Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Friday, March 30, 2007 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Document Selfish genes may drive out disease

by Melissa Lee Phillips

Reposted from:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53040/

Genetic elements that select for their own survival could establish disease-resistance genes in insect populations

Researchers have come up with a new way to establish desirable genes in insect populations, according to an online Science report this week. The authors created a synthetic selfish genetic element that propagates rapidly through Drosophila populations -- an approach they say could also help drive malaria-resistance genes into mosquito populations.

The approach "looks very convincing" for establishing disease-resistance genes in insect populations, said Marcelo Jacobs-Lorena of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, who was not involved in the study. "If it works in Drosophila, I think the chances that it would work in insects of medical importance is quite high."

Researchers have identified and created mosquitoes that carry genetic elements preventing them from transmitting malaria or dengue; last week, Jacobs-Lorena and his colleagues showed that one type of malaria-resistant mosquito can outcompete normal mosquitoes when feeding on infected blood, although this advantage may not be enough to establish the resistance gene in a mosquito population. Consequently, researchers are searching for ways to ensure that such resistance genes become ubiquitous throughout an insect population, said study senior author Bruce Hay of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

Led by Chun-Hong Chen, also of Caltech, the researchers created a synthetic genetic element based on Medea(maternal-effect dominant embryonic arrest) elements. These selfish genetic elements are thought to select for their own survival through a toxin-antidote system, Hay said. The mother's Medea element causes toxin release into all of her oocytes, and only those progeny that inherit the Medea element themselves can produce an antidote.

The researchers constructed a transposable element vector containing both a toxin and an antidote. The "toxin" consists of two microRNAs that silence expression of a crucial development gene called myd88. When myd88 is silenced in ooctyes, embryos suffer ventral patterning defects and fail to hatch. The antidote consists of a myd88 replacement. "The toxin is a loss of an essential function, and the antidote is the restoration of that function," Hay explained.

The transposable element worked as expected: When female flies containing the element mated with wild-type males, about half of the progeny suffered patterning defects and died. The other half inherited the embryonic antidote and survived. To see if this element could establish itself in a population, the researchers performed cage experiments. When 25% of the flies started out with the genetic element, all flies contained at least one copy of the element after 10-12 generations.

"The next step will be to add an effector gene" to the vector, such as a gene that induces resistance to malaria, according to Frederic Tripet of Keele University in Staffordshire, UK, who was not involved in the work. That way, the vector could be used to propagate this gene through an insect population, ideally mosquitoes that can carry the virus.

Currently, for the mosquito, scientists still know very little about the genes and promoters in oogenesis and early embryogenesis that would have to be involved in spreading the disease-resistant genes, Hay said. But, according to Tripet, "this is just a question of time, not a major difficulty."

One potential obstacle for establishing this genetic element in the wild is that mosquito populations can be reproductively isolated from one another, Tripet told The Scientist. "It is likely that the more we study those populations, the more reproductive barriers we will find that can locally prevent or slow down the spread of introduced transgenes."

Genetically altered mosquitoes will have to be released in large numbers into affected areas in order for introduced genes to establish themselves, Hay said, but previous efforts to release sterile mosquitoes have shown that this is feasible. "Getting the numbers up will always be a challenge... but we know that it can be done."




Links within this article

C.-H. Chen et al., "A Synthetic Maternal-Effect Selfish Genetic Element Drives Population Replacement in Drosophila," Science, published online March 29, 2007.
http://www.sciencemag.org

A.A. James, "Gene drive systems in mosquitoes: rules of the road," Trends in Parasitology, February 2005.
'http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/15664528

J. Weitzman, "Molecular make-up of a malaria mosquito," The Scientist, October 3, 2002.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/20745/

Marcelo Jacobs-Lorena
http://faculty.jhsph.edu/Default.cfm?faculty_id=659

K.D. Vernick et al., "Molecular genetics of mosquito resistance to malaria parasites," Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, 2005.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/16265899

S. Sanides, "The malaria hut," The Scientist, August 1, 2006.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/24070/

M.L. Phillips, "Anti-malaria genes give mosquitoes an edge," The Scientist, March 20, 2007.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~haylab/

R.W. Beeman et al., "Maternal-effect selfish genes in flour beetles," Science, April 3, 1992.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/1566060

