Slashdot Mirror


First Gene Drive In Mammals Could Aid Vast New Zealand Eradication Plan (technologyreview.com)

wisebabo writes: Say goodbye to our little whiskered friends! There is an effort to wipe out not just any species, (there's been discussions to wipe out the mosquitos that carry Malaria), but a mammal. Specifically the house mouse which, along with other invasive species introduced by Westerners, have ravaged New Zealand's ecosystem. (Amongst other things they've rendered extinct many of the flightless birds there). They'll try using the "gene drive" in mammals, which is a new genetic weapon made possible by the editing system CRISPR-Cas9. Basically, it'll make all of the children of the genetically engineered mice male and then all of their children male and so on. This'll continue until there are no females left and the population will crash. If this is successful, they want to use this technique on other species until all of the predators on New Zealand are wiped out.

26 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Nature finds a way. by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Haven't they seen Jurassic Park?

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re: Nature finds a way. by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tell that to all of the extinct species throughout history. If there's one thing the geological record shows us is that nature quite often *doesn't* find a way.

      --
      I spent the evening flickering into your darkness.
    2. Re:Nature finds a way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Yes they have. That's why they're making them males instead of females. Duh!

    3. Re:Nature finds a way. by quenda · · Score: 5, Funny

      They had me at "New Zealand Eradication Plan".

      Should not be hard, as the country is totally undefended.

    4. Re:Nature finds a way. by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      They're planning to test it on the womp-rats first, no-one will miss those much.

      Especially if you're in a T-16.

    5. Re: Nature finds a way. by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Most if not all of those species went extinct because they were out-competed in their ecological niche by another species. Nature found a way - just via a different species.

      That's an important distinction here because as best as I can tell from TFA, these mice are the dominant creatures occupying this ecological niche (having killed off the flightless birds which used to occupy it). So killing off the mice will open up that niche to competing species. Likely, if this works, it'll result in a bigger problem with other species (maybe opossum or weasel?), or a new subspecies of mouse will develop which somehow sniffs out male mice with this gene and the females refuse to mate with them.

    6. Re: Nature finds a way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nature finds a way, but individual species do not

    7. Re: Nature finds a way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they introduce a gene drive in mice in New Zealand, the likelihood of it spreading around the world is pretty high. Ships are still vectors for the spread of rodents, and mice live for a couple of years. Would have to have very stringent safeguards in place to prevent the spread.

      Extreme caution is warranted. There is likely no stopping it once it happens.

    8. Re:Nature finds a way. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      They aren't fictional movies. They're called alternative documentaries now.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. Good luck... by xlsior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...keeping it contained.

    Those mice got onto the islands accidentally in the past, and one of them can just as easily accidentally end up on another island/continent where they can instigate those populations to crash as well. May take longer if it's just a single individual, but if the effects do indeed persist across future generations then it will grow into a tidal wave over time. Very hard to stop if let loose in an unintended area, and can end up crashing entire ecosystems.

    1. Re:Good luck... by xlsior · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not really, as long as there are sufficient females from other, non-genetically altered branches, those strains should be more 'successful' in the quest for survival and eventually the genetically engineered ones will die out,

      Um... No.
      You are misunderstanding how this works:

      The whole POINT of this is that is tips the balance of the scales: you start with countless non-genetically altered mice, and throw in a handful of engineered ones that only breed males, and will pass on the trait to their offspring.

      The starting point on the island will be roughly 50% male, 50% female. All of the engineered mice will only create more males, no females. They will mostly breed with random, non-engineered mice, creating more engineered male mice in the process.

      Now all of a sudden the the balance of mice on the island a generation later is 51% male, 49% female. Those 1% extra males will also pass on the all-male feature to their offspring as well, increasing the percentage of engineered mice and decreasing the percentage of 'normal' mice. The generation after that may be 53% male, 47% female. A few dozen generations later you will be close to seeing 100% male and 0% female. The chances of any random pairing of mice birthing female offspring becomes vanishingly small.
      Existing females die of old age or predation without new females to replace them. Population numbers crash, and the species dies off completely on the island, except for maybe some small, physically isolated groups

      Don't forget that each mice can create TONS of offspring, and those all interbreed again. They typically have 5-8 offspring at a time, and can have 5-10 litters a year. This happens FAST. The engineered feature will spread exponentially across the population, with no stopping it. It's an avalanche.

    2. Re: Good luck... by Shane_Optima · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The "antidote" is this: female house mice. They're not in short supply, and they're guaranteed to not be a carrier so you can go on collecting them (for greater genetic diversity, let's say) even in the area of an outbreak. Wait for the mice to die out in the area, re-introduce unaffected mice. Wash, rinse, and repeat if necessary. It's not like we're talking about African elephants here. The average lifespan is what, a couple years maybe? And they breed like mad. And they're everywhere.

