5 ms·

All this does is introduce novel mutations and then drive a population bottleneck. We are simply evolving the mosquito. The only way this could help is if it pu

by svnt 5y ago

All this does is introduce novel mutations and then drive a population bottleneck. We are simply evolving the mosquito. The only way this could help is if it pushes it out of a local evolutionary maximum where it is a host for this virus. That seems unlikely as the mutation appears optimized for intragenomic conflict instead. It is Russian roulette with mosquitos.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
refurb 5y ago
Intragenomic conflict?
- svnt 5y ago
  It is roughly opposite of inclusive fitness in genetic selection. An extension of the selfish gene theory.
bratwurst3000 5y ago
How shall this genetic mutation that they are doing induce other genetic mutations in relation to that most femals die and in generall? Or do you meant the virus is mutating for a new host? If not, is there some genetic math that could explaine your point? I am courios :) Edit: because muation is more or less random and is expressed with new generations. So if they die and there is less the chance of mutation or am i wrong??
- svnt 5y ago
  Genes often bring along adjacent unrelated genetic information when they mutate because heritability for various reasons does not always respect the integrity of a gene.
jjoonathan 5y ago
I "merely drive a population bottleneck" every time I brush my teeth. I am simply evolving the bacteria! It's like Russian Roulette! Thank you for bringing my attention to this matter. I will stop brushing immediately and let my breath stink and teeth rot forevermore.
- justinpowers 5y ago
  You jest but you’re wiser than you realize, especially if you include a diet change as part of the driver. Good diet (no sugars) and avoidance of broad-spectrum bactericides will allow good bacteria to thrive, pushing out the bad smelly ones. People have noticed similar beneficial responses, ie lack of disgusting body odor, when quitting hot soapy showers or the use of antiperspirants. Just gotta make sure diet goes with it. Along with general common sense cleanliness.
  - zionic 5y ago
    >good bacteria I’ve seen evidence for this in the gut, WRT digestion and such. What possible basis could exist for there being “good” bacteria in your mouth? It’s still going to do damage even if it doesn’t offgas sulfur. Long term I imagine we’ll genetically engineer our offspring to produce all the required enzymes for healthy digestion without reliance on 3rd party organisms.
    - justinpowers 5y ago
      There’s good (and bad) bacteria all over our bodies. Our skin is coated with them and needs to be coated with them. Without the good ones on our skin, bad ones take over, and then any cuts become more likely to get infected. I’ll update later with a source reference or two. But I’m willing to bet that Wikipedia‘s “skin flora” page has good info. Im not sure of the term for the mouth’s flora though…but I have zero doubt that it exists, simply because bacteria is everywhere. And gut bacteria get there via the mouth. Long story short, there’s no such thing as a pure human. We exist only because we are colonized by bacteria. We’re kind of like the earth in that regard. We house living organisms and they make us what we are, without them homeostasis crumbles and so do we. So, with that in mind, we should be selectively helping the good ones and killing the bad, instead of wiping them all out. Regarding replacing the gut bacteria with suitable enzymes for digestion, that would probably be misguided. The bacteria do more than just help digestion… they also keep bad bacteria out. And furthermore, they actually affect our mental health, keeping depression at bay for instance. Whether that’s indirectly via suppressing inflammation or some more direct means, I don’t recall. Edit: Looks like it’s a much more direct means of influence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31100533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31100533 (There doesn’t seem to be much about this here on HN already, so I’m providing a source via HN submission in hopes of generating some discussion…)
Symmetry 5y ago
Usually populations evolve resistance to pathogens or toxins via intermediate steps where some mutation delivers partial protection and the organism can build on that to higher and higher doses. Expose a population of bacteria to a large dose of antibiotics and they all just die, it's when you give them a small but increasing dose that they develop resistance. By contrast having children of both sexes or just one is binary (at least among those that will go on to create a third generation) so there really isn't that same potential for intermediate steps. Plus, we can look into the fossil record and see species die out from causes sort of like this. Many species have evolved pure asexual reproduction. This provides a fitness boost to the individuals who no longer have to spend energy on mating, but the lack of genetic recombination inevitably causes extinction in a million years or so. Not exactly the same as what we're trying to do here but it's still the closest analogy available.
- svnt 5y ago
  All we are doing is selecting for females who can avoid the genetic mutation by some means. I’m not worried about the loss of a mosquito species, I’m just saying it is a waste of time and the wrong approach.
  - Symmetry 5y ago
    Would you say that dumping disinfectant in a petri dish is just selecting for bacteria resistant to disinfectant? If a mutation arises that prevents the sex selection process then sure, the mosquito populations can recover. But whether such a mutation arises before the species is wiped out is an open question. And we can put multiple different gene drive mechanisms into the males requiring multiple simultaneous mutations to evade which aren't selected for until all are present, making the chance of such an evasion as unlikely as we need if we're willing to put the effort in.

