How do viruses communicate and make decisions? - Coronavirus cognition examined

As a researcher of decision-making, I am interested in not only human decision-making but also in decision-making by non-humans. For example, I was greatly fascinated by Peter Wohlleben’s book “The Secret Life of Trees”, where he writes about the chemical communication between trees. As far as I know, there are no equally exciting books about the intellectual lives of viruses or bacteria for the general public. However, scientific articles with rather thrilling titles on the subject can be found (see figure below).

The study of the intellectual life of viruses began when Paul Turner and Lin Chao made a semi-accidental observation in 1999 that viruses were communicating with each other. They also found that the viruses had their version of the prisoner’s dilemma; in some situations, they chose to cooperate and in others to behave selfishly. A few years later, in 2002, the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) organized a conference on bacterial cognition entitled “Bacterial Neural Networks”. The articles mentioned in the image above by Susan Golden and Judith Armitage are related to it. Golden (2003) pondered that researchers should understand the “thinking” of bacteria. She stated in her article that bacteria are not simple drifters, as was previously thought. They form communities and adapt to their environment. Armitage with her research group (2002) found out that bacteria respond to both external and internal signals with their behavior. They handle complex floods of information, make quick decisions, and communicate with each other. They optimize their spread and survival with these abilities. Thus, the action of bacteria seems intelligent - and this confuses scientists. Since then, research into both virus and bacteria cognition has evolved rapidly, and there are plenty of publications. Dolgin’s “The secret social lives of viruses” is meant for the greater public. The fast development of research in this field is also illustrated by the establishment of a new discipline “Sociovirology”. The discipline related to the social life of viruses is started with Diaz-Muñoz et al. (2017) article "Sociovirology: conflict, cooperation, and communication among viruses." 

How viruses communicate and make decisions

According to Elie Dolgin (2019), when a virus has invaded a cell, it sends a message to other viruses by releasing a small protein out of the cell. This signals to the fraternal viruses that the cell has been invaded. As viruses invade more and more cells, their communication becomes louder and louder. Loud communication indicates that there are few uninfected cells left and the host organism is beginning to be invaded. At this point, geneticists have found that viruses are discussing their options. They can either continue to lyse the host cells or start a slower phase, allowing the virus to integrate into the host cell and remain passive (as if in hibernation) for several cell divisions. Viruses may also work together to trick the host and destroy its defense system against viruses. Viruses also seem to have a division of labor. According to Elie Dolgin, studies have found up to 15 different types of tasks, each with its own signal system. It seems that viruses specialize in certain tasks. Some have the tough role of front-line soldiers: their task is to be the first to attack the defense system. In practice, these viruses sacrifice themselves for others (“For the greater good”). When the first wave of viruses has attacked and died, there will be a second wave and then as many as needed. According to Dolgin, the most important decision made by viruses together is whether to stay hidden in the host cell or begin to aggressively replicate themselves. Viruses have an information acquiring system that tells them which one to do.

As you probably noticed, viruses are pretty sly opponents to the defense system of the host organism. They may also be sly when infiltrating the system. In her article (2018), Marianita Santiana explains what researchers have found out about the spread of rota and noroviruses that cause stomach disease. Viruses travel between cells in a bubble-like blister, and the host’s defense system doesn’t notice the viruses at all until it’s too late. As viruses spread in their blisters, they communicate with each other and share resources. It is no wonder that the diseases caused by these viruses are really harsh. The viruses have time to spread widely before the defense system even notices them. When viruses act as a group, they are much more effective than when acting alone.

Can the behavior of viruses be considered intelligent

Ladislav Kovac (2000) argues that all living beings have at least a minimal understanding of the essential properties of the environment. They also have hereditary, internalized information that tells them how to act in any situation. Together, this information and operating models form a belief system. Pamela Lyon (2007) writes that the accumulating evidence shows that bacteria struggle with problems similar to what cognition researchers are pondering. Essential questions are: how to integrate information from multiple sources to organize an effective response, how to respond to changing environmental conditions, how to make decisions in times of uncertainty, how to communicate with others, and how to coordinate collective action to maximize survival. In light of these results, it seems that some degree of intelligence is indeed not merely a characteristic of humans, but belongs to all living organisms such as trees, viruses, and cells.

Is the coronavirus smarter than other viruses?

When a simple living object finds an effective way to act in a particular situation, it follows this way completely schematically. Kovac (2000) says that simple organisms are fanatic in this sense. They can’t learn, they always function the same way. Their actions are based on a hereditary belief-system that allows them to “know” how to act in any situation. Once an organization has adapted to its environment, it is completely inflexible. Sometimes, however, an individual becomes radicalized when faced with a new environment or, for some reason, may adopt a completely new belief system. The individual takes the risk and mutates. If it survives, this new operating model will be converted into built-in knowledge and passed on to future generations. Something of this type has also happened to the coronavirus (COVID-19) as it transformed from another virus into its current form.

