Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Good use of genetic engineering

with 4 comments

As with many technologies, genetic engineering has bad uses (giving Monsanto monopoly control over our food crops and enabling every larger amounts of toxic pesticides and herbicides to be dumped into the environment—though of course from Monsanto’s point of view that’s a very good use, since it drives profits sharply upward) and good uses (creating foods with improved nutritional value, such as golden rice). The use Sabrina Richards describes in this article in The Scientist, on using genetic engineering to combat insect-borne diseases, is a good use:

Insects transmit some of the world’s most debilitating pathogens, including those responsible for malaria, dengue fever, Chagas disease, and sleeping sickness. So, naturally, the best way to fight these life-threatening diseases is at their source. Historically, malaria and dengue control strategies have incorporated insect population control using insecticides, but in recent years, researchers have turned to genetic engineering. By developing mosquitoes that don’t carry such pathogens, researchers hope to stop disease spread in its tracks.

After many years of hopeful development, such genetically modified mosquitoes might finally be close to proving their worth. Field tests of genetically-sterilized mosquitoes, targeted at dengue-carrying species, are demonstrating encouraging suppression of mosquito populations, while a variety of genetically manipulated malaria- or dengue-resistant mosquitoes are nearing their chance at tackling mosquito-borne infections outside the laboratory.

Culling insects

Researchers creating genetically modified (GM) insects generally have one of two goals. “I call them the ‘bite, no-bite’ strategies,” said Anthony James, a molecular geneticist at the University of California, Irvine. “Bite” strategies modify the insects in such a way to prevent disease transmission to humans, whereas “no-bite” strategies aim to reduce or eliminate insect populations altogether, by, for example, rendering them incapable of producing viable offspring.

A similar strategy, known as the sterile insect technique (SIT), has been used to successfully shrink populations of tsetse flies, which carry the parasite that causes sleeping sickness. In SIT, male insects are sterilized through irradiation, then released into the wild, where they breed with wild females, but produce no offspring, thereby cutting the size of the next generation. By regularly releasing enough sterile males, officials can drastically reduce the number of disease-carrying insects.

Using genetic engineering could streamline the SIT strategy, said geneticist Luke Alphey of the University of Oxford. In 2002, Alphey developed a method he called RIDL—release of insects carrying a dominant lethal. He modified Aedes aegytpi, the primary carriers of dengue fever, to express a lethal toxin as larvae—but only when not exposed to the antibiotic tetracycline. A diet of tetracycline-rich food allows GM insects to develop normally in the lab, then released into the wild where there is no tetracycline, and progeny inheriting the toxin gene will be killed before adulthood.

The same year, Alphey formed the company Oxitec to implement his modified mosquitoes in the field. To date, Oxitec has collaborated with governments in the Cayman Islands, Malaysia, and Brazil to begin releasing his mosquitoes in dengue-plagued areas. Just last year, they reported 80 percent mosquito suppression in the Caymans, and the Brazilian trial is ongoing.

Alphey and his colleagues at the University of Oxford and Imperial College London are also developing a similar tetracycline-based “no-bite” strategy that renders females flightless. And another collaboration between researchers at the California Institute of Technology and Imperial College London is developing GM males, called “Semele,” which carry a toxin that kills wild females upon mating. These techniques have yet to be tested in the field.

Disease-free mosquitoes

Once a malaria parasite enters an Anopheles mosquito, it takes 2 weeks to complete its life cycle in its host, travel to the mosquito’s salivary glands, and become infectious to humans. This provides a golden window of opportunity for researchers hoping to develop strategies to make mosquitoes more resistant to the Plasmodium parasite—the so-called “bite” strategies, explained Marcelo Ramalho-Ortigão, an entomologist at Kansas State.

Some researchers are developing mosquitoes to express anti-malaria peptides and enzymes that inhibit parasite development, for example. Others, including James, are targeting even earlier stages of infection,  engineering mosquitoes to express mouse-derived antibodies that block Plasmodium from ever invading a mosquito’s tissues.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) are trying a different tack—tweaking mosquitoes’ own immune systems. The few parasites resilient enough to evade a mosquito’s immune system are the ones that transmit disease, but JHU molecular biologist George Dimoupolos suspected that “if we boost [a mosquito’s] natural immune response, maybe we could achieve complete resistance.”

Dimopoulos’s group has already developed transgenic Anopheles mosquitoes that, in the lab, better resisted Plasmodium infection, with little cost to longevity and fecundity, and the researchers are currently working to devise similar strategies to combat dengue in A. aegypti mosquitoes as well. . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

21 January 2013 at 9:30 am

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I like the idea of ridding the world of disease, but it is not worth the risk of possibly destroying a link in the ecosystem and food chain. Every time we release a genetic engineered organism into the wild, it changes or takes over in a way that nobody expected. Almost no natural corn species are left unchanged now, salmon is showing warning signs of doing the same thing, and strains of bacteria and viruses that were not supposed to ever leave the lab have shown up in hospitals all over the world.


    21 January 2013 at 5:24 pm

  2. I have to say that I disagree with you. The mosquito that carries dengue fever is by no means a critical link in the ecosystem or food change. And in fact whether we tinker with the genetic make-up or not, the genes are in constant flux simply due to evolutionary pressures. The entire mode of the work is on-going change, and we are participants in it whether we think we are or not.

    I’m interested, though, in these strains of bacteria and viruses that have escaped the lab. Do you have a link? or is this just an internet rumor? (e.g., Snopes material.)

    To emphasize: things in the wild are constantly changing, whether we participate or not, and quite often the changes are in directions we do not expect. It is, not to put too fina a point on it, absurd to think that stopping genetic engineering will stop mutations and evolutionary surprises in the wild.

    Here are some links that provide information about genetic engineering to combat dengue fever:

    The Mosquito Solution

    Live Chat: Michael Specter on Mosquitoes and Disease

    Mosquitos and NIMBYism

    Read those for a better understanding.


    21 January 2013 at 5:36 pm

  3. I know that things change naturally i the wild. however Humans tend to make changes that end up going horribly wrong and the effects are usually devastating. I do not have those links because it just happened to be something I found a few years ago. My problem is that we are what we eat and since everything eats everything else and we are at the top, we shouldn’t mess up the things that are below us on the food chain.


    22 January 2013 at 4:23 pm

  4. Sorry. Too late. We’ve been breeding plants and animals in our food chain for thousands of years, with many changes resulting. It’s genetic engineering as the most basic sort.

    Sorry, without links I find my credulity strained. Humans also make changes that go right. Or do you think change should be avoided altogether? Status quo forever? Certainly there’s a large group implacably opposed to change. They are even a political party.


    22 January 2013 at 4:35 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.