Scientists Research An Even More Powerful Technique for Genetically-Modifying Mosquitos (bbc.com) 65
The BBC reports on "the next generation of genetic modification technology" — which goes beyond simply introducing a "lab-tweaked gene" into an organism. Instead it introduces a "gene drive" — a lab-tweaked gene "that targets and removes a specific natural gene."
if an animal (parent A) that contains a gene drive mates with one that doesn't (parent B), then in the forming embryo that starts to combine their genetic material, parent A's gene drive immediately gets to work. It recognises the natural gene version of itself in the opposite chromosome from parent B, and destroys it, by cutting it out of the DNA chain. Parent B's chromosome then repairs itself — but does so, by copying parent A's gene drive. So, the embryo, and the resulting offspring, are all but guaranteed to have the gene drive, rather than a 50% chance with standard GM — because an embryo takes half its genes from each parent.
Gene drives are created by adding something called Crispr, a programmable DNA sequence, to a gene. This tells it to target the natural version of itself in the DNA of the other parent in the new embryo. The gene drive also contains an enzyme that does the actual cutting.
It is hoped that gene drives can be used to greatly reduce the numbers of malarial mosquitos, and other pests or invasive species.... One organisation at the forefront of this is Target Malaria, which has developed gene drives that stop mosquitos from producing female offspring. This is important for two reasons — only the females bite, and without females, mosquito numbers will plummet. The core aim is to greatly reduce the number of people who die from malaria — of which there were sadly 627,000 in 2020, according to the World Health Organization. It could also slash the economic impact of the disease. With 241 million cases in 2020, mostly in Africa, malaria is estimated to cost the continent $12bn (£9.7bn) in reduced economic output every year....
One of the world's pioneering developers of gene drives is US biologist Kevin Esvelt, an assistant professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He first came up with the technology back in 2013.... Prof Esvelt adds that this technology is being provided by something called "daisy chain". This is where a gene drive is designed to become inert after a few generations. Or halving its spread every generation until it eventually stops. Using this technology he says it is possible to control and isolate the spread of gene drives. "A town could release GM organisms with its boundaries to alter the local population [of a particular organism] while minimally affecting the town next door," he says.
The technology has not been authorized for use "in the wild," the article points out. But there are currently no bans on laboratories researching it.
Gene drives are created by adding something called Crispr, a programmable DNA sequence, to a gene. This tells it to target the natural version of itself in the DNA of the other parent in the new embryo. The gene drive also contains an enzyme that does the actual cutting.
It is hoped that gene drives can be used to greatly reduce the numbers of malarial mosquitos, and other pests or invasive species.... One organisation at the forefront of this is Target Malaria, which has developed gene drives that stop mosquitos from producing female offspring. This is important for two reasons — only the females bite, and without females, mosquito numbers will plummet. The core aim is to greatly reduce the number of people who die from malaria — of which there were sadly 627,000 in 2020, according to the World Health Organization. It could also slash the economic impact of the disease. With 241 million cases in 2020, mostly in Africa, malaria is estimated to cost the continent $12bn (£9.7bn) in reduced economic output every year....
One of the world's pioneering developers of gene drives is US biologist Kevin Esvelt, an assistant professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He first came up with the technology back in 2013.... Prof Esvelt adds that this technology is being provided by something called "daisy chain". This is where a gene drive is designed to become inert after a few generations. Or halving its spread every generation until it eventually stops. Using this technology he says it is possible to control and isolate the spread of gene drives. "A town could release GM organisms with its boundaries to alter the local population [of a particular organism] while minimally affecting the town next door," he says.
The technology has not been authorized for use "in the wild," the article points out. But there are currently no bans on laboratories researching it.
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
Should be better than Jurassic Park and Andromeda Strain meet Prometheus.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There have been some concerns that the Malaria virus itself may mutate so that it can spread via other means, instead of mosquitos. Otherwise, most people seem to think that gene drives are a possible valid method of controlling pests, and rats and invasive species which have reached islands, etc.
Of course if gene drives are easy to make (some articles claim you can make a specific gene drive as fast as in a month or so), will not be surprised if people start tinkering with humans, etc.
DNA / RNA related sci
Re: What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
Malaria is caused by a parasite, not a virus. Better ignore the rest of your reaction as well.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oxitec has the best of the “traditional” non-gene drive GM mosquito control and selection is precisely the “problem” with them. While the GM males will definitely cause nearly all their daughters to die as larvae, only 50% of their sons will have the killer gene and it will soon be selected out.
