Evolution is driven and written over one ideology as the backbone, survival and reproduction is the key goal of almost all organisms. Organisms strive to create and maintain progeny, be it their own progeny that they have a higher genetic relation with, or not their own progeny but still having a higher genetic relation with the offspring.
This ideology can be applied to multicellular organisms as well as to unicellular organisms. Even unicellular organisms, which in the case of virus, is merely a protein- lipid capsule encapsulating a DNA/RNA strand, strives to reproduce as much as it can. If one were to understand the evolution of virus, a number of the theories discuss the need for mere DNA and RNA strands or replicons to reproduce or fuse with lipid vesicles to evolve, in order to survive and continue reproduction. So this ideology, is common amongst most forms of organism, no matter how simplistic.
Using this, we can try and establish game theory interactions amongst two viruses. Coinfecting is a phenomenon that has been observed before, where two virus’ establish themselves in the same cell at the same time. In such a case, their genetic fitness would be put to the test. In a study conducted to understand the interactions between two RNA virus’ coinfecting a cell, it was observed that similar to prisoner dilemma, viral interactions take place; cooperation and defect was observed.
If a virus exists with high replication rate in generally becomes the cooperator. This is because the virus reproduces its components profusely within the cell but only assembles after a point. These components could then be taken and used by the second virus which has a lower replication rate but a higher sequestering ability.
Applying this understanding for Sars CoV 2, we can come across a method that can help in controlling the reproduction rate of Sars CoV 2. Let’s formulate a game theory for this interaction!
The Sars CoV 2 uses only the spike protein for entering the cells from all its membrane proteins. Through the spike protein and ACE02 receptor, the virus enters the cell undergoes rapid reproduction. Hence if we were to genetically engineer a virus that has the genes to sequester the components and use it for its own benefit but not the ability to create its own components. For this, the genetically engineered virus must be a double stranded DNA virus with promoters favoring DNA replication. Then coinfecting the two virus will lead to a scenario where the Sars CoV 2 is the cooperator and the genetically engineered virus, lets call it SeqGenX is the cheater. Similar to the prisoner’s dilemma, the virus will put its own reproductive fitness before others and use their own mechanisms to reproduce. Sars Cov 2 will reproduce to create its own components and SeqGenX will use these components to form its own capsule and infect other cells where it will do the same. Hence it will hinder the ability Sars CoV 2 to reproduce effectively and infecting profusely.
The outcome of prisoner’s dilemma applies here as well, where the defector is better off than the cooperator.
Many similar scenarios can be formulated. For example- game theory between a virus and a host cell. The virus is the defector and the host cell is the cooperator. If a symbiotic relationship could be achieved where the viral DNA integrates into the genome, both could probably sustain themselves. The host cell can defect using interferons, MHC receptor attracting an immune response etc. The viral cell will always lean towards defecting. Considering that any immune response associated for a cell after a virus has entered, will lead to cell death, the host cell will lean towards being a cooperator based on the scores.
References:
Prisoner's dilemma in an RNA virus- Paul E. Turner* & Lin Chao* Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
Comments