Frederic Tripet
http://www.keele.ac.uk/research/istm/tripet.html

G. Davidson, "The five mating types of the Anopheles gambiae complex," Rivista di Malariologia, December 1964.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/14318975

F. Gould, P. Schliekelman, "Population genetics of autocidal control and strain replacement,"
Annual Review of Entomology, 2004.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/14651462

Comments 1 - 13 of 13 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #28600 by beelzebub on March 30, 2007 at 4:21 am

 avatarHmm... let's see..
Normal Mosquitos breed 100%
Modified Mosquitos breed 50%
I wonder which will out-compete the other? :-)

(BTW, Infected mozzies are reproductively impaired by malaria, but no where near 50%!)

Other Comments by beelzebub

2. Comment #28602 by beelzebub on March 30, 2007 at 4:26 am

 avatarCorrection!
I see it now -
Modified Mozz + Modified Mozz = 100% repro
Modified Mozz + Normal Mozz = 50% repro - all surviving progeny have malaria-passing resistance.
Nice! :-)

Other Comments by beelzebub

3. Comment #28610 by bitbutter on March 30, 2007 at 5:15 am

 avatarFascinating stuff. I read elsewhere that the modified mosquitoes were also given green eyes for easy identification, though i'm not sure if it's the same study.

Genetically altered mosquitoes will have to be released in large numbers into affected areas in order for introduced genes to establish themselves, Hay said, but previous efforts to release sterile mosquitoes have shown that this is feasible.


this confused me, i think i'm misunderstanding something here: how could sterile mosquitoes have 'established themselves'?

Other Comments by bitbutter

4. Comment #28613 by Luthien on March 30, 2007 at 5:46 am

 avatarthis confused me, i think i'm misunderstanding something here: how could sterile mosquitoes have 'established themselves'?

I would say that it means that the modified mosquitoes were capable of surviving outside lab conditions, and did not all die after a few days in the wild.

Other Comments by Luthien

5. Comment #28614 by ridelo on March 30, 2007 at 5:57 am

I know that what I'm going to say is terrible and I hope somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. But on the one hand we are trying to eradicate all diseases that plague the developing countries and on the other hand there's a population explosion that maybe will lead to mass starvation.
I know the solution should be reducing disease, education (not religious!) and birth control. But is that realistic?

Other Comments by ridelo

6. Comment #28625 by denoir on March 30, 2007 at 7:05 am

 avatarI think that publications of articles like this is very important, not just because of the potential benefits of the work but for educating the people about evolution.

There are two common myths that do damage to people's understanding of bioengineering and artificial intelligence:

Myth 1: Evolution produces optimal structures for survivability

This common misconception comes from the fact that evolution occurs during very long periods of time and that each improvement builds on a previous structure. Take for instance the nerve cell - it is not a coincidence that it is a cell and not say a semiconductor element. When nerve cells started evolving they didn't do it from scratch, but built upon an existing structure that had a wholly different function. Basically evolution optimizes as good as it can with the building blocks that it has access to - which is far from a theoretically optimal solution. Also people forget that during that long time of evolution, the environment changed. Survival in the precambrian period required quite different phenotypes than are required today. Yet modern-day genotypes inherit a massive amount of traits from that earlier period. So it is sub-optimal in that respect as well.

Myth 2: Natural selection is the best possible optimization algorithm.

This is nonsense, evolution through natural selection (mutation, selection, crossover) is a fairly primitive optimization method. It requires a huge amount of time to perform optimization. It is a greedy algorithm (meaning that it has no look-ahead capabilities), no short term memory etc There are tons of better algorithms that can be mathematically defined.

Natural selection tells shows us an example of what is possible with a simple optimization scheme. However when we venture into bioengineering and artificial intelligence, there is absolutely no reason to think that a 'natural' solution is the best possible. With computers we can use more sophisticated and intelligent algorithms. As we are engaged in top-down design, we are not limited to the original building blocks and structures of natural biological systems. That opens up a whole world of new possibilities.

Other Comments by denoir

7. Comment #28633 by ridelo on March 30, 2007 at 7:33 am

Nicely said, denoir. I had the impression I was reading Dawkins.

