Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science Technology

First Gene Drive In Mammals Could Aid Vast New Zealand Eradication Plan (technologyreview.com) 301

Posted by BeauHD from the evolution-warping dept.
wisebabo writes: Say goodbye to our little whiskered friends! There is an effort to wipe out not just any species, (there's been discussions to wipe out the mosquitos that carry Malaria), but a mammal. Specifically the house mouse which, along with other invasive species introduced by Westerners, have ravaged New Zealand's ecosystem. (Amongst other things they've rendered extinct many of the flightless birds there). They'll try using the "gene drive" in mammals, which is a new genetic weapon made possible by the editing system CRISPR-Cas9. Basically, it'll make all of the children of the genetically engineered mice male and then all of their children male and so on. This'll continue until there are no females left and the population will crash. If this is successful, they want to use this technique on other species until all of the predators on New Zealand are wiped out.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Gene Drive In Mammals Could Aid Vast New Zealand Eradication Plan More

First Gene Drive In Mammals Could Aid Vast New Zealand Eradication Plan

Comments Filter:

  • Nature finds a way. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BitterOak ( 537666 ) on Friday February 10, 2017 @11:34PM (#53844191)
    Haven't they seen Jurassic Park?

    • Re: Nature finds a way. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rei ( 128717 ) on Friday February 10, 2017 @11:50PM (#53844259) Homepage

      Tell that to all of the extinct species throughout history. If there's one thing the geological record shows us is that nature quite often *doesn't* find a way.

      • Most if not all of those species went extinct because they were out-competed in their ecological niche by another species. Nature found a way - just via a different species.

        That's an important distinction here because as best as I can tell from TFA, these mice are the dominant creatures occupying this ecological niche (having killed off the flightless birds which used to occupy it). So killing off the mice will open up that niche to competing species. Likely, if this works, it'll result in a bigger pr

        • In the last 10,000 years the major driver of extinction for a large number of species, especially the megafauna, has been human predation, overfishing and habitat destruction. But another major driver has been that humans have moved many highly invasive species like rats to every corner of the globe. At this point it is uncertain if technology can fix this problem on islands, but considering how much damage has already been done it may be worth a try in some places. However, it is going to be really tough g

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Nature finds a way, but individual species do not

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yes they have. That's why they're making them males instead of females. Duh!

    • About Cane Toads. or for that matter read Farley Mowats stories of what wolves actually eat.

      • About Cane Toads. or for that matter read Farley Mowats stories of what wolves actually eat.

        Translation: Hiroshima was bad. Don't get a chest x-ray unless you want to risk killing 100,000 people.

        It's a complete and total disconnect from reality and rational thought that we're seeing from the neo-Luddites on the topic of genetic modification. Introducing a fundamentally self-destructive gene (in a very rapidly breeding species that has a zero percent chance of accidentally going extinct), has nothing whatsoever to do with importing a *genetically unmodified* nonnative predator [wikipedia.org] to eat native bee [wikipedia.org]

    • I'm pretty sure this was the plot of the 12 Monkeys.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        They are not creating a disease they are genetically altering mice to only produce male offspring. Reality is this will be far less successful than most people think. For a start they are not creating super mice that can out copulate other mice. Likely it will just be evolved out at any release site (those with the gene fix will be out bred by those without the gene fix), unless those mice will also out compete all other mice but they can keep repeating the exercise with increasing release numbers. That do

        • Researchers have already tested the gene drive in a similar way (although not with mammals AFAIK). It is frighteningly effective. With the method they are proposing you don't need to make genetically superior mice that will out breed the others. By making the engineered mice only have male offspring they will be exploiting the delicate balance of ecology. The population starts out as 50/50 male/female, after a few generations it will be something like 52/48...more and more male engineered mice to breed

          • Re:12 Monkeys (Score:5, Interesting)

            by LunaticTippy ( 872397 ) on Saturday February 11, 2017 @05:43AM (#53845167)
            This technique would work especially well on bedbugs. They perform "traumatic insemination" which is using a knifelike penis to inseminate another bedbug through their exoskeleton. They are not very particular about the fertility status or even gender of the target. A surplus of males would effectively fuck everything to death.

