38
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Pathway to Deployment of Gene Drive Mosquitoes as a Potential Biocontrol Tool for Elimination of Malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa: Recommendations of a Scientific Working Group†

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract.

          Gene drive technology offers the promise for a high-impact, cost-effective, and durable method to control malaria transmission that would make a significant contribution to elimination. Gene drive systems, such as those based on clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR associated protein, have the potential to spread beneficial traits through interbreeding populations of malaria mosquitoes. However, the characteristics of this technology have raised concerns that necessitate careful consideration of the product development pathway. A multidisciplinary working group considered the implications of low-threshold gene drive systems on the development pathway described in the World Health Organization Guidance Framework for testing genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes, focusing on reduction of malaria transmission by Anopheles gambiae s.l. mosquitoes in Africa as a case study. The group developed recommendations for the safe and ethical testing of gene drive mosquitoes, drawing on prior experience with other vector control tools, GM organisms, and biocontrol agents. These recommendations are organized according to a testing plan that seeks to maximize safety by incrementally increasing the degree of human and environmental exposure to the investigational product. As with biocontrol agents, emphasis is placed on safety evaluation at the end of physically confined laboratory testing as a major decision point for whether to enter field testing. Progression through the testing pathway is based on fulfillment of safety and efficacy criteria, and is subject to regulatory and ethical approvals, as well as social acceptance. The working group identified several resources that were considered important to support responsible field testing of gene drive mosquitoes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The dominant Anopheles vectors of human malaria in Africa, Europe and the Middle East: occurrence data, distribution maps and bionomic précis

          Background This is the second in a series of three articles documenting the geographical distribution of 41 dominant vector species (DVS) of human malaria. The first paper addressed the DVS of the Americas and the third will consider those of the Asian Pacific Region. Here, the DVS of Africa, Europe and the Middle East are discussed. The continent of Africa experiences the bulk of the global malaria burden due in part to the presence of the An. gambiae complex. Anopheles gambiae is one of four DVS within the An. gambiae complex, the others being An. arabiensis and the coastal An. merus and An. melas. There are a further three, highly anthropophilic DVS in Africa, An. funestus, An. moucheti and An. nili. Conversely, across Europe and the Middle East, malaria transmission is low and frequently absent, despite the presence of six DVS. To help control malaria in Africa and the Middle East, or to identify the risk of its re-emergence in Europe, the contemporary distribution and bionomics of the relevant DVS are needed. Results A contemporary database of occurrence data, compiled from the formal literature and other relevant resources, resulted in the collation of information for seven DVS from 44 countries in Africa containing 4234 geo-referenced, independent sites. In Europe and the Middle East, six DVS were identified from 2784 geo-referenced sites across 49 countries. These occurrence data were combined with expert opinion ranges and a suite of environmental and climatic variables of relevance to anopheline ecology to produce predictive distribution maps using the Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) method. Conclusions The predicted geographic extent for the following DVS (or species/suspected species complex*) is provided for Africa: Anopheles (Cellia) arabiensis, An. (Cel.) funestus*, An. (Cel.) gambiae, An. (Cel.) melas, An. (Cel.) merus, An. (Cel.) moucheti and An. (Cel.) nili*, and in the European and Middle Eastern Region: An. (Anopheles) atroparvus, An. (Ano.) labranchiae, An. (Ano.) messeae, An. (Ano.) sacharovi, An. (Cel.) sergentii and An. (Cel.) superpictus*. These maps are presented alongside a bionomics summary for each species relevant to its control.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mosquito genomics. Extensive introgression in a malaria vector species complex revealed by phylogenomics.

            Introgressive hybridization is now recognized as a widespread phenomenon, but its role in evolution remains contested. Here, we use newly available reference genome assemblies to investigate phylogenetic relationships and introgression in a medically important group of Afrotropical mosquito sibling species. We have identified the correct species branching order to resolve a contentious phylogeny and show that lineages leading to the principal vectors of human malaria were among the first to split. Pervasive autosomal introgression between these malaria vectors means that only a small fraction of the genome, mainly on the X chromosome, has not crossed species boundaries. Our results suggest that traits enhancing vectorial capacity may be gained through interspecific gene flow, including between nonsister species.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Averting a malaria disaster: will insecticide resistance derail malaria control?