by svnt 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

refurb 5y ago

Intragenomic conflict?

svnt 5y ago
It is roughly opposite of inclusive fitness in genetic selection. An extension of the selfish gene theory.

bratwurst3000 5y ago

How shall this genetic mutation that they are doing induce other genetic mutations in relation to that most femals die and in generall? Or do you meant the virus is mutating for a new host? If not, is there some genetic math that could explaine your point? I am courios :) Edit: because muation is more or less random and is expressed with new generations. So if they die and there is less the chance of mutation or am i wrong??

svnt 5y ago
Genes often bring along adjacent unrelated genetic information when they mutate because heritability for various reasons does not always respect the integrity of a gene.

jjoonathan 5y ago

I "merely drive a population bottleneck" every time I brush my teeth. I am simply evolving the bacteria! It's like Russian Roulette! Thank you for bringing my attention to this matter. I will stop brushing immediately and let my breath stink and teeth rot forevermore.

justinpowers 5y ago
You jest but you’re wiser than you realize, especially if you include a diet change as part of the driver. Good diet (no sugars) and avoidance of broad-spectrum bactericides will allow good bacteria to thrive, pushing out the bad smelly ones. People have noticed similar beneficial responses, ie lack of disgusting body odor, when quitting hot soapy showers or the use of antiperspirants. Just gotta make sure diet goes with it. Along with general common sense cleanliness.
- zionic 5y ago
  >good bacteria I’ve seen evidence for this in the gut, WRT digestion and such. What possible basis could exist for there being “good” bacteria in your mouth? It’s still going to do damage even if it doesn’t offgas sulfur. Long term I imagine we’ll genetically engineer our offspring to produce all the required enzymes for healthy digestion without reliance on 3rd party organisms.
  - justinpowers 5y ago
    There’s good (and bad) bacteria all over our bodies. Our skin is coated with them and needs to be coated with them. Without the good ones on our skin, bad ones take over, and then any cuts become more likely to get infected. I’ll update later with a source reference or two. But I’m willing to bet that Wikipedia‘s “skin flora” page has good info. Im not sure of the term for the mouth’s flora though…but I have zero doubt that it exists, simply because bacteria is everywhere. And gut bacteria get there via the mouth. Long story short, there’s no such thing as a pure human. We exist only because we are colonized by bacteria. We’re kind of like the earth in that regard. We house living organisms and they make us what we are, without them homeostasis crumbles and so do we. So, with that in mind, we should be selectively helping the good ones and killing the bad, instead of wiping them all out. Regarding replacing the gut bacteria with suitable enzymes for digestion, that would probably be misguided. The bacteria do more than just help digestion… they also keep bad bacteria out. And furthermore, they actually affect our mental health, keeping depression at bay for instance. Whether that’s indirectly via suppressing inflammation or some more direct means, I don’t recall. Edit: Looks like it’s a much more direct means of influence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31100533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31100533 (There doesn’t seem to be much about this here on HN already, so I’m providing a source via HN submission in hopes of generating some discussion…)

Symmetry 5y ago

Usually populations evolve resistance to pathogens or toxins via intermediate steps where some mutation delivers partial protection and the organism can build on that to higher and higher doses. Expose a population of bacteria to a large dose of antibiotics and they all just die, it's when you give them a small but increasing dose that they develop resistance. By contrast having children of both sexes or just one is binary (at least among those that will go on to create a third generation) so there really isn't that same potential for intermediate steps. Plus, we can look into the fossil record and see species die out from causes sort of like this. Many species have evolved pure asexual reproduction. This provides a fitness boost to the individuals who no longer have to spend energy on mating, but the lack of genetic recombination inevitably causes extinction in a million years or so. Not exactly the same as what we're trying to do here but it's still the closest analogy available.

svnt 5y ago
All we are doing is selecting for females who can avoid the genetic mutation by some means. I’m not worried about the loss of a mosquito species, I’m just saying it is a waste of time and the wrong approach.
- Symmetry 5y ago
  Would you say that dumping disinfectant in a petri dish is just selecting for bacteria resistant to disinfectant? If a mutation arises that prevents the sex selection process then sure, the mosquito populations can recover. But whether such a mutation arises before the species is wiped out is an open question. And we can put multiple different gene drive mechanisms into the males requiring multiple simultaneous mutations to evade which aren't selected for until all are present, making the chance of such an evasion as unlikely as we need if we're willing to put the effort in.