John B Connolly1, John D Mumford2, Silke Fuchs3, Geoff Turner3, Camilla Beech4, Ace R North5, Austin Burt3. 1. Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK. john.connolly12@imperial.ac.uk. 2. Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, UK. 3. Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK. 4. Cambea Consulting Ltd, Reading, UK. 5. Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Population suppression gene drive has been proposed as a strategy for malaria vector control. A CRISPR-Cas9-based transgene homing at the doublesex locus (dsxFCRISPRh) has recently been shown to increase rapidly in frequency in, and suppress, caged laboratory populations of the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Here, problem formulation, an initial step in environmental risk assessment (ERA), was performed for simulated field releases of the dsxFCRISPRh transgene in West Africa. METHODS: Building on consultative workshops in Africa that previously identified relevant environmental and health protection goals for ERA of gene drive in malaria vector control, 8 potentially harmful effects from these simulated releases were identified. These were stratified into 46 plausible pathways describing the causal chain of events that would be required for potential harms to occur. Risk hypotheses to interrogate critical steps in each pathway, and an analysis plan involving experiments, modelling and literature review to test each of those risk hypotheses, were developed. RESULTS: Most potential harms involved increased human (n = 13) or animal (n = 13) disease transmission, emphasizing the importance to subsequent stages of ERA of data on vectorial capacity comparing transgenics to non-transgenics. Although some of the pathways (n = 14) were based on known anatomical alterations in dsxFCRISPRh homozygotes, many could also be applicable to field releases of a range of other transgenic strains of mosquito (n = 18). In addition to population suppression of target organisms being an accepted outcome for existing vector control programmes, these investigations also revealed that the efficacy of population suppression caused by the dsxFCRISPRh transgene should itself directly affect most pathways (n = 35). CONCLUSIONS: Modelling will play an essential role in subsequent stages of ERA by clarifying the dynamics of this relationship between population suppression and reduction in exposure to specific potential harms. This analysis represents a comprehensive identification of plausible pathways to potential harm using problem formulation for a specific gene drive transgene and organism, and a transparent communication tool that could inform future regulatory studies, guide subsequent stages of ERA, and stimulate further, broader engagement on the use of population suppression gene drive to control malaria vectors in West Africa.
BACKGROUND: Population suppression gene drive has been proposed as a strategy for malaria vector control. A CRISPR-Cas9-based transgene homing at the doublesex locus (dsxFCRISPRh) has recently been shown to increase rapidly in frequency in, and suppress, caged laboratory populations of the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Here, problem formulation, an initial step in environmental risk assessment (ERA), was performed for simulated field releases of the dsxFCRISPRh transgene in West Africa. METHODS: Building on consultative workshops in Africa that previously identified relevant environmental and health protection goals for ERA of gene drive in malaria vector control, 8 potentially harmful effects from these simulated releases were identified. These were stratified into 46 plausible pathways describing the causal chain of events that would be required for potential harms to occur. Risk hypotheses to interrogate critical steps in each pathway, and an analysis plan involving experiments, modelling and literature review to test each of those risk hypotheses, were developed. RESULTS: Most potential harms involved increased human (n = 13) or animal (n = 13) disease transmission, emphasizing the importance to subsequent stages of ERA of data on vectorial capacity comparing transgenics to non-transgenics. Although some of the pathways (n = 14) were based on known anatomical alterations in dsxFCRISPRh homozygotes, many could also be applicable to field releases of a range of other transgenic strains of mosquito (n = 18). In addition to population suppression of target organisms being an accepted outcome for existing vector control programmes, these investigations also revealed that the efficacy of population suppression caused by the dsxFCRISPRh transgene should itself directly affect most pathways (n = 35). CONCLUSIONS: Modelling will play an essential role in subsequent stages of ERA by clarifying the dynamics of this relationship between population suppression and reduction in exposure to specific potential harms. This analysis represents a comprehensive identification of plausible pathways to potential harm using problem formulation for a specific gene drive transgene and organism, and a transparent communication tool that could inform future regulatory studies, guide subsequent stages of ERA, and stimulate further, broader engagement on the use of population suppression gene drive to control malaria vectors in West Africa.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anopheles; Environmental risk assessment (ERA); Field release; Gene drive; Malaria; Pathways to harm; Population suppression gene drive; Problem formulation; Transgenic; Vector control
Authors: Abdoulaye Diabaté; Roch K Dabire; Eun H Kim; Ryan Dalton; Niama Millogo; Thierry Baldet; Frederic Simard; John E Gimnig; William A Hawley; Tovi Lehmann Journal: J Med Entomol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.278
Authors: Martin Jinek; Krzysztof Chylinski; Ines Fonfara; Michael Hauer; Jennifer A Doudna; Emmanuelle Charpentier Journal: Science Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Magellan Tchouakui; Mu-Chun Chiang; Cyrille Ndo; Carine K Kuicheu; Nathalie Amvongo-Adjia; Murielle J Wondji; Micareme Tchoupo; Michael O Kusimo; Jacob M Riveron; Charles S Wondji Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jeffrey D Wolt; Paul Keese; Alan Raybould; Julie W Fitzpatrick; Moisés Burachik; Alan Gray; Stephen S Olin; Joachim Schiemann; Mark Sears; Felicia Wu Journal: Transgenic Res Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 2.788
Authors: Anne L Wilson; Orin Courtenay; Louise A Kelly-Hope; Thomas W Scott; Willem Takken; Steve J Torr; Steve W Lindsay Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2020-01-16
Authors: Rebeca Carballar-Lejarazú; Christian Ogaugwu; Taylor Tushar; Adam Kelsey; Thai Binh Pham; Jazmin Murphy; Hanno Schmidt; Yoosook Lee; Gregory C Lanzaro; Anthony A James Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-08-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: John B Connolly; John D Mumford; Debora C M Glandorf; Sarah Hartley; Owen T Lewis; Sam Weiss Evans; Geoff Turner; Camilla Beech; Naima Sykes; Mamadou B Coulibaly; Jörg Romeis; John L Teem; Willy Tonui; Brian Lovett; Aditi Mankad; Abraham Mnzava; Silke Fuchs; Talya D Hackett; Wayne G Landis; John M Marshall; Fred Aboagye-Antwi Journal: Malar J Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 3.469