      This is a complete non-issue. You're not going to accidentally make house mice go extinct worldwide. There aren't going to be hidden reserves of carriers laying dormant for years, just waiting to eradicate any re-introduction of the species in an area.

    3. Re:Good luck... by Shane_Optima · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's curious how you managed to use some correct facts to support some curiously dire-sounding conclusions. First off, here is the distribution of the house mouse. Do you think that carriers will be accidentally introduced in all breeding populations simultaneously, worldwide? Including the massive captive populations? And don't get the wrong idea from that map; it's not like there's a continuous interbreeding population in that entire range. There are lots of natural barriers keeping the sub-populations separate.

      Don't forget that each mice can create TONS of offspring, and those all interbreed again. They typically have 5-8 offspring at a time, and can have 5-10 litters a year. This happens FAST. The engineered feature will spread exponentially across the population, with no stopping it. It's an avalanche.

      And the avalanche works in more ways than one: reestablishing the mice in places they've been accidentally wiped out in will be a very easy and rapid project. And their short lifespans and high fecundity significantly reduces the window where an unintended transplant can occur. Dead male mice don't tend to do so well at sneaking on boats.

      Also, we know for a fact that females are not carriers, so in the case of a problem it's very easy to start new captive collections (for genetic diversity, let's say) using females plus a few known-unaffected males. You don't even need to pay to have the males tested; you just let them breed and see if they have any female offspring (and if not you don't let them intermix.)

      And that's assuming that accidental releases happen. I'm not at all convinced that's likely given proper import controls and the fact that male stowaways are less likely to survive and enjoy a durable reproductive success in a foreign land.

      But put that to one side: let's say the risk is high. So what? There is a 0% chance of the house mouse going extinct worldwide. Zero. But there's a very high chance that, given enough time, the house mouse will drive more than one New Zealand species to extinction.

  3. This will likely... by BlueCoder · · Score: 2

    produce a nascent populations that barely survive and will likely result in quick rapid mutations and possibly new species as natural selection tries to find a way. Most likely into a species that can change it's sex after adulthood or possess both sets of reproductive organs.

    1. Re:This will likely... by Shane_Optima · · Score: 2

      produce a nascent populations that barely survive and will likely result in quick rapid mutations and possibly new species as natural selection tries to find a way. Most likely into a species that can change it's sex after adulthood or possess both sets of reproductive organs.

      Was slashdot always full of blithering Luddites? No, you are not going to see mammalian hermaphroditism evolve in response to this.

      The evolutionary resistance to this, if any, would likely be behavioral and geographical, resulting in segregated and possibly more incestuously-inclined populations. Neither of these things will make the mice harder to combat (quite the opposite.)

      Worse case, the genetic trick somehow stops functioning and you get female mice again. Super sex-changing mice running ramptant? Please. Put down your VHS cassette[1] of Jurassic Park already and pick up a science book.

      1. You do have a fairly low user ID, after all

  4. Why Mosquitos? by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would they wipe out mosquitos instead of wiping out the true culprit: the malaria protozoa itself?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Why Mosquitos? by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would they wipe out mosquitos instead of wiping out the true culprit: the malaria protozoa itself?

      Gene drive techniques depend on sexual reproduction, but protozoa reproduce asexually, and can lay dormant as cysts.

    2. Re:Why Mosquitos? by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because it's a mosquito! Malaria I can handle, but that buzzing at night is driving me crazy!

  5. Vast New Zealand Eradication Plan by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm too high to read the summary, but I'm hoping scientists aren't really planning to eradicate New Zealand. There are people there, right? Those guys that play rugby and do those war chants and stick their tongues out. It would be a shame to lose them. These are the guys I'm talking about.:

    https://youtu.be/yiKFYTFJ_kw

    I mean, if I'm on a rugby team and I show up for a game and the other team starts doing that shit, I'm forfeiting and going right home.

    I'll just hope the headline is misleading and the crazy rugby dudes and the hobbits and shit that live in New Zealand are gonna be alright.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. rst Gene Drive In Mammals Could Aid Vast New Zeala by rickyslashdot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OUCH ! I hate to be the 'fear monger' here, but with CRISPR genetic modification, the changes are incorporated into the germ-line of that species, and will be passed down from generation - to - generation. This is the actual plan for the project, and it is being introduced into MAMMALS. Well, humans are also mammals, and similar enough to mice that the mouse line of mammals is very often used as the initial test-bed for medical research targeted at humans. How long will it take this CRISPR modification to jump species-lines, either from virus-aided transfer, or through some form of deliberate weaponization processes?

