LETTER
HIV-1 evolution is a fundamental challenge for any therapeutic intervention. Rouzine and Weinberger (1) presented a mathematical analysis of the evolutionary stability of proposed therapies that would use engineered defective interfering particles (DIPs) to treat HIV-1 patients. Their analyses are illuminating, particularly in highlighting the importance of multiple DIP infections of a cell and the possible role of “capsid stealing” by the DIPs. However, they state that the coevolution of HIV-1 and DIPs has not been explored previously while simultaneously raising “doubts regarding the validity” of our recent study of this problem (2). We wish to clarify two key issues and broaden the discussion.
First, the authors' doubts about our work are based on their conclusion that DIP interference by “genome stealing” (i.e., formation of nonviable HIV-DIP heterodimers) is evolutionarily unstable, because HIV-1 can mutate its dimerization initiation signal (DIS) to escape. This finding arises from the assumption that mutations away from the wild-type DIS sequence bear no fitness cost for HIV-1, which is based on the observation that different HIV-1 subtypes have different DIS sequences (3). However, the fact that the DIS sequence is strongly conserved within each subtype suggests that mutations in the DIS induce significant fitness costs in vivo (4). Furthermore, in vitro studies have shown that mutated DIS sequences substantially decrease the efficiency of HIV-1 packaging and/or cellular infectivity (at least for the subset of mutations that have been studied) (5–8). Our recent work integrated these factors and showed that a genome-stealing strategy can be coevolutionarily stable, though we emphasized that experimental confirmation will be needed for particular DIP constructs (2).
Second, Rouzine and Weinberger (1) do not consider the evolutionary pressure on a crucial parameter—the intracellular production asymmetry between DIPs and HIV-1, denoted P. Changes in the value of P have opposing effects on the fitness of HIV-1 and DIPs, leading to a potential evolutionary conflict. The value of P is partly determined by DIP genome architecture (9), which is not directly altered by HIV-1 evolution. However, because DIP genomes must be rescued by HIV-1 trans elements to become mature particles, the production rate of DIPs is influenced by factors encoded by HIV-1. Thus, mutations in HIV-1 could reduce the value of P, enabling evolutionary escape from the parasitism of DIPs (2, 9, 10).
We explored the coevolutionary dynamics arising from this conflict and identified a characteristic three-phase pattern (2). Initially, the DIP treatment is effective in suppressing HIV-1, but then HIV-1 evolves to escape DIPs by reducing P. Under some circumstances, DIPs then evolve to catch up with HIV-1 and establish a set point phase characterized by sustained suppression of HIV-1 viral load and “Red Queen” coevolutionary dynamics. Importantly, these qualitative dynamics are robust to different mechanisms of interaction between DIP and HIV-1 (including the “capsid-stealing” strategy explored by Rouzine and Weinberger [1]), so long as the evolutionary conflict exists at the host level (2). Therefore, measures to maintain the production asymmetry between DIPs and HIV-1, by inhibiting HIV-1 escape or facilitating the catch-up by DIPs, are crucial design principles for all DIP-based antiretroviral therapies.
Footnotes
For the author reply, see doi:10.1128/JVI.00932-13.
REFERENCES
- 1.Rouzine IM, Weinberger LS. 2013. Design requirements for interfering particles to maintain coadaptive stability with HIV-1. J. Virol. 87:2081–2093 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ke R, Lloyd-Smith JO. 2012. Evolutionary analysis of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 therapies based on conditionally replicating vectors. PLoS Comput. Biol. 8:e1002744. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002744 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Paillart JC, Shehu-Xhilaga M, Marquet R, Mak J. 2004. Dimerization of retroviral RNA genomes: an inseparable pair. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2:461–472 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.St. Louis DC, Gotte D, Sanders-Buell E, Ritchey DW, Salminen MO, Carr JK, McCutchan FE. 1998. Infectious molecular clones with the nonhomologous dimer initiation sequences found in different subtypes of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 can recombine and initiate a spreading infection in vitro. J. Virol. 72:3991–3998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Moore MD, Fu W, Nikolaitchik O, Chen J, Ptak RG, Hu WS. 2007. Dimer initiation signal of human immunodeficiency virus type 1: its role in partner selection during RNA copackaging and its effects on recombination. J. Virol. 81:4002–4011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Lodmell JS, Ehresmann C, Ehresmann B, Marquet R. 2000. Convergence of natural and artificial evolution on an RNA loop-loop interaction: the HIV-1 dimerization initiation site. RNA 6:1267–1276 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Clever JL, Parslow TG. 1997. Mutant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 genomes with defects in RNA dimerization or encapsidation. J. Virol. 71:3407–3414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Berkhout B, van Wamel JL. 1996. Role of the DIS hairpin in replication of human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J. Virol. 70:6723–6732 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Weinberger LS, Schaffer DV, Arkin AP. 2003. Theoretical design of a gene therapy to prevent AIDS but not human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. J. Virol. 77:10028–10036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Metzger VT, Lloyd-Smith JO, Weinberger LS. 2011. Autonomous targeting of infectious superspreaders using engineered transmissible therapies. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7:e1002015. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
