Slashdot Mirror


Gene Drive Turns Mosquitoes Into Malaria Fighters (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit writes: The war against malaria has a new ally: a controversial technology for spreading genes throughout a population of animals. Researchers report today that they have harnessed a so-called gene drive to efficiently endow mosquitoes with genes that should make them immune to the malaria parasite—and unable to spread it. On its own, gene drive won't get rid of malaria, but if successfully applied in the wild the method could help wipe out the disease, at least in some corners of the world. The approach "can bring us to zero [cases]," says Nora Besansky, a geneticist at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, who specializes in malaria-carrying mosquitoes. "The mosquitoes do their own work [and] reach places we can't afford to go or get to."

69 comments

  1. Aply it to antibiotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our antibiotics are nearly dead... no longer work because of specific genes.. see what I'm getting at

    1. Re:Aply it to antibiotics by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      It'd be much harder to do with antibiotics. The mosquitoes don't suffer a selective pressure from the gene drive - it doesn't hurt their chances of reproducing. Getting rid of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, of course, does.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  2. What could possibly go wrong. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I got dibs on the movie rights.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong. by RNLockwood · · Score: 0

      Wow, children will no longer die from malaria. Most will live to be adults and consumers of resources, have babies that will not die from malaria and will also ...

      Good thing we are so far from the carrying capacity of the earth that we will have time to address the over population problem.

      --
      Nate
    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Wow, children will no longer die from malaria. Most will live to be adults and consumers of resources

      When people have confidence their children will survive, they have fewer of them. Reducing child mortality is one of the most effective ways to reduce population growth.

    3. Re:What could possibly go wrong. by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      I got dibs on the movie rights.

      Mosquitonado?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    4. Re:What could possibly go wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But before then, their children will survive in the numbers they are currently alive on. Which means they're going to have to be fed. Which means you will need to pay for food and the new housing while they grow up to have the fewer children you're prophesying.

      Have you gotten the scope of what you need to do now?

    5. Re:What could possibly go wrong. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Let them feed themselves. I have no responsibility to feed them.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    6. Re:What could possibly go wrong. by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      When people have confidence their children will survive, they have fewer of them.

      So that explains the Duggars...

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

  3. Not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Given how little we understand about the complexity of existing gene interactions and how they actually work, this whole concept seems a tad risky and unpredictable.

    1. Re:Not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given how little I understand about the complexity of gene interactions and how they work, I'd be better off not commenting.

      FTFY

    2. Re:Not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Given how little we understand about the complexity of existing gene interactions and how they actually work, this whole concept seems a tad risky and unpredictable.

      Tell that to the millions of people who die from malaria every year.

      Yeah, I know they're mostly brown people, but still...

    3. Re:Not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's lots of things we could do to help them with this, which we already don't do because we don't give a shit. Why is this better?

    4. Re:Not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying we (as a species) know exactly how genes work and are expressed and interact in the long term with all other genes?

    5. Re:Not ready by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Given how little we understand about the complexity of existing gene interactions and how they actually work, this whole concept seems a tad risky and unpredictable.

      Given that gene drives are already common in nature, the risks are likely far less than you think.

    6. Re:Not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, but it's the West's hysteria that prevents us from doing many of those things. We got DDT banned worldwide because we couldn't stop ourselves from dumping a crapton of it on our agricultural land and our poor eagles were going extinct- this in spite of the completely miniscule amount necessary to cut malaria infections by something like 90%. I think it was one quick squirt annually in the corners of the ceiling in each room or something.

      This is better because it only takes a few people to give a shit, which there are, and then malaria ceases to be endemic mostly on its own.

      We'd have a totally different attitude about this if we hadn't subdued our own malarial mosquitos with a crapton of other insecticides.

    7. Re:Not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We didn't ban DDT, you frigging moron.

      IT'S NOt BEEN BANNED ANYWHERE. Never mind "worldwide".

      The only hysteria from the west is the one you're pissing about with here.

    8. Re:Not ready by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT Use of DDT in the United States was banned for all but extreme health problems in 1973. The same ban became worldwide (except India and North Korea) in 2004.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  4. Two minds about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm all for wiping out malaria but I've got a bad feeling about this. Its probably just that the summary doesn't give any links or real details about what this "gene drive" is. But if its anything even remotely like what I think it is then this is playing with the lock on Pandora's box.

    I'm probably wrong and this is one of those times I really hope I am.

    Time will tell.

    1. Re:Two minds about this by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Gene drive" apparently means that these genes are passed on to almost all offspring instead of just 50% of them. Which would allow the genes to spread pretty much exponentially, if they can get it to work. Currently it seems to work really well when started in male mosquitoes, but not so well when started in females, so there's still some work to do.