Other Comments by ridelo

8. Comment #28656 by JeffW on March 30, 2007 at 9:17 am

there is absolutely no reason to think that a 'natural' solution is the best possible. With computers we can use more sophisticated and intelligent algorithms. As we are engaged in top-down design, we are not limited to the original building blocks and structures of natural biological systems

The "natural" solution may not be the best possible, but it may be the best that is practically achievable. And how are you going to find those new "algorithms", as the problem space becomes more complex and multi-dimensional? Top down design? I think not. A system that uses GA's and GP's (or variants thereof), can scan possibilites that you would never conceive of. The "efficiency" of the GA is not that much of an issue, only the algorithm it comes up with. And it may come up with a much better solution than an entire team of designers would, even though the solution may not be "optimal" (if you can even determine what "optimal" is).

Other Comments by JeffW

9. Comment #28671 by ridelo on March 30, 2007 at 10:54 am

May I humbly ask what GA and GP is about? I think I've missed something.
After a little googling: Genetic algorithm and genetic programming. Is it that?

Other Comments by ridelo

10. Comment #28908 by Shuggy on March 31, 2007 at 2:58 pm

 avatarRidelo wrote:
on the one hand we are trying to eradicate all diseases that plague the developing countries and on the other hand there's a population explosion that maybe will lead to mass starvation.
I know the solution should be reducing disease, education (not religious!) and birth control. But is that realistic?

Yes. I think it's been established, that where the standard of living goes up, the birth rate goes down. There may be an evolutionary imperative "Where life is short, have more children in the hope that some will reach maturity" but I could well be wrong.

Other Comments by Shuggy

11. Comment #30587 by Tsjok45 on April 9, 2007 at 1:08 am

 avatar" ....I think it's been established, that where the standard of living goes up, the birth rate goes down.
There may be an evolutionary imperative
"Where life is short, have more children in the hope that some will reach maturity" ....


However ;
the longer individuals live on , the more they consume and spoil resources ...
Bringing the birth rates down (by raising the standards of living ) and intensifying the necessary consumption by the longer living and wealthier populations just raises as much(....if not explosively and untenable ) , the exploitation , exhaustion and pôllution of our biological live-sustaining platforms in the biosphere of this planet

What exactly is the optimum population this planet can support and provide with a descent life ...?


P.S.
Please excuse my horrible english , I'am not an english native speaker

Other Comments by Tsjok45

12. Comment #30601 by Tsjok45 on April 9, 2007 at 2:00 am

 avatarNS.(and random mutation) is maybe not the best or most optimal, or sole component of evolutionary processes , in a given ( stable ) situation but still IS the originator ( the blind designer ) and the most important
of the most sofisticated naturalisticly explaineable designs ( and the practical realisation of these )


In fact , many technical devices are inspired by - and modelled after -superb natural and evolutionary designed realisations and products arranged/organised in surviving and fertile operating self repairing and selfduplicating ( before they are worn out ) units ...

Bionics , biomemetics do it all the time ; it is in fact "reverse egineering " and a lot of
poor imitations of the most sofisticated solutions produced by "the blind watchmaker "during eons of time in very smal
stepwise fashion ...

Other Comments by Tsjok45

13. Comment #30625 by Nikki on April 9, 2007 at 4:16 am

The researchers constructed a transposable element vector containing both a toxin and an antidote. The "toxin" consists of two microRNAs that silence expression of a crucial development gene called myd88.


I really feel a need to comment on the technique employed in this research.
RNA interference (RNAi) is an incredibly elegant, simple and effective technique, for both analysing and, manipulating gene function via gene knock outs and rescues. A gene knocked out can be replaced with an alternative gene version, as detailed in this article The possibilities of utilising one of the cells own genetic regulatory mechanisms to manipulate gene expression are endless. This really is cutting edge at present. Plants also utilise the RNAi silencing mechanism extensively. RNAi is thought to have evolved to counter double stranded viruses/nucleic acids foreign to the cell. (if evolution does in fact exist and it wasn't all the Flying Spaghetti Monster's idea ;)
As a student of molecular biology, I am totally in awe of the two guys, Andrew Fire and Craig Mello who won a 2006 Nobel prize in Medicine for developing this technique. Ramen to both of them :)
For anyone interested:
RNA interference wins Nobel prize
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1754175.htm?health

ps Why does the spell check on here ask for American spelling?

Other Comments by Nikki
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE

Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
mail@the-scientist.com