Difference between revisions of "Gene Drive"
(→Public Interactions) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | I am working towards organizing publications about gene drive topics here---this is not a complete listing. There is a lot of overlap with the topics of [[Sterile Insect Technique]] to suppress population numbers. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Misconceptions= | ||
| + | Gene drive, to genetically engineer a population, and population suppression techniques, such as sterile insect technique, are often confused in the general media as being equivalent to each other. There is overlap in the methods and technologies used to achieve each, and they are not mutually exclusive, but they are two different approaches. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The recent focus on CRISPR/Cas9 has also caused a misconception of the equivalency between gene drive and CRISPR/Cas9. There are many more forms of gene drive than simply using a CRISPR/Cas9 mechanism. | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is also a misconception that this is a very new technology that only appeared in the last few years. However, work on gene drive goes back several decades to at least [[Curtis 1968]]. Many people are also surprised to learn that releases of mosquitoes, with modified chromosomes capable of both gene drive and population suppression, were carried out in field experiments in France in the 1970s ([[Laven et al. 1972]]). | ||
| + | |||
=Reviews= | =Reviews= | ||
*[[Gould et al. 2006]] | *[[Gould et al. 2006]] | ||
Revision as of 17:25, 6 October 2018
I am working towards organizing publications about gene drive topics here---this is not a complete listing. There is a lot of overlap with the topics of Sterile Insect Technique to suppress population numbers.
Contents
Misconceptions
Gene drive, to genetically engineer a population, and population suppression techniques, such as sterile insect technique, are often confused in the general media as being equivalent to each other. There is overlap in the methods and technologies used to achieve each, and they are not mutually exclusive, but they are two different approaches.
The recent focus on CRISPR/Cas9 has also caused a misconception of the equivalency between gene drive and CRISPR/Cas9. There are many more forms of gene drive than simply using a CRISPR/Cas9 mechanism.
There is also a misconception that this is a very new technology that only appeared in the last few years. However, work on gene drive goes back several decades to at least Curtis 1968. Many people are also surprised to learn that releases of mosquitoes, with modified chromosomes capable of both gene drive and population suppression, were carried out in field experiments in France in the 1970s (Laven et al. 1972).
Reviews
- Gould et al. 2006
- Sinkins and Gould 2006
- Gould 2008
- Burt 2014
- Champer et al. 2016
- Lindholm et al. 2016
Drive Systems
Underdominance
Underdominance as an Effector Drive Mechanism
Underdominance as a Population Suppression Mechanism
Medea Systems
Inverse Medea
Naturally Occurring Medea
CRISPR/Cas9 Mechanism
Review
Drive
Population Suppression
Transposable Element Mechanism
Homing Endonuclease
Gene Drive
Population Suppression
Naturally Occurring
Meiotic Drive
- Sandler and Novitski 1957 suggest using meiotic drive to transform wild populations.
Naturally Ocurring
- Sandler and Novitski 1957
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871811/
- http://www.genetics.org/content/190/2/709
Wolbachia
Population Suppression
Effector Drive
News & Commentary
Public Interactions
See Also
Candidate Effector Genes
Transgenesis Tools
Notes
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1007039
https://fnih.org/what-we-do/current-lectures-awards-and-events/gene-drive-research-forum