  5. Old Hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a controversial technology for spreading genes throughout a population of animals

    Yawn... it's called sexual intercourse. I saw a documentary on it once.

  6. This would be hugely awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    if it were in the hands of a caring, mature humanity. In the hands of a greedy pharma industry not so much...

  7. The new Dice.com RTFA by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The newest thing in Slashdot posts: don't even include an article. Nobody reads them anyway, so why bother? More professionalism from Dice.com staff.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:The new Dice.com RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oohh.. At least one person noticed it. :)

    2. Re:The new Dice.com RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2015/11/gene-drive-turns-insects-malaria-fighters
      It's next to the title?

    3. Re:The new Dice.com RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You now have to click on the link in the parenthesis in the title bar.

    4. Re:The new Dice.com RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that's what that is... Traditionally, the citation would be a link inside TFS.

  8. Nuke it from orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the only way to be sure.

  9. Another possibility by Some+nick+or+other · · Score: 1

    is to get rid of the mosquitoes directly by using selfish gene elements like segregation distorters. But imagine the "what could possibly go wrong" comments if you tried to even suggest this.

    1. Re:Another possibility by whitesea · · Score: 5, Informative

      is to get rid of the mosquitoes directly by using selfish gene elements like segregation distorters. But imagine the "what could possibly go wrong" comments if you tried to even suggest this.

      People tried to eradicate mosquitoes decades ago. Fish population suffered. We never know how things we hate are connected to the things we need. That's why it pays to consider long-term consequences before doing anything drastic.

    2. Re:Another possibility by jrumney · · Score: 2

      They already tried this in a number of areas - by introducing large numbers of Asian Tiger Mosquitoes. The males will mate with the Anopheles Mosquitoes that carry Malaria, but no offspring will be produced because the species are not compatible. Since female Mosquitoes only mate once, this renders them childless. It works quite well against Malaria, but the downside is that Asian Tiger Mosquitoes carry Dengue and other diseases that are only marginally less severe than Malaria.

    3. Re:Another possibility by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      People tried to eradicate mosquitoes decades ago. Fish population suffered.

      Can you provide a citation for this? I can't find one. It's well-known that mosquitoes are nothing's favorite food, except perhaps species we only care about because they suppress mosquitoes like the mosquitofish which may have actually exacerbated the mosquito problem in Oz by outcompeting native mosquito-controlling fish.

      So, what kind of fish are you talking about? And where is your citation?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Another possibility by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      The Cayman Islands trialled using a different GM technique to eradicate the local mosquito population. They used skeeters whose offspring require tetracycline to live. The wild population dropped by 80%.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    5. Re:Another possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why it pays to consider long-term consequences before doing anything drastic.

      Like eradicating malaria?

    6. Re:Another possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      omg, boy, mosquito larvae is the most favourite food of many many fish species, as any fishkeeper knows

      read fishbase.org if you need citations for such trivial facts

    7. Re:Another possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just fish, other beneficial insects prey on mosquitoes as well. It's always a bad idea to just go and eliminate a link in the food chain.

    8. Re:Another possibility by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      omg, boy, mosquito larvae is the most favourite food of many many fish species, as any fishkeeper knows

      What the statement meant is that nothing subsides primarily on mosquitoes or their larvae.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Another possibility by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

      Is this a problem if they introduce MALE Asian Tiger Mosquitoes? Seems like you could completely wipe out anopheles mosquitoes. That said, this effect is probably temporary, because as soon as you cease releases, the anopheles will come back....

      Making the mosquito population more fit iff they don't carry malaria seems like a permanent solution that would spread instead of degrading over time.

      --PM

    10. Re:Another possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      omg, boy, mosquito larvae is the most favourite food of many many fish species, as any fishkeeper knows

      What the statement meant is that nothing subsides primarily on mosquitoes or their larvae.

      Subside: verb (used without object), subsided, subsiding.
      1. to sink to a low or lower level.
      2. to become quiet, less active, or less violent; abate: The laughter subsided.
      3. to sink or fall to the bottom; settle; precipitate: to cause coffee grounds to subside.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subside

    11. Re:Another possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "mosquitoes are nothing's favorite food"

      Dubious, but even if that were true, since when do animals always get to eat their favorite food? They eat what's available, and mosquitoes might be it.

    12. Re:Another possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's well-known that mosquitoes are nothing's favorite food, except perhaps species we only care about because they suppress mosquitoes...

      Can you provide a citation for this? "Well-known" = "totally fabricated."