          • Researchers have already tested the gene drive in a similar way (although not with mammals AFAIK). It is frighteningly effective. With the method they are proposing you don't need to make genetically superior mice that will out breed the others. By making the engineered mice only have male offspring they will be exploiting the delicate balance of ecology.

            There was some ethical discussion regarding humans choosing the sex of their offspring. While no one argued that extinction would take place, surprisingly small swings acn have huge ramifications. Let's say that a lot of people wanted boys. Perhaps because of sports prowess - who knows, but there are definitely cultures where it can be downright dangerous to be born female. So if enough males are born it changes the social dynamic, as more men will not reproduce The opposite is also true. If there was a ch

        • Well, it was implied this is just one prong of a multilayered approach.

          And given house mice breed like crazy, I don't see why they couldn't use this in a similar way to the sterile insect technique. Breed millions upon millions of them. Saturation campaign (though you need to make sure their prey species aren't going to be taxed too severely.) The fact that they aren't actually infertile is a bonus.

          I hadn't pondered in-depth the effects of a modest release (possibly unintentional) with no support. I

    • Re:Nature finds a way. (Score:5, Funny)

      by quenda ( 644621 ) on Saturday February 11, 2017 @01:18AM (#53844615)

      They had me at "New Zealand Eradication Plan".

      Should not be hard, as the country is totally undefended. [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gringer ( 252588 )

      They probably haven't even seen this:

      https://soylentnews.org/articl... [soylentnews.org]

      http://www.nature.com/news/gen... [nature.com]

      Lab experiments showed that the mutation increased in frequency as expected over several generations, but resistance to the gene drive also emerged, preventing some mosquitoes from inheriting the modified genome. ...

      Resistance to gene drives is unavoidable, so researchers are hoping that they can blunt the effects long enough to spread a desired mutation throughout a population. Some have floated the idea of creating gene drives that target multiple genes, or several sites within the same gene, diminishing the speed with which resistance would develop. By surveying a species’ natural genetic diversity, researchers could target genes common to all individuals.

    • "Haven't they seen Jurassic Park?"

      Exactly! Who left the door open? NEWMAN!

    • Nature finds a way. --- Haven't they seen Jurassic Park?

      I dislike Jeff Goldblum but I absolutely HATE that line.

      Life finds a way [youtube.com]....unless it DOESN'T. Just ask the Dodo, the dinosaur, the Neanderthal, and all of the other extinct species. But you can't, they're extinct; ask one of these [businessinsider.com] instead.

      Life TRIES to find a solution (anthropomorphising life? It that legal?) but -- like everything else -- has resource restraints. If there's time and it can and it's lucky, it succeeds and offspring enjoys the benefits. If not, there's no offspring. Either way N

  • Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xlsior ( 524145 ) on Friday February 10, 2017 @11:46PM (#53844243) Homepage
    ...keeping it contained.

    Those mice got onto the islands accidentally in the past, and one of them can just as easily accidentally end up on another island/continent where they can instigate those populations to crash as well. May take longer if it's just a single individual, but if the effects do indeed persist across future generations then it will grow into a tidal wave over time. Very hard to stop if let loose in an unintended area, and can end up crashing entire ecosystems.

    • I agree, to the extent that I think they should have an "antidote" on hand: an engineered variant immune to the gene drive, to release where, when and if a gene-drive species escapes

      • Re: Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Shane_Optima ( 4414539 ) on Saturday February 11, 2017 @02:33AM (#53844809) Journal
        The "antidote" is this: female house mice. They're not in short supply, and they're guaranteed to not be a carrier so you can go on collecting them (for greater genetic diversity, let's say) even in the area of an outbreak. Wait for the mice to die out in the area, re-introduce unaffected mice. Wash, rinse, and repeat if necessary. It's not like we're talking about African elephants here. The average lifespan is what, a couple years maybe? And they breed like mad. And they're everywhere.

