8 ms·

Genetically engineered moth is released into an open field

76 points by sigmaprimus 7y ago

tmikaeld 7y ago
I'm sure other have the same question [0]: "But how does the self-limiting gene work? First, let’s step back and consider that each mosquito is made up of many cells. In order for each cell to survive, it needs to make essential proteins. The proteins are made when genes (made of DNA) are converted into RNA and subsequently the RNA is converted into protein. DNA → RNA → Protein … Happy cell However, when the self-limiting gene (DNA) is made into a protein, the self-limiting protein is able to block the process of converting DNA into RNA. DNA -X RNA -X Protein … dead cells, dead mosquito Without RNA, proteins aren’t made, the cells die, and the mosquito dies too." [0] https://stringsblog.com/2017/06/19/how-it-works-a-self-limiting-gene/ https://stringsblog.com/2017/06/19/how-it-works-a-self-limit...
- ergl 7y ago
  Yeah, except it didn't seem to work too well last time: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49660-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49660-6 "Transgenic Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes Transfer Genes into a Natural Population"
- aiyodev 7y ago
  Michael Crichton is rolling in his grave.
- chopin 7y ago
  There is no possible way this can go wrong...
- raducu 7y ago
  But natural populations of mosquitoes probably number in millions/billions and the don't have the mutation. How can you release a handful of lab mosquitoes into the wild and reduce the population by 90%? Shouldn't only their descendants die?
  - nmca 7y ago
    Indeed a germline modification to produce only male offspring would do it. Children of men, and all that.
    - Accujack 7y ago
      They're turning the moths gay!
  - Enginerrrd 7y ago
    >Shouldn't only their descendants die? You are in for an exciting and sort of terrifying read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive
vectorEQ 7y ago
soon the first genetically engineered human is released onto the streets. to reproduce and spread their self-limiting genes. everyone will always be happy, and happily consume :O :D
- tehbeard 7y ago
  "A new life awaits you in the Off-World Colonies"
- mapcars 7y ago
  >everyone will always be happy, and happily consume That's not how it works, if you are always happy you don't need to consume. What supports consumerism is a constant chase - "I need this to be happy" and big enough amount of goals to keep one busy for more than a lifetime so that torch will be passed to the next generation.
Jaruzel 7y ago
We're going to rue the day we started doing this. As they say 'Nature abhors a vacuum' - Once the diamondback moth numbers have declined significantly, another (probably more invasive) species will rise to take it's place. The planet's ecosystem has had billions of years to balance itself out, who are we to assume we can do it better?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ben_w 7y ago
  > We're going to rue the day we started doing this. Perhaps. > As they say 'Nature abhors a vacuum' - Once the diamondback moth numbers have declined significantly, another (probably more invasive) species will rise to take it's place. Eventually, but evolution is slow. Why would the replacement be “probably” more invasive? > The planet's ecosystem has had billions of years to balance itself out, who are we to assume we can do it better? It’s not balanced. From one point of view, humans are a product of evolution and our errors are evolution’s errors, though even without counting humans other predator populations do sometimes wipe out their prey and then starve into their own extinction. From a different perspective, we can do better because while evolution is limited to the gradient descent local minima of natural selection, we can do extreme long-term planning — which is how we’re even physically capable of having this conversation, let alone perform the genetic modifications that this article is talking about.
  - mapcars 7y ago
    >From a different perspective, we can do better But how do you decide what is better? Maybe evolution goes with a perfect speed in relation to all other forces? It's like you may want the planet to spin faster to get more birthday presents but this will ruin nature's processes in so many ways.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      Evolution isn’t a force. As I was replying to someone who already has a goal in mind, I’m referring to that goal: balance. Of course, evolution also doesn’t have real goals, only local optimisations, so that makes it rather easy to beat at whatever goal we set for ourselves.
ptah 7y ago
would it not be better to encourage their natural predators?
- folli 7y ago
  This is being tried: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysoperla_carnea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysoperla_carnea However it seems hard to get them established.
- ryan_j_naughton 7y ago
  This moth species originated in either Europe / the Mediterranean, or Africa. It has spread worldwide. Thus, it is an invasive species. Introducing other invasive species as part control can really backfire. Classic example being the Cane Toad. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad#Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad#Australia
psaux 7y ago
I assume over time, the diamondback female moth would be able to determine which males produce stale offspring and avoid them. There has to be some science to selective breeding. I am groc’ng now, I swore I watched a show where a beetle evolved to have selective mating distinction. Prior to Netflix and Prime, Discovery was my morning, lunch, and dinner, learned so much.
- fifnir 7y ago
  > the diamondback female moth would be able to determine I'll rephrase: If some females for whatever reason avoid the engineered males, they will produce more offspring
  - red75prime 7y ago
    ... if probability of finding unengineered male is greater than probability of producing viable offspring with engineered male (it was 4% for OX513A, if I remember correctly).
  - danShumway 7y ago
    Good distinction. Evolution is hard to talk about, I still often have to take a step back and try to reword things that I'm talking about. Somewhat obviously, females that happen to produce a larger number of viable offspring will produce a larger number of viable offspring. That means over time, a lot of the new viable offspring will be coming from those females. Which means over time, a lot of the species will have similar genes to those females. Which means that if the females all share a common mutation, over time a lot of the species will have that mutation.
