4 ms·

How would you make sure the gene edits don't also wipe out the problem in their original habitat too?

Jedd 4y ago
This is relatively straightforward. First, introduced species tend to, by definition, not breed with the 'original habitat' population, simply because they're separated by sufficient distances. Second, these types of gene terminator approaches tend to work relatively quickly - several generations, I think, but I've only read about these in insect populations where generations are months not years. Anyway, the fallback approach is to maintain a breeding stock of non-edited, isolated somewhere safe, and if the original habitat specimens do get wiped out accidentally you can re-introduce if appropriate. This is a good solution for mosquitoes - where you basically do want to wipe out a handful of species for a year or more, as the actual intent is to wipe out malaria (Plasmodium). Once that's done, you have the option to safely reintroduce those original-gene mosquito species.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  Why are the mosquitoes reintroduced? Wouldn't there always be the risk of parasite reinfecting the stock?
  - hoseja 4y ago
    They are ecologically significant, sadly. Things feed on their larvae, etc.
  - Jedd 4y ago
    I'm happy to defer to hoseja's assertion they are ecologically significant - I've read varying claims around there, but the precautionary principle is sufficient to warrant maintaining a pristine breeding stock long term, just in case. With malaria, I believe there's a tiny handful, 3 or 4 perhaps, of species of mosquito that carry it, and removing those species from environments where other species of mosquito exist is thought to be low-risk in terms of unintended consequences. The fallback breeding stock is just another thing we can do to provide assurance that we're not about to accidentally trigger the end of the world.
chasil 4y ago
For the people who will be motivated to use a gene drive against lionfish in the Atlantic, this will be an acceptable risk. I don't think that this will be a governmental entity, not directly.

Jedd 4y ago

This is relatively straightforward. First, introduced species tend to, by definition, not breed with the 'original habitat' population, simply because they're separated by sufficient distances. Second, these types of gene terminator approaches tend to work relatively quickly - several generations, I think, but I've only read about these in insect populations where generations are months not years. Anyway, the fallback approach is to maintain a breeding stock of non-edited, isolated somewhere safe, and if the original habitat specimens do get wiped out accidentally you can re-introduce if appropriate. This is a good solution for mosquitoes - where you basically do want to wipe out a handful of species for a year or more, as the actual intent is to wipe out malaria (Plasmodium). Once that's done, you have the option to safely reintroduce those original-gene mosquito species.

cuteboy19 4y ago
Why are the mosquitoes reintroduced? Wouldn't there always be the risk of parasite reinfecting the stock?
- hoseja 4y ago
  They are ecologically significant, sadly. Things feed on their larvae, etc.
- Jedd 4y ago
  I'm happy to defer to hoseja's assertion they are ecologically significant - I've read varying claims around there, but the precautionary principle is sufficient to warrant maintaining a pristine breeding stock long term, just in case. With malaria, I believe there's a tiny handful, 3 or 4 perhaps, of species of mosquito that carry it, and removing those species from environments where other species of mosquito exist is thought to be low-risk in terms of unintended consequences. The fallback breeding stock is just another thing we can do to provide assurance that we're not about to accidentally trigger the end of the world.

chasil 4y ago

For the people who will be motivated to use a gene drive against lionfish in the Atlantic, this will be an acceptable risk. I don't think that this will be a governmental entity, not directly.