        This is a complete non-issue. You're not going to accidentally make house mice go extinct worldwide. There aren't going to be hidden reserves of carriers laying dormant for years, just waiting to eradicate any re-introduction of the species in an area.
        • Quite right. For lab mice, anyways, the average lifespan was 2-3 years in my experience. Most breeding pairs dropped about a dozen or so litters over their reproductive lifespan, though it varied by strain. From birth to weaning was usually 21 days, and the new female mice could become impregnated quite soon afterwards - mice ain't shy about inbreeding. I would guess that wild mice have similar breeding capabilities, though less opportunity to find suitable mates while they're still fertile.

          • mice ain't shy about inbreeding

            Yeah, that was something I mused on elsewhere: one likely evolutionary response to this, if one had a chance to develop (I'm not sure the selective pressure would last long enough), might be an aversion to outsiders and a *preference* for inbreeding. Might be some neotinic effects that could drive this. A bit interesting to think about, though in the end it'll wind up making it easier to wipe out the remaining pockets of mice, not harder. But just try explaining that to some of the Jurassic Park fans arou

        • Actually, I have to somewhat adjust what I just said about dormant carriers. If this is just a male-only change with no other changes to the mice, in an accidental-release scenario it may well persist a while without having catastrophic effects. Would be pretty easy to eradicate it if we desired, though, and natural selection would be stacked against it.

        • Let's suppose this works as advertised, and so, almost inevitably, house mice become extinct in Eurasia as well. Before reintroducing them you'd have to wait until they are *completely* extinct there (including on islands and in other remote places), which might take decades during which the lack of house mice might cause serious damage to European ecosystems.

          The species normally has a very large population, hence genetic diversity. It's not clear what will happen if you introduce a serious evolutional bott

          • Let's suppose this works as advertised, and so, almost inevitably, house mice become extinct in Eurasia as well.

            This is flawed for two reasons:

            1. If it's very effective then why would it be "inevitable" than an accidental release would occur OVER THE ENTIRETY OF EURASIA (which surely comprises dozens of non-interacting / non-overlapping breeding populations) as well?

            A very effective and quick mouse-killer capable of that would "almost inevitably" kill off all the mice in New Zealand before any stowaways could work their evil.

            On that note: stowaways also have a bit harder of a time than normal, since they w

    • Good luck keeping it contained.

      The mice are easy to contain. What's difficult is containing the humans who are responsible for transporting things like mice on and off the island. It would only take 10 years tops but humans can't seem to stop migrating.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      Not really, as long as there are sufficient females from other, non-genetically altered branches, those strains should be more 'successful' in the quest for survival and eventually the genetically engineered ones will die out, I'm wondering whether this genetic alteration can be artificially held dominant and stable across generations or if it eventually evolves away as other defective genes do.

      Perhaps the genes that favor production of females in the wild population will suddenly be able to stand out and y

      • Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Informative)

        by xlsior ( 524145 ) on Saturday February 11, 2017 @01:40AM (#53844689) Homepage
        Not really, as long as there are sufficient females from other, non-genetically altered branches, those strains should be more 'successful' in the quest for survival and eventually the genetically engineered ones will die out,

        Um... No.
        You are misunderstanding how this works:

        The whole POINT of this is that is tips the balance of the scales: you start with countless non-genetically altered mice, and throw in a handful of engineered ones that only breed males, and will pass on the trait to their offspring.

        The starting point on the island will be roughly 50% male, 50% female. All of the engineered mice will only create more males, no females. They will mostly breed with random, non-engineered mice, creating more engineered male mice in the process.