- Accujack 7y ago
  The males that produce only male offspring that survive are identical to males that don't. Both types of matings produce eggs that hatch larva. The females die before the eggs hatch, so they never see the offspring, thus it's difficult for them to "learn" anything. The modified males produce only viable male offspring, so no female offspring survive to allow the evolutionary mechanism to work - all the females that live to adulthood are born from female and male parents that were unmodified, so there's no chance of the "modified" genes affecting female numbers.
aspyct 7y ago
Who gives clearance to that kind of experiment? Oxitec has done the same in the past with mosquitoes, with small to no result. Some say it's even worse now. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/09/24/genetically-engineered-mosquitoes.aspx https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/09/... Now the same company is toying with moths. There's no way we can predict the outcome of such genetic engineering. If they achieve their goal and kill all moths, other species may decline. Or else they will simply make stronger moths, like they did with the mosquitoes: "very likely resulting in a more robust population than the pre-release population due to hybrid vigor." I believe we should all oppose such practices. Who is Oxitec to decide to run that experiment and potentially ruin the world for everyone of us?
- folli 7y ago
  Meh, the most likely outcome of such experiments is that the introduced gene will vanish from the gene pool midterm.
  - aspyct 7y ago
    So basically, it's a temporary solution that we will keep reusing until some genes mix and things really go awry. Great.
  - mr__y 7y ago
    ...or the introducend gene combined with some previously existing genes will create an unexpected feature which will dominate the species and wipe out specimens without it[0]. I believe we don't know enough (yet) to take a risk of such experiments in the wild. More, I think that possibly even proper assesment of such risk is currently not possible [0] while this scenario is probably very unlikely I'm not sure that such risk should be taken
    - folli 7y ago
      The gene pool of a species is much more dynamic than you assume in your scenario. Combinations, deletions, mutations, introduction of new genes from other species is very common on biological timelines. To put it as an optimization problem: a huge portion of the search space has been (and is actively being) searched already, with the current species as the optimal solution for the given ecological niche. Changing the genomic setup will with a high likelihood move away from this optimum, rendering your "new" species less fit for its niche.
sigmaprimus 7y ago
Interesting number of comments on this thread, I posted this thread after doing a news search on GMOs because of a disagreement I had with a commenter on another thread. It amazes me how many people are OK with the currently accepted practice of growing food such as soy, wheat and corn using GMOs but move just one tick up the food chain and it's heresy. Personally I would love to tinker around with Crispr and a gene gun to grow some glowing plants etc. But I am afraid of what greedy corporations are currently doing with the same tech. This is truly a personal hypocrisy or paradox that I can't square other than admitting my own arrogance on this subject.
- wtracy 7y ago
  I think it's only because genetically modified plants are common enough already to not make headlines. When they were new, people went bonkers. (Many people still do.)
lowdose 7y ago
When can I buy a tiger the size of a cat with the character of a dog? In the USA alone it is estimated at least 10.000 of these animals live in captivity so there must be a market for a more civilized version. Are we on the path to engineer pets to our own wishes or is this pure sci-fi? How much investment/breakthroughs are needed to get there?
- cgarvis 7y ago
  Toygers are real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyger
  - lowdose 7y ago
    It's still a cat.
- strbean 7y ago
  The personality most dogs have may be attributable to Williams Syndrome[1]. So you just need to engineer some tigers to have the same syndrome! [1] https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700398 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700398
- wtracy 7y ago
  AFAIK it hasn't been done with mammals yet, but transgenic pets are here now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish Most PetSmart and Petco stores in the US stock these animals. If you live in the United States, you can almost certainly take one home today.
- mitchty 7y ago
  A tiger? You can't, well unless you commit to a few generations of trying to domesticate them. Or you could get the next best thing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Coon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Coon I call em catdogs cause they're probably the closest thing to a dog in cat form.
ChrisCinelli 7y ago
As genome editing become simpler, we will see more mutated organisms released in the wild by some not so scrupulous scientists. Some sci-fi movies come to mind. I feel a little uneasy with how the things that can go wrong. What can we do to prepare for this scenario?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- doublerabbit 7y ago
  Giant Spiders. Giant sized Tarantula's.
danShumway 7y ago
I'm not strongly opposed, but I was pretty nervous about the mosquito trials, and I thought (perhaps wrongly) that mosquitoes were a really special case and we weren't going to start doing this all the time for every single insect pest. The argument for doing heavy population control on mosquitoes is at least backed up by a number of scientists who doubt mosquitoes play any substantial roles in their ecosystems. Have we drawn the same conclusions about diamondback moths? Are they at least an invasive species or something? I remain conscious of the fact that I am not an expert in these areas, but I also remain very nervous about genetic engineering trials in the wild. The fact that we're now doing this for agricultural purposes and not just to stop malaria rings a lot of alarm bells for me, but I don't know enough about this subject to clearly articulate why it makes me so nervous. I can't credibly claim that my aversion to actively editing genes in wild animals isn't just an internalization of cultural norms from movies like Frankenstein. But the alarm bells are still there for me. Is there a timeline of other insects this company is looking at? Is it just mosquitoes and moths, or is there a X year plan to start targeting other pests?

