruses that play an important role in placentation. And vast numbers of viruses, from roughly 200 different viral evolutionary lineages, are scattered throughout our chromosomes. The evidence that those viruses are not junk has been accumulating for something like twenty years. A Swedish pathologist, Erik Larsson, has recently discovered that the syncytins are also playing some important, but as yet unknown, function in the normal human brain. Others are showing more and more roles for HERVs in human embryology, and our day-to-day physiology. Indeed, this viral part of our makeup is becoming very important to our understanding of human diseases.

For example, in multiple sclerosis, a slightly different form of syncytin-1 may be playing an important role in the inflammation that damages the insulation sheath around the nerve cells, known as myelin. Other studies, by doctors in Italy, have shown that our human viruses are playing a very important role in seven or eight of the common forms of cancer.

I am in the process of publishing a series of 5 review papers for the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, extrapolating this knowledge into medicine. The first three are now published, with four and five appearing in November and December.

I shall stop here at this early stage to allow people to question, comment, debate, or disagree with me.
 
Hi!

If I might introduce myself (having sojourned in the pseudoscience section for an amusing short while) I suppose I should own up and participate in real science, where I belong. I visited pseudoscience because they had already set up a humorous discussion of my book, Virolution. But I've been told I really don't belong there but rather closer to biology/genetics and even closer still to the junctional zone between evolutionary biology and medicine. In fact that is precisely what my appointment at Sheffield University comprises -- the development of the link between evolutionary biology and medicine.

See my website, ["http://www.fprbooks.com"]

I pioneered the formal definition of viruses as symbionts in books and papers, but I realise that this introduces some interesting philosophical and biological paradoxes and disagreements.

So let the debate begin.

I would like to start with the genetic locus known as ERVWE1, which is essentially the genome of a HERV-W (human endogenous retrovirus W) whose env gene codes for the protein syncytin-1, which is essential for normal human placentation. The image can be found at this url. Pehaps somebody more experienced than I am can download and display it to allow for the start of discussion.

Genes ERVWE1ID40497ch7q21.html

As far as I'm concerned the term 'symbiont' here is misleading.
Viruses are either in a parasitic-symbiotic relationship or in a commensal relationship with their host.
 
parasitism and symbiosis are the same thing

In the original definition of symbiosis, by De Bary, symbiosis included parasitism, commencalism and mutualism. So parasitism, by original definition, is a form of symbiosis. Symbiologists have long accepted this for a number of reasons. But non-symbiologists often assume that symbiosis only refers to mutualism.

In practice most mutualisms arise from pre-existing parasitism. Indeed it can be very difficult to demarcate where parasitism ends and mutualism begins. This is why, in defining viral symbiosis, I recognise that there is a phase where it is mainly parasitic, with selection operating at selfish level in both virus and host (symbiologically the partners). For example the retroviral epidemic currently afflicting the koalas in Australia (75% already infected) or the HIV-1 pandemic in humans. But already in both epidemics there is evidence of selection working, to some degree, at partnership level. Thus one of the ways to understand the evolution of mutualism is when selection moves from operating mainly at selfish individual partner level to mainly holobiontic (partnership) level. If you look at the famous symbiosis, even the exosymbioses, such as humming-bird flowers, or mycorrhizae around the roots of trees, or cleaner stations in the oceans, you will, if you think closely about it, realise that selection must be operating to a significant degree at partnership level.

I can provide more details, and references, if you deem this necessary.

Viruses embedded in the human-viral holobiontic genome will often be suppressed if for no better reason than they have inserted very many times and so, if and when one or more insertions come to a mutualistic role, you don't want others, with similar but not identical sequences, throwing a spanner in the works. Initially, as with the koalas in the peak of the epidemic, this suppression will be epigenetic. But later selection will silence unwanted viral genes and genetic sequences using various genetic means, for example stop codons. Although early days, it now looks as if viral recombination (an essentially symbiogenetic viral evolutionary change) can unstop the stop codons. This would be very unlikely to happen with vertebrate genes, which don't have this recombinatory capacity. When that happens a pathogenetic virus may be able to reactivate within the genome and become the cause of disease.

This is one possible explanation of what is happening in SLE and MS -- as described in paper 3 of the review series.
 