        Now all of a sudden the the balance of mice on the island a generation later is 51% male, 49% female. Those 1% extra males will also pass on the all-male feature to their offspring as well, increasing the percentage of engineered mice and decreasing the percentage of 'normal' mice. The generation after that may be 53% male, 47% female. A few dozen generations later you will be close to seeing 100% male and 0% female. The chances of any random pairing of mice birthing female offspring becomes vanishingly small.
        Existing females die of old age or predation without new females to replace them. Population numbers crash, and the species dies off completely on the island, except for maybe some small, physically isolated groups

        Don't forget that each mice can create TONS of offspring, and those all interbreed again. They typically have 5-8 offspring at a time, and can have 5-10 litters a year. This happens FAST. The engineered feature will spread exponentially across the population, with no stopping it. It's an avalanche.

        • Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Shane_Optima ( 4414539 ) on Saturday February 11, 2017 @02:59AM (#53844885) Journal
          It's curious how you managed to use some correct facts to support some curiously dire-sounding conclusions. First off, here is the distribution of the house mouse [wikipedia.org]. Do you think that carriers will be accidentally introduced in all breeding populations simultaneously, worldwide? Including the massive captive populations? And don't get the wrong idea from that map; it's not like there's a continuous interbreeding population in that entire range. There are lots of natural barriers keeping the sub-populations separate.

          Don't forget that each mice can create TONS of offspring, and those all interbreed again. They typically have 5-8 offspring at a time, and can have 5-10 litters a year. This happens FAST. The engineered feature will spread exponentially across the population, with no stopping it. It's an avalanche.

          And the avalanche works in more ways than one: reestablishing the mice in places they've been accidentally wiped out in will be a very easy and rapid project. And their short lifespans and high fecundity significantly reduces the window where an unintended transplant can occur. Dead male mice don't tend to do so well at sneaking on boats.

          Also, we know for a fact that females are not carriers, so in the case of a problem it's very easy to start new captive collections (for genetic diversity, let's say) using females plus a few known-unaffected males. You don't even need to pay to have the males tested; you just let them breed and see if they have any female offspring (and if not you don't let them intermix.)

          And that's assuming that accidental releases happen. I'm not at all convinced that's likely given proper import controls and the fact that male stowaways are less likely to survive and enjoy a durable reproductive success in a foreign land.

          But put that to one side: let's say the risk is high. So what? There is a 0% chance of the house mouse going extinct worldwide. Zero. But there's a very high chance that, given enough time, the house mouse will drive more than one New Zealand species to extinction.

    • The loss of a single species is less likely to severely screw up an ecosystem than the introduction of one... unless you can demonstrate the mouse is a keystone species. And where is the mouse native to? Just have those countries step up inspects of kiwi imports.

      May take longer if it's just a single individual, but if the effects do indeed persist across future generations then it will grow into a tidal wave over time.

      Well it's either effective or it isn't. If it's very effective, then the mice will likely die out too quick for an accidental importation to be likely (realize that serious import controls weren't really a thing back when most of these nonnative in

    • Honestly, there are few places on this planet that couldn't do with a good eradication of the European Black Rat. Even if they did this with the domestic Cat - if every male cat was either neutered, a professional breeding animal or a GE males only animal - a whole lot of the world's feral cat problems would be solved. The only issue would be with animals that are potentially at risk in their native habitats - such as the possum.

    • Not to mention the demands that will be made for eradicating other species that are perceived as pests, whether it is native to that area or not. Is something eating crops in Africa and causing hunger? Why not just kill that entire species? In fact, how could you NOT kill that species, when faced with moving photos of sick children with tears in their eyes?

      And how about *voluntarily* introducing it to people. There are quite a few cultures (China, much of the Middle East and Africa) where male offspring is

  • Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut, and what happens with Ice-nine.
    • Luddite-ism is never more depressing than when it's used to argue that we shouldn't try to fix ecological havoc we've already inflicted.

