Randall S. Murch

Adaptations of avian flu virus are a cause for concern

Members of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity explain its recommendations on the communication of experimental work on H5N1 influenza. We are in the midst of a revolutionary period in the life sciences. Technological capabilities have dramatically expanded, we have a much improved understanding of the complex biology of selected microorganisms, and we have a much improved ability to manipulate microbial genomes. With this has come unprecedented potential for better control of infectious diseases and significant societal benefit. However, there is also a growing risk that the same science will be deliberately misused and that the consequences could be catastrophic. Efforts to describe or define life-sciences research of particular concern have focused on the possibility that knowledge or products derived from such research, or new technologies, could be directly misapplied with a sufficiently broad scope to affect national or global security. Research that might greatly enhance the harm caused by microbial pathogens has been of special concern (1–3). Until now, these efforts have suffered from a lack of specificity and a paucity of concrete examples of “dual use research of concern” (3). Dual use is defined as research that could be used for good or bad purposes. We are now confronted by a potent, real-world example.

Microbial forensics: the next forensic challenge

Pathogens and toxins can be converted to bioweapons and used to commit bioterrorism and biocrime. Because of the potential and relative ease of an attack using a bioweapon, forensic science needs to be prepared to assist in the investigation to bring perpetrators to justice and to deter future attacks. A new subfield of forensics—microbial forensics—has been created, which is focused on characterization of evidence from a bioterrorism act, biocrime, hoax, or an inadvertent release. Forensic microbiological investigations are essentially the same as any other forensic investigation regarding processing. They involve crime scene(s) investigation, chain of custody practices, evidence collection, handling and preservation, evidence shipping, analysis of evidence, interpretation of results, and court presentation. In addition to collecting and analyzing traditional forensic evidence, the forensic investigation will attempt to determine the etiology and identity of the causal agent, often in a similar fashion as in an epidemiologic investigation. However, for attribution, higher-resolution characterization is needed. The tools for attribution include genetic- and nongenetic-based assays and informatics to attempt to determine the unique source of a sample or at least eliminate some sources. In addition, chemical and physical assays may help determine the process used to prepare, store, or disseminate the bioweapon. An effective microbial forensics program will require development and/or validation of all aspects of the forensic investigative process, from sample collection to interpretation of results. Quality assurance (QA) and QC practices, comparable to those used by the forensic DNA science community, are being implemented. Lastly, partnerships with other laboratories will be requisite, because many of the necessary capabilities for analysis will not reside in the traditional forensic laboratory.

Toward a System of Microbial Forensics: from Sample Collection to Interpretation of Evidence

The threat of terrorist or criminal use of pathogenic organisms and their toxins remains a great concern in the United States. The anthrax letter attack of 2001 ([12][1]) raised the awareness of our vulnerability. It also demonstrated the need to perform microbial forensic analyses for attribution

Genetic Analysis and Attribution of Microbial Forensics Evidence

Because of the availability of pathogenic microorganisms and the relatively low cost of preparing and disseminating bioweapons, there is a continuing threat of biocrime and bioterrorism. Thus, enhanced capabilities are needed that enable the full and robust forensic exploitation and interpretation of microbial evidence from acts of bioterrorism or biocrimes. To respond to the need, greater resources and efforts are being applied to the burgeoning field of microbial forensics. Microbial forensics focuses on the characterization, analysis and interpretation of evidence for attributional purposes from a bioterrorism act, biocrime, hoax or inadvertent agent release. To enhance attribution capabilities, a major component of microbial forensics is the analysis of nucleic acids to associate or eliminate putative samples. The degree that attribution can be addressed depends on the context of the case, the available knowledge of the genetics, phylogeny, and ecology of the target microorganism, and technologies applied. The types of genetic markers and features that can impact statistical inferences of microbial forensic evidence include: single nucleotide polymorphisms, repetitive sequences, insertions and deletions, mobile elements, pathogenicity islands, virulence and resistance genes, house keeping genes, structural genes, whole genome sequences, asexual and sexual reproduction, horizontal gene transfer, conjugation, transduction, lysogeny, gene conversion, recombination, gene duplication, rearrangements, and mutational hotspots. Nucleic acid based typing technologies include: PCR, real-time PCR, MLST, MLVA, whole genome sequencing, and microarrays.

Policy: Adaptations of avian flu virus are a cause for concern

Members of the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity explain its recommendations on the communication of experimental work on H5N1 influenza.

Validation of high throughput sequencing and microbial forensics applications

High throughput sequencing (HTS) generates large amounts of high quality sequence data for microbial genomics. The value of HTS for microbial forensics is the speed at which evidence can be collected and the power to characterize microbial-related evidence to solve biocrimes and bioterrorist events. As HTS technologies continue to improve, they provide increasingly powerful sets of tools to support the entire field of microbial forensics. Accurate, credible results allow analysis and interpretation, significantly influencing the course and/or focus of an investigation, and can impact the response of the government to an attack having individual, political, economic or military consequences. Interpretation of the results of microbial forensic analyses relies on understanding the performance and limitations of HTS methods, including analytical processes, assays and data interpretation. The utility of HTS must be defined carefully within established operating conditions and tolerances. Validation is essential in the development and implementation of microbial forensics methods used for formulating investigative leads attribution. HTS strategies vary, requiring guiding principles for HTS system validation. Three initial aspects of HTS, irrespective of chemistry, instrumentation or software are: 1) sample preparation, 2) sequencing, and 3) data analysis. Criteria that should be considered for HTS validation for microbial forensics are presented here. Validation should be defined in terms of specific application and the criteria described here comprise a foundation for investigators to establish, validate and implement HTS as a tool in microbial forensics, enhancing public safety and national security.

