Gene drive used to turn all female mosquitos sterile
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
There are reasonable worries about something like this but I'm in favour because malaria really does kill an awful lot of people. We have already massively changed insect populations around the world with land use changes, species introductions and pesticides (including the continuously needed mosquito control). Also, I would think that a gene drive that eliminates populations is self-limiting, to the extent that it works, whereas other genetic interventions would stay around indefinitely and be subject to mutation at any point.
Edit: I think the greatest ecological change would be as a consequence of the increase in human impact that followed the increase in wellbeing in the worst affected areas. I'm not going to begrudge that.
How does the saying go?
The best laid plans of mice and men always work out exactly as predicted and never suffer from unintended consequences.
Just like cane toads and prickly pear.
Happily we're (I'm speaking on behalf of people way smarter than myself) getting much, much better at this.
An article on Vox, discussed here 4 months ago, is just one poignant example of the level of introspection and caution being exercised by everyone involved in these trials:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17214676
"Kevin Esvelt wants me to know that if I fuck up this article, 25,000 children could end up dead."
The whole article is a tremendously compelling read.
I'm usually pretty wary of the whole 'we've come a long way since ...', but in this realm we really do appear to have done exactly that. The 1920/1930's attitudes could best be described as incautious (more accurately as brazen, cowboy, insouciant, etc).
Cane toads and prickly pear (and tiger pear and heliotrope and rabbits and hudsons pear and ...) are pests whose impact are nearly impossible to describe to people outside the ecosystems impacted by them, but the people dealing with these things are so much better informed than the lab techs of a hundred years ago and know that if they fuck it up, there'll be a wiki page about them that'll last another hundred years.
> Lead author Dr Tilly Collins, from the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial, said: “As adults, An. gambiae mosquitoes are small, hard to catch, most mobile at night and not very juicy, so they are not a rewarding prey for both insect and vertebrate predators. Many do eat them -- sometimes accidentally -- but there is no evidence that they are a big or vital part of the diet of any other animal.
> “There is one curious jumping spider known as ‘the vampire spider’ that lives in homes around the shores of Lake Victoria and does have a fondness for female blood-fed mosquitoes. Resting blood-fed females are easy and more nutritious prey as they digest their blood meal, but this spider will readily eat other available mosquito species as opportunity arises.”
[0] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/187427/removing-malariacarry...
Compare the changed area to the control area.
Do they depend on a specific characteristic of certain species of mosquitoes to thrive?
Is there zero chance that we won't end up spreading more Malaria? Or end up with something worse than Malaria?
We were not even able to predict the impact of some rabbits on the local fauna. Now we want to play with genes.
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/17793/20151027/elep...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-southern-afric...
http://www.krugerpark.co.za/krugerpark-times-2-1-elephants-1...
With chemicals they tend to degrade.
It's like the influence of single chain letter that's physically passed from hand to hand (and eventually falls apart) vs a Facebook post that's effectively infinitely duplicable.
The diligence in handling genetic solutions to biological problems needs to be substantially greater.
Sulams reply has the real main reason for confidence in the safety of propagating this mutation.
Which would be bad enough. These gene drives are extinction weapons. If they get into something with a wide range and high importance to any given ecosystem, well, I hope you took wildlife documentaries of it while it was still there.
As for any kind of bizarre viral-mediated horizontal gene transfer scenario, there's no more risk of this happening than for any other harmful bit of another species' genome. This is the kind of thing that can, in particular circumstances quite unlike these, occur over evolutionary time.
But on the face of it, it's absurd; there's tons of potentially harmful genetic material out there, just oodles of all manner of virus even, that can't infect humans for the simple reason that .. it can't. This isn't unknowable magic.
In the infinitely more likely scenario that gene drive is used maliciously, it would still be quite easy to do genetic screening, and thus fairly easy to avoid having compromised offspring.
The 'doomsday' scenario for gene drive is malicious use for ecological destruction.
Many studies have shown that the extinction of mosquitoes would have little if any ecological impact. I think if we had to worry about malaria in the Americas, we'd have eliminated mosquitoes years ago, and this wouldn't even be a question of whether or not we should do this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Malaria_Eradication_P...
https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.htm...
Huge amounts of DDT are maybe not the greatest way to accomplish this, but it was highly effective.
Avoiding these millions of deaths per year will just increase populations in parts of the world where resources are already scarce. It could lead to ecological collapse, which very well could result in more human death all-at-once than the Mosquitos were causing over time.
Now, I hate to advocate for letting people die - that's obviously something we as a species aren't going to do - but I feel like we care about population control for every single species but ourselves.
I worry that all of our modern medicine and championing of mother nature could eventually be our demise in the long-term, even if all of these things provide incredible benefits in the short-term.
We are, after all, just really smart animals. In any environment where a single species eliminates all threats to itself, it becomes the biggest threat to itself in terms of competing for resources. We are better at managing resources than any other species, but to a fault. Eventually we'll bite off more than we can chew.
I'm sure plenty of you will think that what I have said here is evil (even I feel that way a little bit), but I think that this really could be a credible threat to humanity ~200 year down the line.
Yes. It is. Because it relies on the premise of determining whether other fellow humans are worthy of life.