      It's even worse given when the measures are (as they usually are in modern times) obviously much, much less risky than the existent and ongoing damage and are by their very nature prone to self-limiting instead of unchecked expansion.

    • Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut, and what happens with Ice-nine.

      So they should read about what would happen if physics were different from how it actually works? How is that going to help?

  • This will likely... (Score:3)

    by BlueCoder ( 223005 ) on Saturday February 11, 2017 @12:09AM (#53844335)

    produce a nascent populations that barely survive and will likely result in quick rapid mutations and possibly new species as natural selection tries to find a way. Most likely into a species that can change it's sex after adulthood or possess both sets of reproductive organs.

    • produce a nascent populations that barely survive and will likely result in quick rapid mutations and possibly new species as natural selection tries to find a way. Most likely into a species that can change it's sex after adulthood or possess both sets of reproductive organs.

      Was slashdot always full of blithering Luddites? No, you are not going to see mammalian hermaphroditism evolve in response to this.

      The evolutionary resistance to this, if any, would likely be behavioral and geographical, resulting in segregated and possibly more incestuously-inclined populations. Neither of these things will make the mice harder to combat (quite the opposite.)

      Worse case, the genetic trick somehow stops functioning and you get female mice again. Super sex-changing mice running ramptant

  • Because, rest assured, it will!
    • I think the worst that could happen is it will be used by hysterical neo-Luddites as another chip in their war to preemptively ban powerful tools that can allow humans to not only flourish, but undo some of the damage we've done to the ecosystem.

  • People last, right?

    I mean otherwise, how will you know the other predators are gone first?

    Don't let the cultures that kill of girl children because they all want sons get a hold of this...

  • Please be assured that the people proposing this idea have given it more thought than I have. (And, admit it, more than you have.) But nevertheless, we have the unique perspective of both genius and being unbiased (uninformed) outsiders. So our thoughts are very important!

    Now, let me say this about that. Yeah, go for it!

    We face many difficulties in our relationship to nature and the environment. And we are developing powerful tools to handle those difficulties. I say use those tools. Use reasonable caution,

    • Seconded.

      It's extremely depressing to see that the most hysterical forms of Luddite nonsense are, when it comes to genetic engineering, commonplace even here. The man-made damage to the ecology is happening right now. We can possibly fix it using a self-limiting agent that almost certainly will not do more harm than it solves.

      Can someone please stop quoting Jurassic Park and give me a single example of genetically-engineered biological pest control of this sort backfiring, leading to significant new

  • Skinner: Well, I was wrong; the lizards are a godsend.
    Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
    Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
    Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
    Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
    Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
    Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, t

  • What could go wrong?
  • I can already hear President Bannon asking, "Hey, can that be modified to just wipe out the mud people?"

  • Why Mosquitos? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by camperdave ( 969942 ) on Saturday February 11, 2017 @12:56AM (#53844547) Journal
    Why would they wipe out mosquitos instead of wiping out the true culprit: the malaria protozoa itself?

    • Re:Why Mosquitos? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quenda ( 644621 ) on Saturday February 11, 2017 @01:26AM (#53844641)

      Why would they wipe out mosquitos instead of wiping out the true culprit: the malaria protozoa itself?

      Gene drive techniques depend on sexual reproduction, but protozoa reproduce asexually, and can lay dormant as cysts.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      Why would they wipe out mosquitos instead of wiping out the true culprit: the malaria protozoa itself?

      Great idea! That way we could enjoy the incessant buzzing and painful bites of mosquitos that we know and love so well, safe in the knowledge that we're not also exposing ourselves to risk of malaria.

    • Re:Why Mosquitos? (Score:4, Funny)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday February 11, 2017 @10:22AM (#53845683)

      Because it's a mosquito! Malaria I can handle, but that buzzing at night is driving me crazy!

