Difference between revisions of "Gene Drive"
(→Candidate Effector Genes) |
(→Potential Application) |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
=Misconceptions= | =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 | + | 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 concepts. |
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 and CRISPR/Cas9 drive is very similar to homing endonuclease drive. | 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 and CRISPR/Cas9 drive is very similar to homing endonuclease drive. | ||
| − | 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]] and is even proposed by [[Sandler and Novitski 1957]]. 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]]). | + | 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]] and is even proposed by [[Sandler and Novitski 1957]]. 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]]). Some forms of these concepts even go back to the 1940s ([[Serebrovskii 1940]]; [[Vanderplank 1944]]). |
=Reviews= | =Reviews= | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
===Naturally Occurring Medea=== | ===Naturally Occurring Medea=== | ||
*[[Beeman et al. 1992]] | *[[Beeman et al. 1992]] | ||
| + | *http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/07/10/0800444105.short | ||
==CRISPR/Cas9 Mechanism== | ==CRISPR/Cas9 Mechanism== | ||
| Line 79: | Line 80: | ||
*https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871811/ | *https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871811/ | ||
*http://www.genetics.org/content/190/2/709 | *http://www.genetics.org/content/190/2/709 | ||
| + | *http://science.sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/1742 | ||
==Wolbachia== | ==Wolbachia== | ||
| Line 87: | Line 89: | ||
===Effector Drive=== | ===Effector Drive=== | ||
*[[Hoffmann et al. 2014]] | *[[Hoffmann et al. 2014]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Killer-Rescue== | ||
| + | *[[Gould et al. 2008]] | ||
=News & Commentary= | =News & Commentary= | ||
*[[Clarke 2002]] | *[[Clarke 2002]] | ||
| + | *https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/31/17344406/crispr-mosquito-malaria-gene-drive-editing-target-africa-regulation-gmo | ||
=Public Interactions= | =Public Interactions= | ||
*[[Knols et al. 2007]] | *[[Knols et al. 2007]] | ||
*[[Pauwels 2013]] | *[[Pauwels 2013]] | ||
| + | *https://genedrivenetwork.org/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Recommendations= | ||
| + | *[[Reed 2017]] | ||
| + | *[[Emerson et al. 2017]] | ||
=See Also= | =See Also= | ||
| Line 99: | Line 110: | ||
*[[Ito et al. 2002]] | *[[Ito et al. 2002]] | ||
*[[Moreira et al. 2002]] | *[[Moreira et al. 2002]] | ||
| + | *[[Yoshida et al. 2007]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Notes=== | ||
| + | Shortening lifespan has a dramatic non-liner effect on reducing mosquito vectorial capacity (because mosquitoes have to live long enough to become infected from one bite and then later infect with another bite, [[McMeniman et al. 2009]]). There is a trade-off between fat metabolism, reproductive rate, and life-span in a range of organisms (e.g., [[Hansen et al. 2013]]). Effector genes that modulate lipid metabolism may result in reduced transmission of a wide range of mosquito vectored diseases. | ||
==Transgenesis Tools== | ==Transgenesis Tools== | ||
*[[Meredith et al. 2013]] | *[[Meredith et al. 2013]] | ||
*[[Eggleston 1991]] | *[[Eggleston 1991]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Potential Application== | ||
| + | More practical aspects of implementing threshold gene drive and population suppression. | ||
| + | *In remote places in Hawaiʻi like the Alakaʻi drones might be useful to deliver modified mosquitoes over a large area. See https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/how-bug-delivering-drones-are-helping-defeat-deadly-diseases-ncna826691 perhaps combined with packing mosquitoes for delivery https://phys.org/news/2018-11-mail-mosquitoes-nice-snug.html | ||
=Notes= | =Notes= | ||
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1007039 | 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 | https://fnih.org/what-we-do/current-lectures-awards-and-events/gene-drive-research-forum | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 03:17, 11 November 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 concepts.
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 and CRISPR/Cas9 drive is very similar to homing endonuclease drive.
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 and is even proposed by Sandler and Novitski 1957. 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). Some forms of these concepts even go back to the 1940s (Serebrovskii 1940; Vanderplank 1944).
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
- Curtis 1968
- Foster et al. 1972
- Robinson and Curtis 1973
- Robinson 1975
- Altrock et al. 2010
- Altrock et al. 2011
- Reeves et al. 2014
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
- http://science.sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/1742
Wolbachia
Population Suppression
Effector Drive
Killer-Rescue
News & Commentary
- Clarke 2002
- https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/31/17344406/crispr-mosquito-malaria-gene-drive-editing-target-africa-regulation-gmo
Public Interactions
Recommendations
See Also
Candidate Effector Genes
Notes
Shortening lifespan has a dramatic non-liner effect on reducing mosquito vectorial capacity (because mosquitoes have to live long enough to become infected from one bite and then later infect with another bite, McMeniman et al. 2009). There is a trade-off between fat metabolism, reproductive rate, and life-span in a range of organisms (e.g., Hansen et al. 2013). Effector genes that modulate lipid metabolism may result in reduced transmission of a wide range of mosquito vectored diseases.
Transgenesis Tools
Potential Application
More practical aspects of implementing threshold gene drive and population suppression.
- In remote places in Hawaiʻi like the Alakaʻi drones might be useful to deliver modified mosquitoes over a large area. See https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/how-bug-delivering-drones-are-helping-defeat-deadly-diseases-ncna826691 perhaps combined with packing mosquitoes for delivery https://phys.org/news/2018-11-mail-mosquitoes-nice-snug.html
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