There have been some rumors that the coronavirus was developed by humans in a laboratory. Live Science editor-in-chief Jeanna Bryner (2020) states in her article that this is not possible since the mutation is cleverer than what humans could have created. The structure of the coronavirus allows it to adhere to the surface of human cells more tightly than other similar viruses. In addition to being more firmly attached to the surface of the cells and it also spreads faster in them. Based on the structure, it appears to be mutated from SARS virus. Interestingly, according to computer models, the structure used by the coronavirus COVID-19 cannot function. Had the researchers created the coronavirus, they would not have chosen a structure that according to a computer modeling does not work. But nature seems to be more cunning. The new coronavirus found a way to mutate, which was better and completely different than what scientists could have anticipated. Another interesting finding is that the virus appears to have mutated (or taken a pattern) from viruses living in bats that are completely harmless to humans. If humans had deliberately tried to create a coronavirus, it would have been developed from some kind of virus known to be dangerous to humans. Although these findings are preliminary, it seems that humans would not have succeeded in creating the coronavirus because its mutation is more cunning than we could have imagined. It is also sneaky that, in the light of current knowledge, people seem to be spreading the disease even before they have symptoms and some carriers do not get symptoms at all. If the virus were more aggressive and always killed its victims, the spread would stop when the victim died. If all sufferers were severely symptomatic, the disease would not spread so widely. Korona has succeeded well in its world conquest project.

Researchers try to learn the language of viruses

It is amazing how fast the science of medicine develops. According to Dolgin, the possibility of using viruses to kill drug-resistant bacteria is under scrutiny. The idea is that viruses invade bacteria and destroy them. However, the remedy is not entirely new, as it was used before the invention of antibiotics about 100 years ago. As antibiotic-resistant bacteria is spreading, it may again prove to be an important form of treatment. In her book The Perfect Predator (2019), Steffanie Strathdee explains how she, along with several other researchers, adopted the old way and saved her husband’s life when he had a severe disease for which antibiotics were not effective.

It is important to learn the language and behavior of viruses. The more we know, the better we can fight them - or use them for our purposes. By interfering with viral communication alone, we can make a big difference. It seems that there are many opportunities to get viruses and bacteria under control. Of course, the opponent is cunning because it is not stable and transforms as we try to get a grip on it. However, we have the help of computers and a much more advanced communication system than viruses and bacteria do.

Ps. I hope that expert readers will forgive me for the slack use of the terms. I have tried to popularize rather difficult scientific subjects and therefore avoided using complex terms. For example, in some parts of the text instead of viruses, probably I should have used the term “phage”, which (according to Wikipedia) is a virus that parasites and destroys a bacterium. Also, scientists are debating whether viruses are alive. Because bad viruses seem to be livelier than I would like them to be, I have ignored this problem completely. For the social scientist, the articles I have read and cited here were rather challenging and contained a lot of difficult biology and medicine vocabulary. Popularization required imagination.

Thanks for the coronavirus picture at the beginning CDC/ Alissa Eckert, MS; Dan Higgins, MAMS

Lähteet: 

• Armitage, Judith P., et al. "Thinking and decision making, bacterial style: Bacterial Neural Networks, Obernai, France, 7th–12th June 2002." Molecular microbiology 47.2 (2003): 583-593.
• Bryner, Jeanna (2020): “The coronavirus was not engineered in a lab. Here's how we know”, Live Science -nettisivusto , March 21, 2020 https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-lab.html
• Díaz-Muñoz, Samuel L., Rafael Sanjuán, and Stuart West. "Sociovirology: conflict, cooperation, and communication among viruses." Cell host & microbe 22.4 (2017): 437-441. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1931312817304018
• Dolgin, Elie. "The secret social lives of viruses." Nature570.7761 (2019): 290-292. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01880-6
• Dou, Chao, et al. "Structural and functional insights into the regulation of the lysis–lysogeny decision in viral communities." Nature microbiology 3.11 (2018): 1285-1294.
• Golden, Susan S. "Think like a bacterium." EMBO reports 4.1 (2003): 15-17.
• Kováč, Ladislav. "Fundamental principles of cognitive biology." Evolution and cognition 6.1 (2000): 51-69.
• Lyon, Pamela. "From quorum to cooperation: lessons from bacterial sociality for evolutionary theory." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38.4 (2007): 820-833.
• Santiana, Marianita, et al. "Vesicle-cloaked virus clusters are optimal units for inter-organismal viral transmission." Cell host & microbe 24.2 (2018): 208-220.
• Strathdee, Steffanie, and Thomas Patterson (2019): “The Perfect Predator: A Scientist's Race to Save Her Husband from a Deadly Superbug: a Memoir”, Hachette UK, 2019.
• Turner, Paul E., and Lin Chao. "Prisoner's dilemma in an RNA virus." Nature 398.6726 (1999): 441-443.
• Wang, Xiaoshan Shayna, et al. "A Genetically Encoded, Phage‐Displayed Cyclic‐Peptide Library." Angewandte Chemie International Edition 58.44 (2019): 15904-15909.
• Xue, Katherine S., et al. "Cooperating H3N2 influenza virus variants are not detectable in primary clinical samples." MSphere3.1 (2018): e00552-17.