Researchers Release Genetically Engineered Mosquitoes(technologyreview.com)
technologyreview.com
Researchers Release Genetically Engineered Mosquitoes
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/27304/?ref=rss
9 comments
I had it a few years back. I had fever with headaches and couldn't eat much because I kept puking after every meal. I got admitted to hospital and they found that my platelet count was dropping as well. They were preparing for the possibility that I would need to get a blood transfusion when it stabilized and started improving. Apparently, they were waiting for the count to drop below a certain threshold and mine started recovering just above that value.
A second concern is that the engineered lethality gene could somehow be transferred to other environmentally-important insects, such as those vital for pollination.
I'm not sure why this is a concern, but inter species horizontal gene transfer (in insects) isn't really something that happens. In bacteria sure, in plants maybe, but this is very much not a case of, "Eat a mosquito, get a gene".
I'm not sure why this is a concern, but inter species horizontal gene transfer (in insects) isn't really something that happens. In bacteria sure, in plants maybe, but this is very much not a case of, "Eat a mosquito, get a gene".
I have to speculate since the article is short on molecular details, but I would guess the mosquitoes carry simple knockout mutations which prevent them from manufacturing some essential compound, maybe an amino acid.
Therefore, there's nothing of consequence to transfer to another species. You'd be transfering a gene that doesn't do anything.
Even if, in addition to transferring to another species, it somehow replaced the working gene in some individual, then the gene would simply die out due to the heavy selection pressure against it, leaving the rest of the population unharmed. (To counteract that with the mosquitoes, I take it fresh supplies of the engineered males are going to be repeatedly introduced?)
Therefore, there's nothing of consequence to transfer to another species. You'd be transfering a gene that doesn't do anything.
Even if, in addition to transferring to another species, it somehow replaced the working gene in some individual, then the gene would simply die out due to the heavy selection pressure against it, leaving the rest of the population unharmed. (To counteract that with the mosquitoes, I take it fresh supplies of the engineered males are going to be repeatedly introduced?)
this is very much not a case of, "Eat a mosquito, get a gene".
Eating, no.
But it's my understanding that while uncommon, it does happen that viruses transmit genes from host organisms. Since the virus is hijacking the host cell's reproductive equipment, and all that DNA is just hanging around there, it's easy for some host DNA to get incorporated into the next generation of virus.
(Conversely, I believe that one theory for the origin of "junk" DNA in our genome is that it's viral genetic material accidentally incorporated into the host genome.)
Eating, no.
But it's my understanding that while uncommon, it does happen that viruses transmit genes from host organisms. Since the virus is hijacking the host cell's reproductive equipment, and all that DNA is just hanging around there, it's easy for some host DNA to get incorporated into the next generation of virus.
(Conversely, I believe that one theory for the origin of "junk" DNA in our genome is that it's viral genetic material accidentally incorporated into the host genome.)
3.5% of offsprings between these mosquitoes and "normal' mosquitoes survive. I wonder if these offsprings are immune. If they are then that means the experiment failed - In a few generations the population will be back and you might not be able to use the asme trick as before - those immune offsprings will mate with the engineered mosquitoes, whose offsprings may be immune also.
How could that possibly work?
If off-springs of these genetically modified mosquitoes die, then only original, non-modified genes would propagate.
I would understand if genetically modified genes gave mosquitoes some advantage such as ability to resist infection. I believe Bill Gates released such mosquitoes on TED talk.
But modifications that cripple mosquitoes are doomed.
I would understand if genetically modified genes gave mosquitoes some advantage such as ability to resist infection. I believe Bill Gates released such mosquitoes on TED talk.
But modifications that cripple mosquitoes are doomed.
Presumably the plan is to keep breading them in captivity and releasing them, such that those genes are constantly being reintroduced.
It's a compelling reason to charge taxpayers in perpetuity.
So far, the only real successful method of removing mosquitoes has been massive spraying of insecticide, along with draining swampland. The Panama Canal owes its existence to these efforts, for instance.
Genetics may be a second way to do it now. What would be a worst-case scenario in these Cayman Islands trials?
Genetics may be a second way to do it now. What would be a worst-case scenario in these Cayman Islands trials?