    Damn, I'm kinda' glad that I'm over 70, and hopefully won't be around when (IF) this extinction-level event happens. Granted, it will take multiple generations to spread throughout the global population, but a 'kill-switch' function, or even a more elegant technique involving a basic 'count-down' trigger that self-terminates after a certain number of generation transfers (similar to, and based on, the process of telomere shrinkage with each reproductive cycle), COULD be incorporated into the process in order to limit run-away disasters if the genetic alteration does get loose, or manages to cross species lines.

    I shudder to think of the implications of this research being developed to the point that it could target ANY species, and then the inevitable acquisition of the techniques by radicalized, medically-competent , scientists with either deep-pocket private backers, or state-sponsored support.

    One geographic transfer / escpe process that pops to mind is a bird, or other long distance traveller, that dumps fecal matter contaminated with this gene-line altering process still active in the biological waste, which then gets eaten by another scavenger (a REALLY HUNGRY individual), and . . . boom - - - the CRISPER agent is suddenly introduced into a population outside of the targeted area, and could very well move from a geo-bound area (like islands) to a wide-open continental arena.

    OK, so this is a '. . . sky is falling' scenario, but EVERY precaution needs to be considered - and planned for - when introducing a process that is deliberately designed for total species-line extermination, and there is just no way that ALL escape options will ever be able to be covered with 100% reliability.

    Enjoy your nightmares ! ! !

    --
    redneck geek
  7. Re:They might want to read this book first... by Shane_Optima · · Score: 2

    Luddite-ism is never more depressing than when it's used to argue that we shouldn't try to fix ecological havoc we've already inflicted.

    It's even worse given when the measures are (as they usually are in modern times) obviously much, much less risky than the existent and ongoing damage and are by their very nature prone to self-limiting instead of unchecked expansion.

  8. Re:rst Gene Drive In Mammals Could Aid Vast New Ze by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    With the mosquito experiments, the gene drive modified mosquitoes also get a gene that makes their eyes and other parts of their bodies glow red under laser light if the gene drive has taken hold.
    So we do the same for the mice, and if it somehow jumps to humans, we distribute lasers to all the female humans so they'll know who to not mate with.

  9. Re:12 Monkeys by rtb61 · · Score: 2

    They are not creating a disease they are genetically altering mice to only produce male offspring. Reality is this will be far less successful than most people think. For a start they are not creating super mice that can out copulate other mice. Likely it will just be evolved out at any release site (those with the gene fix will be out bred by those without the gene fix), unless those mice will also out compete all other mice but they can keep repeating the exercise with increasing release numbers. That does not even touch an existing variant gene mouse, hidden out there somewhere that undoes the fix in the next generation. Isolated populations and random choice will make this an interesting gamble, very, very, unlikely to go wrong (mice are not plants and will not breed within the same genus), just simply fail.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  10. Re:12 Monkeys by Biogoly · · Score: 2

    Researchers have already tested the gene drive in a similar way (although not with mammals AFAIK). It is frighteningly effective. With the method they are proposing you don't need to make genetically superior mice that will out breed the others. By making the engineered mice only have male offspring they will be exploiting the delicate balance of ecology. The population starts out as 50/50 male/female, after a few generations it will be something like 52/48...more and more male engineered mice to breed with females, which leads to even more engineer male mice and so on. Eventually (and relatively quickly since mice have several litters a year) you reach a tipping point and the population crashes HARD. In an isolated place like New Zealand I would expect this could be 100% successful.

  11. Re:12 Monkeys by LunaticTippy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This technique would work especially well on bedbugs. They perform "traumatic insemination" which is using a knifelike penis to inseminate another bedbug through their exoskeleton. They are not very particular about the fertility status or even gender of the target. A surplus of males would effectively fuck everything to death.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  12. Re:12 Monkeys by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    Researchers have already tested the gene drive in a similar way (although not with mammals AFAIK). It is frighteningly effective. With the method they are proposing you don't need to make genetically superior mice that will out breed the others. By making the engineered mice only have male offspring they will be exploiting the delicate balance of ecology.

    There was some ethical discussion regarding humans choosing the sex of their offspring. While no one argued that extinction would take place, surprisingly small swings acn have huge ramifications. Let's say that a lot of people wanted boys. Perhaps because of sports prowess - who knows, but there are definitely cultures where it can be downright dangerous to be born female. So if enough males are born it changes the social dynamic, as more men will not reproduce The opposite is also true. If there was a choice to have more female children born, it would mean much mor ecompetition for the fewer number of males to reproduce with.

    It is almost certainly a self correcting problem for humans, hwo can presumably think, but for some animals, a small alteration will be disastrous over time, if it is a dominant trait.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.