You could, in theory, still cause local extinctions by releasing huge numbers of GM males over the course of a dozen or so breeding cycles until the population crash is non recoverable (if the population drops below predation, it’s game over - locally).
The problem is that mosquitoes can be reintroduced in any number of ways and the population rebuilds. A strong gene drive, however, could theoretically wipe out the entire species, provided it was introduced in enough places that localized extinctions didn’t stop the spread,
Now, I’m on Team Extinction but only for the 40 or so species of mosquito (out of 3500) that feed on humans. Most mosquitoes don’t use blood in their lifecycles and even among those that do, most don’t feed on humans.Wipe those particular species out - they hold no unique ecological niche, are not a significant food source for any animal (the bat thing is a myth), they do not uniquely pollinate any plants. But they cause tremendous suffering, mainly in the Global South - and that suffering leads directly to other issues like high population growth, slow economic development and poor governance. The tropics lag for many reasons but a major one is the toll that disease takes on them - not just the deaths but caring for the millions who are severely sickened each year and who often have lifetime complications. I have no problem valuing the lives of African children over those of a handful of mosquito species.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, I’m on Team Extinction but only for the 40 or so species of mosquito (out of 3500) that feed on humans. Most mosquitoes don’t use blood in their lifecycles and even among those that do, most don’t feed on humans.Wipe those particular species out - they hold no unique ecological niche, are not a significant food source for any animal (the bat thing is a myth), they do not uniquely pollinate any plants. But they cause tremendous suffering, mainly in the Global South - and that suffering leads directly to other issues like high population growth, slow economic development and poor governance. The tropics lag for many reasons but a major one is the toll that disease takes on them - not just the deaths but caring for the millions who are severely sickened each year and who often have lifetime complications. I have no problem valuing the lives of African children over those of a handful of mosquito species.
Totally on board with genedrive-driven extinction of specific species of mosquitoes. Considering all other damage that has been done in order to control these populations (worst is probably the indiscriminate DTT spraying that almost killed lots of apex predator birds), this will be an intervention with minimal ecological impact but a major health and economic impact. I look forward to a future without blood-sucking mosquitoes. And ticks. Fuck those
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The amount of DDT needed to severely reduce malaria transmission is minimal- like one squirt in each corner of a bedroom every six months or something.
Indiscriminate DDT spraying wasn't indiscriminate at all. It was targeted on agricultural land to boost crop yields.
The apex predator birds at issue were almost all North American.
So keep in mind that one of the safest, most effective insecticides ever known has been essentially banned worldwide, at the behest of the US, b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just a quick note to point out that "Gain of Function" genetic research is how all research into biology, medicine, manufacture of biological materials using living organisms, discovery of anti viral mechanisms, determination of pathways of viral damage etc is done. So the cute joke about gain of function research creating SARS-Cov-2 is either the product of ignorance or a piece of propaganda put in your head by enemies of the society you live in. Enemies who want herds of ill informed voters taking up arms
Gain of Function (Score:2)
"Gain of Function" refers to the specific practice of editing the genes of viruses in ways that enhance their functionality. Not all of biology!
In the case of SARS-2, they wanted to see whether a natural virus could become very contagious by the addition of a Furin Cleavage Site. By working out what makes viruses dangerous they can then try to develop vaccines and other therapies.
Trouble is, they created a monster that is far more dangerous than anything nature had created in the last 100 years. They cre
Re: (Score:2)
"I never understood how those sterility genes could last very long. They would be selected out."
I doubt the GM companies would want to have to stop selling this solution they worked so hard to develop after the first successful test. There's WAY more money in controlling the threat than in killing it completely.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, at least it is not the Gain of Function research that produced Covid-19.
Provide proof of gain of function applied to SARS-COV2 or stop spreading lies.
Re: (Score:2)
There ain't no mathematical proof of anything in science. But there is plenty of evidence that SARS-2 was created in a lab.
http://www.originofcovid.org/ [originofcovid.org]
Are you a Chinese agent or just bad mannered?
Re: (Score:1)
Here, I'll type it for you
"Analysis of the original Covid genome found the virus shares a sequence of 19 specific letters with a genetic section owned by Moderna, which has a total of 3,300 nucleotides."
The patented sequence is part of a gene called MSH3 that is known to affect how damaged cells repair themselves in the body.
Scientists have highlighted this pathway as a potential target for new cancer treatments.
Twelve of the shared letters make up the structure of Covid's furin cleavage site, with the rest being a match with nucleotides on a nearby part of the genome.