But there is also some pretty good evidence that as child mortality decreases, the number of children parents choose to have drops as well.
the gene drive isn't ready for use in the field. Doublesex is so central to insect sex determination that every species we have looked at has a version, and the ones in closely related species are similar enough that the gene-drive construct could potentially hop species. While targeting other mosquitos might not be a terrible thing, we probably want to have a clear idea of potential issues before releasing anything like this into the wild.
Some consequences are starting to be measured and we're turning our eyes because we don't like bites? I got Dengue in two occasions and I really hate these mosquitos but we must not be innocent to think there is no consequences and nature will solve this for us.
> They found that the birds produced on average two chicks per nest after spraying, compared with three for birds at control sites. > https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html
Old compilation of papers about the consequences.
> Malaria is only carried by a tiny number of mosquito species. Of the thousands of species only something like a dozen actually matter to humans. We can target exactly the ones we want and even better : nothing stops us from maintaining a population in some labs somewhere.
If it turns out they matter in any significant way, contrary to various impact analysis... we just release them back into the environment.
The current cost of not wiping out those few mosquito species is about half a million dead children. Imagine that someone was nuking a mid sized American city every year and you could stop it right now but you'd prefer to wait for a slightly more athsteticly pleasing solution.
How much blood would you be willing to let stain your soul .
Mosquitoes are the main transmission vector for malaria, which kills more than half a million people every year. This is literally one of the biggest problems in the world.
Here in Brazil zika, dengue and malaria are our everyday neighbors but most of problem are from lack of basic sanitation.
One of my first studies was estimating the effect of proximity/density of nearest forest at the neglected tropical diseases. Many people come with the same conclusion: no effect for dengue and yellow fever. Later Brazilian government started doing in-house visits trying to find small pounds of water on backyards. The result was astonishing, most backyards are like paradise for Aedes and similar mosquitos. Even water box are open and full of water for children to play on hot days. Now the campaign is to not create spaces where they can proliferate like: http://infodengue.ikiw.com.br/2015/03/como-evitar-dengue.htm...
Malaria is a special case because seems to not stand urban micro climate and people at these regions cannot afford to move. I understand the case of half million people losing their lives but realistic we will not stop using gene modification only on Anopheles. Here in Brazil will target minimum three genres of mosquito, any of them can cause diseases. Mosquitos also do not respect political borders.
Seriously there needs to be public oversight on this research. It has a non zero chance of significantly damaging the biosphere.
It’s insanely complicated, and you can’t think in terms of benign or not. All animals are benign, they’re just animal filling out their niche in nature.
But sterilizing the females will inevitably lead to genocide of an entire range of pollinators that could have devastating impact in parts of the World that depend upon them more than we appreciate or understand today and we won't realise until it is too late.
Humanity's plans to eliminate specific animal populations through introduction of other species, disease, or similar means have always backfired.
I am extremely wary of genetic engineering and think it should probably be illegal and all research on the subject destroyed (because of the threat it poses to humanity), but I will admit to some ambivalence when it comes to eradicating an invasive species that had sickened and killed millions of people.
Life, uh, finds a way. While it was an invasive species, it's now part of the respective ecosystems. Setting up a bunch of houses in the middle of a grassland is invasive, but you may not make life better by trying to burn it down during the dry season.
Or does this drive have an anti-mutation mutation built in? The article seems to indicate that this is a particularly devious set of changes that will cause offspring to either have the changes wanted, or die.
The allele will replicate itself onto the homologous chromosome. Another way to think of it is that an allele from a gene-drive parent will wipe out and copy itself over the allele from the other parent.
It'd be like if instead of the only the phenotypic expression of brown eyes being dominant over blue eyes, rather the brown gene actually wiped out the blue gene so no blue-eyed children could be born from a pairing of one brown-eyed and one blue-eyed parent.
“This is precisely the area that the researchers, from Imperial College in the UK, targeted with their gene drive system. Males that carry one or two copies of the edited version of the doublesex gene develop perfectly normally and are fertile. Females with only one copy also develop normally. In all these cases, these animals will experience gene editing, and all their offspring will end up receiving a copy of the edited version of the gene from them. And females where both copies have been edited develop with a mix of male and female traits and can't reproduce.”
So the majority of offspring carrying the trait can reproduce. The gene drive mechanism ensures that while the change reduces fitness, it still spreads through the population.
It does this, because even if the gene drive modification only exists on one chromosome, it will copy itself to the other chromosome.
If we were to try to eradicate them I think using multiple techniques at once on a global scale would probably be necessary. You want to get them ALL. There will always be that one place with a bedbug population in isolation waiting to reintroduce them to the world.
Now that I think about it. This would make a great startup idea.
Surely this would be bad for the things that eat mosquitoes. And the things that eat those things etc.
Those mosquitoes had it coming for a long, long time.
But I have only now thought out of a different reason. Basically we had the choice of either living with malaria mosquitoes or converting all of wetland into dry land, completely destroying ecosystem that was there. But now we have option of just eliminating mosquitoes while leaving the rest of wetland intact. To me it does sound like a plan.
I'm a little dubious myself, but I do hate mosquito bites, and I don't even live in a malaria zone.
(I don’t mean to sound blasé, especially given the environmental pressures facing so many insects, but I won’t shed a tear for mosquitos.)
Blessed be the fruit ..