      Mosquitoes are one of the primary foods of most bat populations. Little brown bats can eat up to 1500 mosquitoes in a single evening. Some bats eat as much as 1,000 mosquitoes in an hour.

      We care about bats. Bats don't just serve to suppress mosquitoes. They also serve as pollinators. Given the problems that the bee populations have had in the last decade, bats are becoming increasingly important to agriculture in this pollinating role. Plus they protect agriculture by eating "thousands of tons" of agricultural pests each year.

    13. Re:Another possibility by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Whoops! Subsists. Obviously. But thanks for pointing out my error in the most aspie way possible.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Another possibility by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Mosquitoes are one of the primary foods of most bat populations.

      Your citation does not show that. It shows that bats are one of the primary predators of mosquitoes. You can try again if you like.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Another possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To make that quote above more clear - the wild mosquito population dropped by 80%. It can be misread easily and seen as a bad thing. The study shows no other ill effects like those being claimed in this thread. We can probably eliminate the mosquito populations with little impact on other species. No known animals subsist on the mosquito entirely. Some supplement their diet with mosquitoes. No other known animals will be harmed due to eradication of the species in its entirety.

    16. Re:Another possibility by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The bats that are insectivores are not the same bats that serve as pollinators. I'm not sure that is absolutely true but is mostly is.

    17. Re:Another possibility by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      People tried to eradicate mosquitoes decades ago. Fish population suffered. We never know how things we hate are connected to the things we need. That's why it pays to consider long-term consequences before doing anything drastic.

      That is why Monsanto is preparing their Roundup Ready antimalarial mosquitoes.

    18. Re:Another possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have low reading comprehension. Anything that eats 7,000 mosquitoes in an evening is treating mosquitoes as a primary food source. And it doesn't take much intellect to understand that, so I am concerned for you. Some light reading for you:

      https://askabiologist.asu.edu/bat-food
      http://www.batrescue.org/batfacts/batfacts.html

    19. Re:Another possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anteaters eat 30,000 ants in a day.

      Making 7000 peanuts in comparison.

      And quote:
      Control Insects By Bolstering Your Bat Habitat - Nature and ...
      www.motherearthnews.com/nature.../control-insects-bat-habitat.aspx

      Many bats, and almost all in the United States, thrive on an insect diet. A single bat can eat up to 1,200 mosquito-sized insects every hour, and each bat usually eats 6,000 to 8,000 insects each night.

      So I guess if there aren't mozzies, they'll starve, eh?

    20. Re:Another possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adult anteaters weigh 75-90 lbs. Adult "Little Brown Bats" weigh up to 0.5 oz=0.03125 lbs. That's 1/2880 of the weight of an anteater.

      Average mosquito weight = ~2.5 mg. Avg ant weight = ~3 mg.

      30,000 avg ants * 3mg = 90g = 0.198 lbs.
      7,000 avg mosquitoes * .= 2.5mg = 17.5g = 0.0385 lbs.

      Adult anteater eats 0.198/90 = 0.22% of its weight in ants in a day.
      Adult bat eats 0.0385/0.03125 = 123.2% of its weight in mosquitoes in a day.

      7,000 peanuts would make the bat even MORE impressive.

  10. So how will cattle DNA react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about the genetic "disorder" of sickle-cell anemia? How will they react to the new DNA in the mosquitoes? How about the predators of mozzies, how will their genetic makeup change? Hell, how will malaria change and evolve with this?

    Horizontal gene transfer, a beloved of those defending GMOs by claiming "This is ENTIRELY natural!" will occur here too.

    If the genes killed the mozzies in a few dozen generations (e.g. the sterilisation genes, by the way, what happened to that, hmm?), the scope for such genetic outreach is limited. Here the insects won't die out and will evolve as everything else evolves, and this genetic change will remain a feature to be exploited without thought by natural processes we cannot model or control.

    1. Re:So how will cattle DNA react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep donating to Greenpeace buddy. That money isn't going to make you any smarter. ...hmm?

    2. Re:So how will cattle DNA react? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are risks in everything, but it is a safe bet you would change your tune if it was your child facing malaria.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:So how will cattle DNA react? by drnb · · Score: 2

      There are risks in everything, but it is a safe bet you would change your tune if it was your child facing malaria.

      Yes, but does desperation lead to good decision making? Desperation is what faith healers rely upon. Desperation is what the traditional healer that inadvertently helped spread ebola relied upon.

    4. Re:So how will cattle DNA react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are risks in everything, but it is a safe bet you would change your tune if it was your child facing malaria.

      Yes, but does desperation lead to good decision making? Desperation is what faith healers rely upon. Desperation is what the traditional healer that inadvertently helped spread ebola relied upon.