76 points by sigmaprimus 7y ago

I'm sure other have the same question [0]: "But how does the self-limiting gene work? First, let’s step back and consider that each mosquito is made up of many cells. In order for each cell to survive, it needs to make essential proteins. The proteins are made when genes (made of DNA) are converted into RNA and subsequently the RNA is converted into protein. DNA → RNA → Protein … Happy cell However, when the self-limiting gene (DNA) is made into a protein, the self-limiting protein is able to block the process of converting DNA into RNA. DNA -X RNA -X Protein … dead cells, dead mosquito Without RNA, proteins aren’t made, the cells die, and the mosquito dies too." [0] https://stringsblog.com/2017/06/19/how-it-works-a-self-limiting-gene/ https://stringsblog.com/2017/06/19/how-it-works-a-self-limit...

ergl 7y ago
Yeah, except it didn't seem to work too well last time: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49660-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49660-6 "Transgenic Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes Transfer Genes into a Natural Population"
aiyodev 7y ago
Michael Crichton is rolling in his grave.
chopin 7y ago
There is no possible way this can go wrong...
raducu 7y ago
But natural populations of mosquitoes probably number in millions/billions and the don't have the mutation. How can you release a handful of lab mosquitoes into the wild and reduce the population by 90%? Shouldn't only their descendants die?
- nmca 7y ago
  Indeed a germline modification to produce only male offspring would do it. Children of men, and all that.
  - Accujack 7y ago
    They're turning the moths gay!
- Enginerrrd 7y ago
  >Shouldn't only their descendants die? You are in for an exciting and sort of terrifying read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive

vectorEQ 7y ago

soon the first genetically engineered human is released onto the streets. to reproduce and spread their self-limiting genes. everyone will always be happy, and happily consume :O :D

tehbeard 7y ago
"A new life awaits you in the Off-World Colonies"
mapcars 7y ago
>everyone will always be happy, and happily consume That's not how it works, if you are always happy you don't need to consume. What supports consumerism is a constant chase - "I need this to be happy" and big enough amount of goals to keep one busy for more than a lifetime so that torch will be passed to the next generation.