Criteria for Validation of Methods in Microbial Forensics

A process for validation is essential in the development of methods that microbial forensics uses to generate reliable and defensible results. Law enforcement investigators need to respond quickly to the best leads to counter ever-increasing threats and will rely upon results generated from the analyses of any microbial forensic evidence to attempt to attribute any attack to a person(s) or group. Readily available technology and knowledge are making it easier for an individual or group to carry out biocrimes or bioterrorism using microorganisms and toxins as weapons. The potential that a biological weapon will be used is of serious concern for the safety and security of people and critical infrastructure. If a biocrime is committed, microbial forensic evidence will be sought, collected, and characterized to help investigators identify the perpetrator(s) and exclude innocent suspects. Analyses of collected material are often challenging because the identification of the signatures most useful for attribution often requires substantial effort (3). In addition, some microbial forensic specimens can be limited in quantity and/or quality. Despite these demands, accurate and credible results are needed because the interpretation of such results might seriously impact the course or focus of an investigation, thus affecting the liberties of individuals, or even be used as a justification for a government’s military response to an attack. Therefore, the methods for the collection, extraction, and analysis of microbial evidence that could generate key results need to be as scientifically robust as possible so that they are defensible to the legal community (12, 21) and, perhaps, to the international government, law enforcement, and scientific communities. Proper interpretation of the results of microbial forensic analysis relies substantially on understanding the performance and limitations of the methods of collection and the analytical processes, assays, and interpretation involved. Failing to properly validate a method or misinterpreting the results from a microbial forensic analysis or process may have severe consequences. DEFINING VALIDATION Validation is frequently used to connote confidence in a test or process. However, frequently, the process of validation is not well defined or properly described in context. Not being explicit about what is meant by validation can result in misinterpretation and misapplication of a properly performed test. It also can lead to a false sense of confidence in a poor method. In the nascent field of microbial forensics (5), there is a need to better describe what constitutes validation. A strict delineation of the steps needed to validate a method or process may be too restrictive; there are a myriad of methods, processes, targets, platforms, and applications. Yet some basic requirements transcend individual differences in methods, and these can be reinforced by contextual description and illustrated with examples. Failing to validate a method or misinterpreting the reliability of a method in a microbial forensic analysis can have dire consequences. This paper provides a framework for developing a validation plan that can be useful for microbial forensics and may have application to other scientific fields where “validation” may be used colloquially.

Cyberbiosecurity: From Naive Trust to Risk Awareness

The cyber-physical nature of biotechnology raises unprecedented security concerns. Computers can be compromised by encoding malware in DNA sequences, and biological threats can be synthesized using publicly available data. Trust within the biotechnology community creates vulnerabilities at the interface between cyberspace and biology. Awareness is a prerequisite to managing these risks.

Designing an Effective Microbial Forensics Program for Law Enforcement and National Security Purposes

Abstract Forensic capabilities that provide lead information, and investigative, intelligence, prosecution and policy decision support can be invaluable for responding to and resolving bioterrorism events. Attributing biological attacks through scientific and other resources and processes is an important goal, for which science can be instrumental. Some even believe that having effective microbial forensics capabilities along with others can even deter adversaries from using biological weapons. For those nations that do not have such or wish to integrate or upgrade capabilities, thoughtful analysis and consideration of certain design principles will increase the likelihood that success will be attained.

Biorepositories and Their Foundations—Microbial Forensic Considerations

Publisher Summary Biorepositories are integral components of a credible microbial forensics infrastructure that spans research, development, test, evaluation, independent validation, verification, biosurety, analysis, and investigation. Bacterial systematics addresses all levels of the taxonomic hierarchy, from distantly related phyla to closely related strains of a single species. Microbial systematics has been based primarily on the analysis of small subunit ribosomal RNA (16S rRNA) sequences. This approach, when introduced almost three decades ago, revolutionized the understanding of the phylogenetic relationships among microbes and provided the framework for a natural taxonomy that reflected these relationships. Use of this molecular chronometer revealed the inability of traditional phenetic (morphological and biochemical) methodologies to accurately reconstruct the natural genetic history of the microbial world. When applied to mixed communities of uncultivated microbes, 16S rRNA sequencing revealed an astounding diversity manifested at all taxonomic levels, from phylum to phylotype. The existing biorepository landscape is highly heterogeneous and populated with individual laboratory collections, private collections, organism-specific collections, government collections, select-agent collections, user-group collections, geographical collections, and large-scale public or commercial collections. Biorepository procedures and processes for deposit, accession meta-data, accession validation, culture expansion, preservation, maintenance, validation testing, contamination testing, sample documentation, quality control, quality assurance, recipient distribution data, staff training, biosecurity, and bioinformatics data can be variable and patchy.