      Faith healers are amoral con artists; parent was referring to loving parents. Yes, desperation but with limited choices; what do you do?

    5. Re:So how will cattle DNA react? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

      "Keep donating to Greenpeace buddy"

      Because we wouldn't want the Middle East to have a world monopoly on crackpot medieval religious movements now, would we?

    6. Re:So how will cattle DNA react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Desperation is STILL NOT a good metric to make decisions on, your scaremongering notwithstanding.

    7. Re:So how will cattle DNA react? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are risks in everything, but it is a safe bet you would change your tune if it was your child facing malaria.

      Yes, but does desperation lead to good decision making? Desperation is what faith healers rely upon. Desperation is what the traditional healer that inadvertently helped spread ebola relied upon.

      Faith healers are amoral con artists; parent was referring to loving parents. Yes, desperation but with limited choices; what do you do?

      Given the recent traditional healer incident the desperate loving parents would inadvertently spread ebola.

  11. Re:Mosquitos are for cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No John, You are the cows.

  12. Keep making up reality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just cement those bigotries in good and tight. We don't ever want to find ourselves mistaken, do we! So just keep being a kneejerk moron and make ridiculous, and unsupported (never mind irrelevant: what the hell would be wrong donating to greenpeace for fuck's sake?!?!?!).

    Because keeping those bigotries in mind rather than looking at reality will ensure you never find out how wrong you are.

    You fucking idiot.

  13. There are risk assesments. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't know what the risks are how can you do the assessment?

    And if, as you do here, you WILL NOT EVEN LOOK other than to go "Oh, well, everything is risky!" (why not take a massive dose of crack, hmm? Why not play russian roulette for a $10 bet, "there's risk in everything", so no reason not to!), how the hell would you even scope out what sort of risk it would be?

    You're like one of those christian fundamentalists so SHIT SCARED of dying that you WILL NOT concede ANY worry or uncertainty about how right your religion is, and prefer to go "Well, EVERYONE believes in a god, why would that happen if there was no god, hmm?".

    "but it is a safe bet you would change your tune if it was your child facing malaria."

    It's a damn safe bet that you're too fucking dumb to realise that it's a bit too late when your child is facing malaria. And we already have treatments and cures for it.

    Hell, if my child was facing malaria, I'd likely be a person who has Sickle Cell anemia, therefore genetically saved. I might be pissed off that we have to face anemia, though, in this "solution" to facing malaria.

    You're DEFINITELY too dumb to realise that neither of you respondents have addressed the question. If there's a risk, and I delineated a risk, how the fuck is telling me there's a risk of an utility or relevance if you don't give a figure of that risk?

    No, best just to mouth empty rhetoric because your white ass may face malaria, and any fucking expense or risk to take is WORTH it, because YOUR life is so damn worthwhile...

  14. Bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bit by a genetically modified Mosquito. her comes the next Supervillain!

  15. Malarial mosquitoes are the poster child for this by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

    Malaria kills approx. 672k people/year worldwide (WHO: http://www.who.int/gho/malaria...).

    Malaria cases per year, also very high in human cost, are much higher in number: 207M. AIDS has about 2x the death rate per year.

    Maybe try this out on an island population of anopheles mosquitoes?

    --PeterM

  16. This is not really bad by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Mosquito bites are irritating, but as long as they don't spread disease they are endurable. Till the malaria pathogen mutates to find a new vector it would work.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  17. Healthier populations have fewer kids by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And richer populations have fewer kids. If you're not living in an economically depressed malarial hellhole, you can afford birth control and set up a good economy.

    Believe it or not, public health and improving people's economic status decreases birth rates.

    Personally, I'd rather see worldwide populations limited by birth control and the naturally reduced birthrate that seems to ensue from better economic conditions than populations limited by war, famine, and pestilence.

    --PeterM

  18. Damnit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love throwing Malaria in the face of busy-bodies who try to lay down accusations of privilege. I'm glad they've discovered an effective strategy for fighting it, but now SJWs have an easier time justifying their fixation on polyamorous cis-gender adult-baby equal-opportunity access to purchase golden retriever prosthetic dildos.

    Obviously I have mixed feelings about this development.

  19. This isn't curing malaria, dumbass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And as to "millions of people", how about the crushing poverty and starvation? So many more, I guess you must be pouring money down there, right?

    Oh, no, you're not, this is just a "Won't someone think of the CHILDREN!" BS rant.

  20. Hopefully Dengue Fever is next to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dengue fever is another killer disease transmitted by mosquitos. It would be nice if they could create a population of mosquitos that carry neither deadly disease.