              World Malaria Day 2015 highlighted the progress made in the development of new methods of prevention (vaccines and insecticides) and treatment (single dose drugs) of the disease. However, increasing drug and insecticide resistance threatens the successes made with existing methods. Insecticide resistance has decreased the efficacy of the most commonly used insecticide class of pyrethroids. This decreased efficacy has increased mosquito survival, which is a prelude to rising incidence of malaria and fatalities. Despite intensive research efforts, new insecticides will not reach the market for at least 5 years. Elimination of malaria is not possible without effective mosquito control. Therefore, to combat the threat of resistance, key stakeholders need to rapidly embrace a multifaceted approach including a reduction in the cost of bringing new resistance management methods to market and the streamlining of associated development, policy, and implementation pathways to counter this looming public health catastrophe.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Am J Trop Med Hyg
                Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg
                tpmd
                tropmed
                The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
                The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
                0002-9637
                1476-1645
                June 2018
                07 June 2018
                : 98
                : 6 Suppl
                : 1-49
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland;
                [2 ]University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana;
                [3 ]Institute for Disease Modeling, Bellevue, Washington;
                [4 ]McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;
                [5 ]Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom;
                [6 ]London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom;
                [7 ]Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom;
                [8 ]Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya;
                [9 ]Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania;
                [10 ]University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland;
                [11 ]University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa;
                [12 ]Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, Saint Louis, Missouri;
                [13 ]New Partnership for Africa’s Development, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso;
                [14 ]Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa;
                [15 ]University of Sciences, Techniques and Technologies of Bamako, Bamako, Mali
                Author notes
                [* ]Address correspondence to Stephanie James, Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, 11400 Rockville Pike, Suite 600, North Bethesda, MD 20852. E-mail: sjames@ 123456fnih.org

                Financial support: Authors were asked to self-declare their connection to gene drive research during the time period in which this manuscript was developed (August 2016 to January 2018). H. C. J. G. was directly involved in conduct of gene drive research. S. J., M. G., and K. H. T. were employed by an organization providing financial support for gene drive research. All other authors confirmed they were not involved in either research on or funding of gene drive research during this period. This effort was supported by a grant from the Open Philanthropy Project.

                Authors’ addresses: Stephanie James, Michael Gottlieb, and Karen H. Tountas, Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, E-mails: sjames@ 123456fnih.org , mgottlieb@ 123456fnih.org , and ktountas@ 123456fnih.org . Frank H. Collins, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, E-mail: frank@ 123456nd.edu . Philip A. Welkhoff, Institute for Disease Modeling, Bellevue, WA, E-mail: peckhoff@ 123456intven.com . Claudia Emerson, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, E-mail: emerson@ 123456mcmaster.ca . H. Charles J. Godfray, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom, E-mail: charles.godfray@ 123456zoo.ox.ac.uk . Brian Greenwood, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom, E-mail: brian.greenwood@ 123456lshtm.ac.uk . Steve W. Lindsay, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom, E-mail: s.w.lindsay@ 123456durham.ac.uk . Charles M. Mbogo, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya, E-mail: cmbogo@ 123456kemri-wellcome.org . Fredros O. Okumu, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, and University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, E-mail: fredros@ 123456ihi.or.tz . Hector Quemada, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, Saint Louis, MO, E-mail: hquemada@ 123456danforthcenter.org . Moussa Savadogo, New Partnership for Africa’s Development, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, E-mail: moussa.savadogo@ 123456nepadbiosafety.net . Jerome A. Singh, Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. E-mail: singhj9@ 123456ukzn.ac.za . Yeya T. Touré, University of Sciences, Techniques and Technologies of Bamako, Bamako, Mali, E-mail: ytoure76@ 123456gmail.com .

                Article
                tpmd180083
                10.4269/ajtmh.18-0083
                5993454
                29882508
                9ce59f32-88f6-4538-bb50-bc3b21cbdc4a
                © The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 30 January 2018
                : 04 April 2018
                Page count
                Pages: 49
                Categories
                Articles

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                Infectious disease & Microbiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article