In the original definition of symbiosis, by De Bary, symbiosis included parasitism, commencalism and mutualism. So parasitism, by original definition, is a form of symbiosis. Symbiologists have long accepted this for a number of reasons. But non-symbiologists often assume that symbiosis only refers to mutualism.
I know, that's why it is misleading to the general audience to just call it symbiosis. I'm not saying you are wrong in applying the term.
 
Yes -- I have written about it in less scientific detail on pseudoscience, but have been encouraged to make it more scientific here.

WHY WE DON'T LAY EGGS

Among the many animals that live on land, and in the oceans, only the mammals don’t lay eggs.

Not to be nitpicking or anything, but we do lay eggs; or at least some mammals do.

Again, this has been discussed in other threads in this section (not in pseudoscience) by competent and qualified biologists. I suggest you examine my threads I've posted in Biology section to find them, as they have ranged among many topics including fusion of chromosomes, insertion of viral DNA, evolution of legs and arms from fins, to 'which came first, hair, milk, or ear-bones?', etc.

Indeed, you might learn a few things!

Good luck with your publications. It is an interesting topic.
 
tip accepted

Thanks,

I'm new to this site so apologies if I am stepping on anybody's toes. I shall indeed visit what is already there, now I know about it. And I'm sure I will learn from it.

Debate is the food of the mind.
 
replying to Enmos

Yes -- I do understand how misleading it can be. I lecture widely to all sorts of audiences, scientific and lay, and I spend the first third of every lecture, no matter how technical the audience, defining things, so we are all speaking the same language.

But there is another even bigger source of confusion. I spent 20 years in teaching hospital and research medicine before entering evolutionary biology and viruses for another 15 years. The problem is the same in medicine as in biology. Everybody has become somewhat blinkered in their perspectives because of increasing specialisation.

So I tried to broaden my own horizons to get some understanding of ten or twelve different disciplines. I don't pretend to know them all profoundly but I think I understand the basics. I think you need this broader understanding to look at evolutionary biology and medicine broadly and not get caught up in differences of interpretation between, say neo-Darwinism, symbiology, hybridogenesis and epigenetics.

When you look a little more broadly you realise that the differences of opinion between disciplines are often due to that blinkering of vision brought about by super-specialisation.

Hah! There would appear to be room out there for some of us to deliberately flout the tendency and become generalists.
 
Frank:

It appears you have a very strong background, similar in scope to mine. I spent 5 years teaching medical physics/nuclear physics at a hospital, before teaching mathematics/science in the public schools and colleges.

Send me a PM if you wish, and I'll give you my email. I believe we could find several interesting topics of discourse. There are several other excellent biologists who post at this forum. But lots of college students, too -- and many pseudo-physicists (and some competent physics grad students).

Walter
 
reply to Walter

Walter,

Glad to make your acquaintance. Sounds as if we do have things in common and I'd be glad to swap e-mail addresses. I'm not sure how we can do so through the site. Your reference to PM (private message?) suggests a way, but I don't know it.

I'm currently engaged in teaching final year medics about the extrapolation of modern evolutionary biology to medicine. So if there are college students affiliated, maybe they might find some of this interesting. I cover a much wider field than viral symbiosis, including, of course, classical neo-Darwinism, hybridogenesis and epigenetics. The first and final four chapters in Virolution were on the above topics as were the first and fifth paper of the series for the J of the Royal Society of Medicine.

The future research potential, for biology and medicine, is very considerable, as I explain to my own students.

Frank
 
There’s a relevant review in the current Nature Reviews Genetics:

The impact of retrotransposons on human genome evolution
Richard Cordaux & Mark A. Batzer
Nature Reviews Genetics 10, 691-703 (October 2009) | doi:10.1038/nrg2640

Abstract
Their ability to move within genomes gives transposable elements an intrinsic propensity to affect genome evolution. Non-long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposons — including LINE-1, Alu and SVA elements — have proliferated over the past 80 million years of primate evolution and now account for approximately one-third of the human genome. In this Review, we focus on this major class of elements and discuss the many ways that they affect the human genome: from generating insertion mutations and genomic instability to altering gene expression and contributing to genetic innovation. Increasingly detailed analyses of human and other primate genomes are revealing the scale and complexity of the past and current contributions of non-LTR retrotransposons to genomic change in the human lineage.
 