Worst case is the genes do something unexpected and advantageous to mosquitoes and a breeding pair their find their way on to an airplane.
The only concern I have with this is the impact this may have on the eco system that is hard or impossible to predict. I guess that it's very hard to impossible to go back after the fact.
A second concern is that the engineered lethality gene could somehow be transferred to other environmentally-important insects, such as those vital for pollination.
Really? And they still released them into the wild? What about the consequences for other species that consume those mosquitoes as part of their diet?
I'm still amazed at how we humans consider ourselves so wise to keep messing around with nature in this way, just to keep one disease under control.
Really? And they still released them into the wild? What about the consequences for other species that consume those mosquitoes as part of their diet?
I'm still amazed at how we humans consider ourselves so wise to keep messing around with nature in this way, just to keep one disease under control.
Nature has been messing with itself for billions of years. It's called evolution.
The whole point of human intelligence is control over our environment. Yes, there are risks, and always will be risks. But that does not mean we should not act.
The whole point of human intelligence is control over our environment. Yes, there are risks, and always will be risks. But that does not mean we should not act.
Da truth.
Easy for you to be all high and mighty on your horse since you and your loved ones aren't the one dying from disease.
We should never disregard the risk of any of our actions, but the fears you are putting forward are exagurated and unwarranted. Other species that consume mosquitoes might be at risk? You make it sound like they radioactive mutants. You do realize that you don't assimilate the DNA of things you eat right? It doesn't matter how the DNA of a mosquito is structured when it goes into the belly of a bird, it's all ripped apart into the basic building blocks.
We should never disregard the risk of any of our actions, but the fears you are putting forward are exagurated and unwarranted. Other species that consume mosquitoes might be at risk? You make it sound like they radioactive mutants. You do realize that you don't assimilate the DNA of things you eat right? It doesn't matter how the DNA of a mosquito is structured when it goes into the belly of a bird, it's all ripped apart into the basic building blocks.
Let's not forget, mankind has been genetically engineering various species for many thousands of years. We're just better at it now.
We've cross-bred dogs to get the desirable traits. We've domesticated animals through breeding. We've cross-bred plants to get pretty flowers or tasty (or hearty) fruits and vegetables.
We've cross-bred dogs to get the desirable traits. We've domesticated animals through breeding. We've cross-bred plants to get pretty flowers or tasty (or hearty) fruits and vegetables.
I don't think this is a real concern, for two reasons: first, how should such a "transfer of genes" to another species proceed? This is not how it works.
Secondly, these genes are pretty much self-regulating; they disappear from the population in one generation. They almost certainly won't be in the ecosystem long enough in order to play a role in any improbable scenario.
Secondly, these genes are pretty much self-regulating; they disappear from the population in one generation. They almost certainly won't be in the ecosystem long enough in order to play a role in any improbable scenario.
> first, how should such a "transfer of genes" to another species proceed? This is not how it works.
Couldn't a viral infection do this? Some virus that existed inside the mosquito could be modified by (or modify itself in response to) this generic engineering and then transfered to an unintended host.
> They almost certainly won't be in the ecosystem long enough
Your use of absolutes here (with respect to the unknown) makes me want to turn on the news and wait for the big announcement that this new breed of mosquitos has unknowingly caused an undead plague in Africa ;)
NOTE: I am not saying this should have never been tested. I am just surprised how little is known before a public trial was executed.
Couldn't a viral infection do this? Some virus that existed inside the mosquito could be modified by (or modify itself in response to) this generic engineering and then transfered to an unintended host.
> They almost certainly won't be in the ecosystem long enough
Your use of absolutes here (with respect to the unknown) makes me want to turn on the news and wait for the big announcement that this new breed of mosquitos has unknowingly caused an undead plague in Africa ;)
NOTE: I am not saying this should have never been tested. I am just surprised how little is known before a public trial was executed.
> Couldn't a viral infection do this?
I still don't see how exactly. E.g., even if it "modified itself in response to this genetic engineering" then it wouldn't really transfer the lethal gene into another species, would it?
> Your use of absolutes here (...)
Which absolutes exactly are you talking about? :) Nothing absolute in the "almost certainly" statement, in my opinion.
> I am just surprised how little is known before a public trial was executed.
What do you mean by "is known"?