  • Vast New Zealand Eradication Plan (Score:3, Funny)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Saturday February 11, 2017 @01:11AM (#53844587) Journal

    I'm too high to read the summary, but I'm hoping scientists aren't really planning to eradicate New Zealand. There are people there, right? Those guys that play rugby and do those war chants and stick their tongues out. It would be a shame to lose them. These are the guys I'm talking about.:

    https://youtu.be/yiKFYTFJ_kw [youtu.be]

    I mean, if I'm on a rugby team and I show up for a game and the other team starts doing that shit, I'm forfeiting and going right home.

    I'll just hope the headline is misleading and the crazy rugby dudes and the hobbits and shit that live in New Zealand are gonna be alright.

  • rst Gene Drive In Mammals Could Aid Vast New Zeala (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rickyslashdot ( 2870609 ) on Saturday February 11, 2017 @01:16AM (#53844603)

    OUCH ! I hate to be the 'fear monger' here, but with CRISPR genetic modification, the changes are incorporated into the germ-line of that species, and will be passed down from generation - to - generation. This is the actual plan for the project, and it is being introduced into MAMMALS. Well, humans are also mammals, and similar enough to mice that the mouse line of mammals is very often used as the initial test-bed for medical research targeted at humans. How long will it take this CRISPR modification to jump species-lines, either from virus-aided transfer, or through some form of deliberate weaponization processes?

    Damn, I'm kinda' glad that I'm over 70, and hopefully won't be around when (IF) this extinction-level event happens. Granted, it will take multiple generations to spread throughout the global population, but a 'kill-switch' function, or even a more elegant technique involving a basic 'count-down' trigger that self-terminates after a certain number of generation transfers (similar to, and based on, the process of telomere shrinkage with each reproductive cycle), COULD be incorporated into the process in order to limit run-away disasters if the genetic alteration does get loose, or manages to cross species lines.

    I shudder to think of the implications of this research being developed to the point that it could target ANY species, and then the inevitable acquisition of the techniques by radicalized, medically-competent , scientists with either deep-pocket private backers, or state-sponsored support.

    One geographic transfer / escpe process that pops to mind is a bird, or other long distance traveller, that dumps fecal matter contaminated with this gene-line altering process still active in the biological waste, which then gets eaten by another scavenger (a REALLY HUNGRY individual), and . . . boom - - - the CRISPER agent is suddenly introduced into a population outside of the targeted area, and could very well move from a geo-bound area (like islands) to a wide-open continental arena.

    OK, so this is a '. . . sky is falling' scenario, but EVERY precaution needs to be considered - and planned for - when introducing a process that is deliberately designed for total species-line extermination, and there is just no way that ALL escape options will ever be able to be covered with 100% reliability.

    Enjoy your nightmares ! ! !

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      With the mosquito experiments, the gene drive modified mosquitoes also get a gene that makes their eyes and other parts of their bodies glow red under laser light if the gene drive has taken hold.
      So we do the same for the mice, and if it somehow jumps to humans, we distribute lasers to all the female humans so they'll know who to not mate with.

    • There is no point in not using something for good because it could be also used for bad. The existence of CRISPR is known, so the genie is out of the bottle.
      However, these techniques can't cause the nightmare you are considering. You need to inoculate the embryo to change it's genetics. So 'jumping species lines' would only be possible if the two species naturally interbred.
      So, enjoy your fictional nightmares - but we will remain in the real world, where only possible scenarios need to be considered.

  • I moved to NZ from Scotland 3 years ago, I live on a little 10 acre "lifestyle block" on the north island.
    Coming from N.Europe it's weird seeing things like hedgehogs running around here.
    Brought here by the europeans who wanted to terra form NZ into something almost recognisable as the place the left behind.
    They brought just about everything from the British Isles, except the fox (thankfully).

    I recently came across a nest of hedgehogs in my barn and I did some online research as I think I might have made th

  • Evolution doesn't work that way.
  • So one or two of these modified mice escape to other nations and the world wide existence of mice is extinguished. Many creatures feed on mice as a basic part of their diet.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close