Can synthetic viruses be created in a lab and become pathogenic?

[mktsgm]

TL;DR Summary

Is a synthetic virus (as a whole) created in a lab, as infectious & pathologic, as a natural viral infection?

Today's technology is so advanced. Not only a part of a virus can be created in a lab, but with any viral genome, maybe it is possible now to assemble a complete and whole virus from the scratch.

In such a case, if it is made to infect a human/animal, will it be able to replicate itself in the host? In other words, will it become 'alive'? Can it become pathogenic and cause disease?

We understand viruses cannot be strictly defined as 'life'. But the intention of the question is to verify if such a (designer) virus could be 'booted' into action or 'life'?

Just by assembling DNA and other proteins, can we create new life?

Thanks.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't know the current state of technology with regards to creating synthetic viruses, but IF the genome and capsid are made of the same stuff that natural viruses are made of, and the DNA/RNA sequences are correct, then yes, it would be a 'live' virus. Or, if you don't want to get into a discussion on what 'life' means, then it is a 'working' virus.

But that answer is kind of a tautology. If I can assemble a squirrel correctly from scratch then it will, obviously, be a live squirrel. That's what 'correctly' means. So to me the question is whether technology in the field has advanced enough to create viral components from scratch and whether our understanding of the viral genome and host cellular machinery is advanced enough to create a working viral genome that will allow the virus to infect, multiply, and escape a host cell.

 

[Tom.G]

See this somewhat related thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/posts/6630139

 

[Rive]

...maybe it is possible now to assemble a complete and whole virus from the scratch. ... will it become 'alive'?

If the job is done well, then there is no distinction regarding the 'aliveness'.

Likely, it'll do its work in a more straightforward, clean manner (depending on the level of understanding behind the creation assembly of the piece) than a haphazard 'natural' one, but that's all.

 

[mktsgm]

Our general premise is that generally, the germs wants to survive and so they tend to procreate.

It is understandable of a 'live' virus wanting to survive and replicate.

But why a lab-assembled virus would infect and replicate in a host? This beats me.

 

[Drakkith]

But why a lab-assembled virus would infect and replicate in a host? This beats me.

It's like assembling a robot. It does whatever it has been designed to do. A synthetic virus, if designed to infect and replicate in a host, would do so. If it has not been designed to do so, it will not. For example, virotherapy, specifically viral gene therapy, uses viruses to introduce a gene into host cells, with the new gene tailored to a variety of applications like protein synthesis or gene regulation. The viruses used in virotherapy are altered so as to be unable to replicate. They simply don't have the genetic material necessary to hijack a cell and build new viruses.

 

[berkeman]

Our general premise is that generally, the germs wants to survive and so they tend to procreate.

It is understandable of a 'live' virus wanting to survive and replicate.

Never anthropomorphise germs. They hate it when you do that.

 

[pinball1970]

Our general premise is that generally, the germs wants to survive and so they tend to procreate.

It is understandable of a 'live' virus wanting to survive and replicate.

But why a lab-assembled virus would infect and replicate in a host? This beats me.

At some point this happened on Earth with no labs, no hosts and no humans.

A self-replicating molecule.

This was about 4 billion years ago I find that amazing.

This is from 2020, looks at some possible mechanisms.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b10796