I still don't see how exactly. E.g., even if it "modified itself in response to this genetic engineering" then it wouldn't really transfer the lethal gene into another species, would it?
> Your use of absolutes here (...)
Which absolutes exactly are you talking about? :) Nothing absolute in the "almost certainly" statement, in my opinion.
> I am just surprised how little is known before a public trial was executed.
What do you mean by "is known"?
> Which absolutes exactly are you talking about? :) Nothing absolute in the "almost certainly" statement, in my opinion.
heh, very true. I was just having some fun and wanted to work zombie-apocalypse into my reply somewhere :)
> What do you mean by "is known"?
NPR covered this on science friday I think 2 or 3 weeks ago with folks close to the project (not from the project, but familiar with it) and all these same questions about how this will spread in the wild, what could go wrong and if it had been tested in any large-scale deployments all seemed to be questions that were up-in-the-air.
There wasn't any concrete comments like: "The team did a test deployment in a quarantined marsh and published the results".
I had the impression from that show (and this story) that the path from conception to design to deployment was really fast.
I am not a geneticist though. It is very possible that this type of work is not something to lose sleep over and I have too many Hollywood premises running through my head.
heh, very true. I was just having some fun and wanted to work zombie-apocalypse into my reply somewhere :)
> What do you mean by "is known"?
NPR covered this on science friday I think 2 or 3 weeks ago with folks close to the project (not from the project, but familiar with it) and all these same questions about how this will spread in the wild, what could go wrong and if it had been tested in any large-scale deployments all seemed to be questions that were up-in-the-air.
There wasn't any concrete comments like: "The team did a test deployment in a quarantined marsh and published the results".
I had the impression from that show (and this story) that the path from conception to design to deployment was really fast.
I am not a geneticist though. It is very possible that this type of work is not something to lose sleep over and I have too many Hollywood premises running through my head.
Monsanto said the same thing about their genetically enhanced crop. Now those genes that rendered those crops resistant to roundup, have been transfered to other plants such as amaranto.
"...just to keep one disease under control."
I think this severely understates this "one disease". Malaria is estimated to have been the cause of death of 50% of all humans who have ever lived. While it's obviously much less deadly than that today, it's still a severe disease and merits heavy countermeasures.
Sickle-cell anemia is my favorite illustration of just how awful malaria is. This disease is caused by having two copies of a particular gene. Without modern medical care, the sufferer dies quickly. A single copy of the gene, however, confers resistance to malaria. In parts of the world where the sickle-cell gene is found, malaria was so devastating that a gene which had a 25% mortality rate in children where both parents have it was evolutionarily selected for, because the disease it helped protect against was even worse.
I think this severely understates this "one disease". Malaria is estimated to have been the cause of death of 50% of all humans who have ever lived. While it's obviously much less deadly than that today, it's still a severe disease and merits heavy countermeasures.
Sickle-cell anemia is my favorite illustration of just how awful malaria is. This disease is caused by having two copies of a particular gene. Without modern medical care, the sufferer dies quickly. A single copy of the gene, however, confers resistance to malaria. In parts of the world where the sickle-cell gene is found, malaria was so devastating that a gene which had a 25% mortality rate in children where both parents have it was evolutionarily selected for, because the disease it helped protect against was even worse.
I have a feeling zombie apocalypse is coming.
Maybe they could genetically engineer a mosquito that is a superior mate that can carry the aids virus which mutates to become airborne. Have it populate the wild and have it find a home on every continent. We could finally get a cure for aids because the 30 year survival of mankind depends on it.
Let them into the wild and publish how you did it. So Kim Jong II can make it too.
Regulating the introduction of new lifeforms designed to subdue others is what Congress should be debating. Not sopa.
Let them into the wild and publish how you did it. So Kim Jong II can make it too.
Regulating the introduction of new lifeforms designed to subdue others is what Congress should be debating. Not sopa.
Nasty stuff. Acts just like a bad flu, and in a bad case they hospitalize you - mostly for dehydration; it's a viral disease so there's not much specific they can do. Then, after you're better, if you're not lucky, you're home from the hospital a day or two, suddenly don't feel so well, and fifteen minutes later you're dead of shock. Just like my son's friend. He was 11.