Frank:

Click on my user name (it turns blue when the arrow goes over it and turns into a hand). It will take you to my profile. From there, click on send a message, and you can send me a PM message. I just sent you one by the same means (and it has my email address). You will note that if you actually log-in (use your username and password) that you will have a listing of unread messages. Yours should now read 1 (unless others have sent you messages too).
 
Thanks Walter -- I've now made preliminary contact. I'm about to take a holiday, with very limited e-mail access. But I shall still get in touch with irregular e-mails. I'll read the paper in Nature Reviews on my return -- looks interesting.

There are two very different schools of thought on retroposons such as LINEs, SINEs and Alus. Some think they evolved within genomes per se. I take the Villarreal line that they originated as breakdown products of exogenous viral infections, but then followed the evolutionary patterns that are commonly believed. ERVs are commonly classed with the retroposons but these days this is becoming more questionable. Most retrovirologists now take a different line (no pun intended) on the origins of ERVs. These appear to arise from primary viral insertions during epidemics of exogenous retroviruses. This view has been strongly put by my friend Massimo Palmarini, and appears to be confirmed during the ongoing koala retroviral epidemic, where the virus is endogenizing at a furious rate during the acute exogenous phase.

If this view is correct, every positional insert within the host chromosomes of an ERV appears to mark, in time, an ancestor infected. This lends itself to some fascinating historical research, pioneered by Massimo in the history of domestication of sheep.

It also lends itself to some very interesting extrapolations about the history of the human genome. For example if you look at the HERV-Ws, there are roughly 650 insertions in the human genome. That would suggest a very major epidemic something close to 40 million years ago.
 
Here's a recent open-access article from PNAS that discusses animal models requiring viral gene expression for successful pregnancy. Not quite as fresh as the link Hercules posted, but accessible prose.

Proviral protein provides placental function.
Stoye JP.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jul 21;106(29):11827-8. Epub 2009 Jul 15.

Unfortunately, I am not allowed to post the link. PubMed indexes this. Now a question: The mouse syncytiotrophoblast is discussed in the article and a similar structure is present in sheep (Dunlap et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 26;103(39):14390-5). In "Why we don't lay eggs" (above), there is the assertion: "This ultra fine membrane is very unusual – its cells are fused together so their membrane have dissolved away, making up a single monolayer. Animal genes cannot fuse cells in this way. How then does our human placenta, vital to every human birth, manage to do this?" How does this ultra fine membrane of humans differ from the syncytiotrophoblast of mice and sheep?
 
Last edited:
our special placenta

Sorry -- I don't have time to answer in detail since I am leaving for vacation.

Amazingly, the placentas of the major mammalian groups are quite different from each other. We share our placenta with the great apes. Rodent placentas have two syncytial layers (enabled by two retroviruses) but the anatomy and thus precise physiology is different from humans. The differerences are even more marked in ruminants, such as sheep, where there is no syncytial layer but specialised a specialised trophoblastic layer, which is being investigated by Palmarini in Glasgow. Work is still being done on horse and cattle (Nottingham) in relation to their retroviruses, but their placentas are different again from ours.

I think retroviruses are probably involved in all placentation, but this has not been extensively studied. Mice have two retroviruses involved but they are different from (but maybe very distantly related to) the viruses that code for our human (great ape) syncytin-1 and syncytin-2. Sheep use the Jaagsietke endogenous retrovirus. They don't have a placental syncytium, but they do have trophoblast cells that are significantly changed (differentiated) by the virus.

Marsupials don't have a placenta but occasionally, marsupials such as the fat-tailed dunnart, undergo a process akin to transient placentation. Would be fascinating to study if viruses are involved but the scientists studying it had their grants stopped so the work was never taken to its conclusion. Room for important future research, I would think.

That's about all I have time to say -- but will pick it back up when I get back from holiday.
 
Hi,

Back from the heat -- phew really was hot in the Canaries with temperatures in the 30s.

I'm pleased to say that while away several colleagues and groups made contact, including a group that has offered financial and logistic support for a meeting of virologists (and other biologists perhaps) interested in the role of viruses in host evolution.

In the coming weeks, I shall get in touch with colleagues and see what the consensus feel, but it makes a meeting a lot more likely.
 
Back
Top