Jaruzel 7y ago

We're going to rue the day we started doing this. As they say 'Nature abhors a vacuum' - Once the diamondback moth numbers have declined significantly, another (probably more invasive) species will rise to take it's place. The planet's ecosystem has had billions of years to balance itself out, who are we to assume we can do it better?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ben_w 7y ago
> We're going to rue the day we started doing this. Perhaps. > As they say 'Nature abhors a vacuum' - Once the diamondback moth numbers have declined significantly, another (probably more invasive) species will rise to take it's place. Eventually, but evolution is slow. Why would the replacement be “probably” more invasive? > The planet's ecosystem has had billions of years to balance itself out, who are we to assume we can do it better? It’s not balanced. From one point of view, humans are a product of evolution and our errors are evolution’s errors, though even without counting humans other predator populations do sometimes wipe out their prey and then starve into their own extinction. From a different perspective, we can do better because while evolution is limited to the gradient descent local minima of natural selection, we can do extreme long-term planning — which is how we’re even physically capable of having this conversation, let alone perform the genetic modifications that this article is talking about.
- mapcars 7y ago
  >From a different perspective, we can do better But how do you decide what is better? Maybe evolution goes with a perfect speed in relation to all other forces? It's like you may want the planet to spin faster to get more birthday presents but this will ruin nature's processes in so many ways.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    Evolution isn’t a force. As I was replying to someone who already has a goal in mind, I’m referring to that goal: balance. Of course, evolution also doesn’t have real goals, only local optimisations, so that makes it rather easy to beat at whatever goal we set for ourselves.

ptah 7y ago

would it not be better to encourage their natural predators?

folli 7y ago
This is being tried: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysoperla_carnea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysoperla_carnea However it seems hard to get them established.
ryan_j_naughton 7y ago
This moth species originated in either Europe / the Mediterranean, or Africa. It has spread worldwide. Thus, it is an invasive species. Introducing other invasive species as part control can really backfire. Classic example being the Cane Toad. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad#Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad#Australia

psaux 7y ago

I assume over time, the diamondback female moth would be able to determine which males produce stale offspring and avoid them. There has to be some science to selective breeding. I am groc’ng now, I swore I watched a show where a beetle evolved to have selective mating distinction. Prior to Netflix and Prime, Discovery was my morning, lunch, and dinner, learned so much.

fifnir 7y ago
> the diamondback female moth would be able to determine I'll rephrase: If some females for whatever reason avoid the engineered males, they will produce more offspring
- red75prime 7y ago
  ... if probability of finding unengineered male is greater than probability of producing viable offspring with engineered male (it was 4% for OX513A, if I remember correctly).
- danShumway 7y ago
  Good distinction. Evolution is hard to talk about, I still often have to take a step back and try to reword things that I'm talking about. Somewhat obviously, females that happen to produce a larger number of viable offspring will produce a larger number of viable offspring. That means over time, a lot of the new viable offspring will be coming from those females. Which means over time, a lot of the species will have similar genes to those females. Which means that if the females all share a common mutation, over time a lot of the species will have that mutation.
Accujack 7y ago
The males that produce only male offspring that survive are identical to males that don't. Both types of matings produce eggs that hatch larva. The females die before the eggs hatch, so they never see the offspring, thus it's difficult for them to "learn" anything. The modified males produce only viable male offspring, so no female offspring survive to allow the evolutionary mechanism to work - all the females that live to adulthood are born from female and male parents that were unmodified, so there's no chance of the "modified" genes affecting female numbers.

aspyct 7y ago

Who gives clearance to that kind of experiment? Oxitec has done the same in the past with mosquitoes, with small to no result. Some say it's even worse now. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/09/24/genetically-engineered-mosquitoes.aspx https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/09/... Now the same company is toying with moths. There's no way we can predict the outcome of such genetic engineering. If they achieve their goal and kill all moths, other species may decline. Or else they will simply make stronger moths, like they did with the mosquitoes: "very likely resulting in a more robust population than the pre-release population due to hybrid vigor." I believe we should all oppose such practices. Who is Oxitec to decide to run that experiment and potentially ruin the world for everyone of us?