Writing in the paper, led by Dr Balamurali Ambati, from the University of Oregon, the researchers said the matching code may have originally been introduced to the Covid genome through infected human cells expressing the MSH3 gene.
What an UTTER fool!!
Re: (Score:2)
There have been some concerns that the Malaria virus itself may mutate so that it can spread via other means, instead of mosquitos. ,/QUOTE>
The maliaria protozoan or any other disease agent is more likely to successfully mutate (as in "gets worse" in human terms) the more human hosts it has to proliferate in. Deprive it of its mosquito vector, and it won't find nearly as many hosts in which to mutate.
Re: (Score:2)
Smallpox was successfully eradicated. It can be done.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual issue is food chain destruction. (Score:1)
Mosquitoes provide food for fish, bats, birds, dragonflies, damselflies, spiders, frogs, tadpoles, turtles, and other mosquitoes.
* we might see starving populations of animals that eat freshwater fish
* or die offs in owls, hawks, snakes, and cats (Because bat populations dying off)
* birds eat flies, which in turn are eaten by hawks and owls
* no more frogs, mean snakes dying off. mice and rat populations could grow unchecked
but it's true that zika, malaria, and a host of other infections are a plague against
Re:The actual issue is food chain destruction. (Score:4, Informative)
Mosquitoes provide food for fish, bats, birds, dragonflies, damselflies, spiders, frogs, tadpoles, turtles, and other mosquitoes.
Sigh.
There's thousands of species of mosquitos. The malaria-causing, human biting ones aren't important in the grand scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
In the grand calculus of the multiverse, their sacrifice means far more than their deaths
Re: (Score:1)
It is not being proposed to eradicate the mosquito itself, in addition to other mosquitoes just about every other insect that likes the damp and warm and flies is a substitute on the food chain as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Not only that, but the species that transmits malaria (and many other diseases) is actually an invasive organism everywhere outside of Africa - eliminate it at the native mosquito species have less competition for nectar (mosquitoes are primarily nectar-feeders, only pregnant females drink blood, to get protein, etc. for their developing eggs)
Plus, the species is (one of?) the only one that targets humans as it's primary host - get rid of it and not only do you eliminate most mosquito-born disease
Re: (Score:1)
But couldn't the genetically modified mosquitoes then cross-breed with non-human biting species and infect them with the killer gene that way? From this [biomedcentral.com] it seems like crossbreeding among mosquitoes is not uncommon. Is the gene that was edited definitely unique to human-biting species? It wasn't clear from the article.
Malaria is a terrible disease that causes a lot of problems but with something like this there is always potential to cause far greater damage. This from the article
It is hoped that gene drives can be used to greatly reduce the numbers of malarial mosquitos, and other pests or invasive species
sounds especially alarming.
Re: (Score:2)
> There's thousands of species of mosquitos. The malaria-causing, human biting ones aren't important in the grand scheme.
Confining the effect to specific sub-species is not an assumption that can be made for now, and also there's the possibility it may never be.
"Issues highlighted by researchers include:
Mutations: A mutation could happen mid-drive, which has the potential to allow unwanted traits to "ride along".
Escape: Cross-breeding or gene flow
Alright...that's fine (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you ever see a Friday the Thirteenth movie? Clearly we need to ban hockey masks. Or Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds? Ban all birds!
Re: (Score:2)
Ban all birds!
That's what the DDT was for
Re: (Score:2)
Ban all birds!
That's what the DDT was for
But it didn't work. Rachael Carson lied.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://21sci-tech.com/article... [21sci-tech.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. I didn't know that hockey masks can alter your DNA.
You need to learn about epigenetic changes to reproductive DNA.
I mean, just look at the children of NHL goalies from the 70s. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Ban all birds!
Why bother? Everybody knows that birds aren't real.
sounds like we are next (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the mosquitoes are all dead, they won't be delivering anything to anyone.
Re: (Score:1)
As I understand the article, yes, it would also work on humans. Also, the animal carrying the gene drive would pass it on only to their offspring, not cross-species. But it is passed down to future generations, sort of a "super-dominant" gene that eventually spreads to the entire population. A great premise to build horror movies upon ;-)
Catch 22 (Score:2)
Am I not the only person who sees an inherent flaw in this approach? If you introduce a gene that makes the mosquitos unable to reproduce then how will the gene itself propagate?
