Cargando…

Invasion and migration of spatially self‐limiting gene drives: A comparative analysis

Recent advances in research on gene drives have produced genetic constructs that could theoretically spread a desired gene (payload) into all populations of a species, with a single release in one place. This attribute has advantages, but also comes with risks and ethical concerns. There has been a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dhole, Sumit, Vella, Michael R., Lloyd, Alun L., Gould, Fred
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5978947/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29875820
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eva.12583
_version_ 1783327589442519040
author Dhole, Sumit
Vella, Michael R.
Lloyd, Alun L.
Gould, Fred
author_facet Dhole, Sumit
Vella, Michael R.
Lloyd, Alun L.
Gould, Fred
author_sort Dhole, Sumit
collection PubMed
description Recent advances in research on gene drives have produced genetic constructs that could theoretically spread a desired gene (payload) into all populations of a species, with a single release in one place. This attribute has advantages, but also comes with risks and ethical concerns. There has been a call for research on gene drive systems that are spatially and/or temporally self‐limiting. Here, we use a population genetics model to compare the expected characteristics of three spatially self‐limiting gene drive systems: one‐locus underdominance, two‐locus underdominance and daisy‐chain drives. We find large differences between these gene drives in the minimum release size required for successfully driving a payload into a population. The daisy‐chain system is the most efficient, requiring the smallest release, followed by the two‐locus underdominance system, and then the one‐locus underdominance system. However, when the target population exchanges migrants with a nontarget population, the gene drives requiring smaller releases suffer from higher risks of unintended spread. For payloads that incur relatively low fitness costs (up to 30%), a simple daisy‐chain drive is practically incapable of remaining localized, even with migration rates as low as 0.5% per generation. The two‐locus underdominance system can achieve localized spread under a broader range of migration rates and of payload fitness costs, while the one‐locus underdominance system largely remains localized. We also find differences in the extent of population alteration and in the permanence of the alteration achieved by the three gene drives. The two‐locus underdominance system does not always spread the payload to fixation, even after successful drive, while the daisy‐chain system can, for a small set of parameter values, achieve a temporally limited spread of the payload. These differences could affect the suitability of each gene drive for specific applications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5978947
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59789472018-06-06 Invasion and migration of spatially self‐limiting gene drives: A comparative analysis Dhole, Sumit Vella, Michael R. Lloyd, Alun L. Gould, Fred Evol Appl Original Articles Recent advances in research on gene drives have produced genetic constructs that could theoretically spread a desired gene (payload) into all populations of a species, with a single release in one place. This attribute has advantages, but also comes with risks and ethical concerns. There has been a call for research on gene drive systems that are spatially and/or temporally self‐limiting. Here, we use a population genetics model to compare the expected characteristics of three spatially self‐limiting gene drive systems: one‐locus underdominance, two‐locus underdominance and daisy‐chain drives. We find large differences between these gene drives in the minimum release size required for successfully driving a payload into a population. The daisy‐chain system is the most efficient, requiring the smallest release, followed by the two‐locus underdominance system, and then the one‐locus underdominance system. However, when the target population exchanges migrants with a nontarget population, the gene drives requiring smaller releases suffer from higher risks of unintended spread. For payloads that incur relatively low fitness costs (up to 30%), a simple daisy‐chain drive is practically incapable of remaining localized, even with migration rates as low as 0.5% per generation. The two‐locus underdominance system can achieve localized spread under a broader range of migration rates and of payload fitness costs, while the one‐locus underdominance system largely remains localized. We also find differences in the extent of population alteration and in the permanence of the alteration achieved by the three gene drives. The two‐locus underdominance system does not always spread the payload to fixation, even after successful drive, while the daisy‐chain system can, for a small set of parameter values, achieve a temporally limited spread of the payload. These differences could affect the suitability of each gene drive for specific applications. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-01-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5978947/ /pubmed/29875820 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eva.12583 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Evolutionary Applications published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Dhole, Sumit
Vella, Michael R.
Lloyd, Alun L.
Gould, Fred
Invasion and migration of spatially self‐limiting gene drives: A comparative analysis
title Invasion and migration of spatially self‐limiting gene drives: A comparative analysis
title_full Invasion and migration of spatially self‐limiting gene drives: A comparative analysis
title_fullStr Invasion and migration of spatially self‐limiting gene drives: A comparative analysis
title_full_unstemmed Invasion and migration of spatially self‐limiting gene drives: A comparative analysis
title_short Invasion and migration of spatially self‐limiting gene drives: A comparative analysis
title_sort invasion and migration of spatially self‐limiting gene drives: a comparative analysis
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5978947/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29875820
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eva.12583
work_keys_str_mv AT dholesumit invasionandmigrationofspatiallyselflimitinggenedrivesacomparativeanalysis
AT vellamichaelr invasionandmigrationofspatiallyselflimitinggenedrivesacomparativeanalysis
AT lloydalunl invasionandmigrationofspatiallyselflimitinggenedrivesacomparativeanalysis
AT gouldfred invasionandmigrationofspatiallyselflimitinggenedrivesacomparativeanalysis