folli 7y ago
Meh, the most likely outcome of such experiments is that the introduced gene will vanish from the gene pool midterm.
- aspyct 7y ago
  So basically, it's a temporary solution that we will keep reusing until some genes mix and things really go awry. Great.
- mr__y 7y ago
  ...or the introducend gene combined with some previously existing genes will create an unexpected feature which will dominate the species and wipe out specimens without it[0]. I believe we don't know enough (yet) to take a risk of such experiments in the wild. More, I think that possibly even proper assesment of such risk is currently not possible [0] while this scenario is probably very unlikely I'm not sure that such risk should be taken
  - folli 7y ago
    The gene pool of a species is much more dynamic than you assume in your scenario. Combinations, deletions, mutations, introduction of new genes from other species is very common on biological timelines. To put it as an optimization problem: a huge portion of the search space has been (and is actively being) searched already, with the current species as the optimal solution for the given ecological niche. Changing the genomic setup will with a high likelihood move away from this optimum, rendering your "new" species less fit for its niche.

sigmaprimus 7y ago

Interesting number of comments on this thread, I posted this thread after doing a news search on GMOs because of a disagreement I had with a commenter on another thread. It amazes me how many people are OK with the currently accepted practice of growing food such as soy, wheat and corn using GMOs but move just one tick up the food chain and it's heresy. Personally I would love to tinker around with Crispr and a gene gun to grow some glowing plants etc. But I am afraid of what greedy corporations are currently doing with the same tech. This is truly a personal hypocrisy or paradox that I can't square other than admitting my own arrogance on this subject.

wtracy 7y ago
I think it's only because genetically modified plants are common enough already to not make headlines. When they were new, people went bonkers. (Many people still do.)

lowdose 7y ago

When can I buy a tiger the size of a cat with the character of a dog? In the USA alone it is estimated at least 10.000 of these animals live in captivity so there must be a market for a more civilized version. Are we on the path to engineer pets to our own wishes or is this pure sci-fi? How much investment/breakthroughs are needed to get there?

cgarvis 7y ago
Toygers are real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyger
- lowdose 7y ago
  It's still a cat.
strbean 7y ago
The personality most dogs have may be attributable to Williams Syndrome[1]. So you just need to engineer some tigers to have the same syndrome! [1] https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700398 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700398
wtracy 7y ago
AFAIK it hasn't been done with mammals yet, but transgenic pets are here now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish Most PetSmart and Petco stores in the US stock these animals. If you live in the United States, you can almost certainly take one home today.
mitchty 7y ago
A tiger? You can't, well unless you commit to a few generations of trying to domesticate them. Or you could get the next best thing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Coon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Coon I call em catdogs cause they're probably the closest thing to a dog in cat form.

ChrisCinelli 7y ago

As genome editing become simpler, we will see more mutated organisms released in the wild by some not so scrupulous scientists. Some sci-fi movies come to mind. I feel a little uneasy with how the things that can go wrong. What can we do to prepare for this scenario?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
doublerabbit 7y ago
Giant Spiders. Giant sized Tarantula's.

danShumway 7y ago

I'm not strongly opposed, but I was pretty nervous about the mosquito trials, and I thought (perhaps wrongly) that mosquitoes were a really special case and we weren't going to start doing this all the time for every single insect pest. The argument for doing heavy population control on mosquitoes is at least backed up by a number of scientists who doubt mosquitoes play any substantial roles in their ecosystems. Have we drawn the same conclusions about diamondback moths? Are they at least an invasive species or something? I remain conscious of the fact that I am not an expert in these areas, but I also remain very nervous about genetic engineering trials in the wild. The fact that we're now doing this for agricultural purposes and not just to stop malaria rings a lot of alarm bells for me, but I don't know enough about this subject to clearly articulate why it makes me so nervous. I can't credibly claim that my aversion to actively editing genes in wild animals isn't just an internalization of cultural norms from movies like Frankenstein. But the alarm bells are still there for me. Is there a timeline of other insects this company is looking at? Is it just mosquitoes and moths, or is there a X year plan to start targeting other pests?