Re:Catch 22 (Score:5, Informative)
The technology causes female mosquito larvae to die before metamorphosis - so each generation of GM mosquitoes is 100% male. They can only breed with the wild females, who will then give birth to no daughters. Do this a few times and the population crashes.
They’ve done this with non-gene drive mosquitoes (Oxitec being the main player in the space). The “problem” there is that you have to keep releasing new batches of male mosquitoes as the gene eventually gets selected out of the population. With gene drives, you bypass selection - every mosquito will have the gene - and therefore you only have to release a much smaller number of initial GM mosquitoes.
Re: (Score:2)
I realized this after posting. Indeed it even seems like this could have the potential to kill off mosquito populations worldwide if it spreads enough. That seems on the surface like a good thing (after all who doesn't hate mosquitos), but what we don't know here could kill us. We've learned several times in the past then when we try to muck around with mother nature it tends to not end well.
I admit I am uncomfortable with this (Score:2)
I also admit that my misgivings are very "hand-wavey" - I can't really defend them objectively. Much of it boils down to the fact that, historically, man has created some horrible problems when he thinks he has 100% understanding of a system. But anyway, here are my random concerns.
1) There's a part of my brain that worries there could be some aspect of how DNA functions that we are still unaware of - some additional layer of function and interconnectedness we've overlooked to this point.
2) The good old sta
Re: (Score:2)
Use on humans... (Score:2)
There could be excellent applications of this for humans. Just as an example: diabetes type 1 is hereditary, although recessive. If one parent carries this recessive gene, there is a 50% chance of a child receiving it. A generation or two later, two recessives combine and - surprise - a kid has DT1. Imagine if you could eliminate recessive genes and replace them with a good ones - how many genetic diseases could we eliminate?
On the subject of malaria: rapid mutation is unlikely. Malaria is not a virus, it
Re: (Score:2)
Or Excision who is starting human trials to remove HIV RNA rather than use retrovirals [fiercebiotech.com]. This is an in vivo therapy, meaning they're going to put CRISPR into your body and target the HIV RNA, hopefully without repercussions to your own DNA.
CRISPR's potential is enormous. It's al
How about blockchain instead? (Score:3)
Sure genetics is all great and stuff, but I have a better idea. How about we use blockchain and attach NFTs to mosquitoes? NFTs are a great way to artificially generate scarcity of something that reproduces to infinity with 0 effort, such as digital files and mosquitoes. And bonus, we could generate money from mosquitoes! Win-win? Anyone want to invest in Mosquicoin?
Interview with Timothy Winegard (Score:2)
I read this post and got chills. But, also chills when I found out 2 million deaths are attributed to mosquitoes each year. I knew someone who started an antimalaria program too, but the cross between profligate gene drive technology and the unknown impact of losing a large fraction of what might be the biggest insect species is a double-whammy.
I found an interesting interview about mosquitoes, whether they should be eradicated, etc. It doesn't give a conclusion, but TFA's mention of a counter limiting the
Re: (Score:1)
Not even remotely new (Score:1)
I dare them (Score:2)
The (Colonial) Empire Strikes Back! (Score:2)
Wherever the mosquito lost, the lands and people were exploited, their economies devastated, once proud civiliz
Cowboy Bebop (Score:2)
someone please explain this statement: (Score:2)
"if an animal (parent A) that contains a gene drive mates with one that doesn't (parent B)"
" It recognises the natural gene version of itself"
How does a genome not contain a gene drive yet also contain a natural version of the gene drive?
what is a natural version of a gene drive?
Eventual loss of effectiveness (Score:2)
Overuse of antibiotics has led to the evolution of antibiotic resistant superbugs. Perhaps we should hold off on releasing our latest and greatest gene editing technology in the wild in the form of a gene drive just in case doing so might put evolutionary pressure on a new biological process that negates its effectiveness. Or even worse, what if the gene drive mutates into some other genetic disease with undesired consequences.
At this stage of our knowledge of genetics I think we should reserve gene drive
CRISPR (Score:2)
Here's an interesting intro and history of CRISPR.
Radiolab [wnycstudios.org]
In short: cells have a way to splice DNA of bad bugs into their own DNA for future defense reference and programming of defense cells. Yes, nobody can believe this actually exists.
ruined our whole vacation (Score:1)
Hi! By the way, as for mosquitoes, recently we went out of town with friends, took meat to fry, bought vegetables and booze, and also took some high-quality bongs [everythingfor420.com] to have a good time for sure. But mosquitoes... They ruined our whole vacation, it was impossible to be in nature. I have never had such an aversion to living beings.