Advertisement

Using Predictive Models to Optimize Wolbachia-Based Strategies for Vector-Borne Disease Control

  • Jason L. Rasgon
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 627)

Abstract

The development of resistance to insecticides by vector arthropods, the evolution of resistance to chemotherapeutic agents by parasites and the lack of clinical cures or vaccines for many diseases has stimulated a high-profile effort to develop vector-borne disease control strategies based on release of genetically-modified mosquitoes. Because transgenic insects are likely to be less fit than their wild-type counterparts, transgenic traits must be actively driven into the population in spite of fitness costs (population replacement). Wolbachia are maternally-inherited symbionts that are associated with numerous alterations in host reproductive biology. By a variety of mechanisms, Wolbachia- infected females have a reproductive advantage relative to uninfected females, allowing infection to spread rapidly through host populations to high frequency in spite of fitness costs. In theory, Wolbachia can be exploited to drive cosdy transgenes into vector populations for disease control. Before conducting an actual release, it is important to be able to predict how released Wolbachia infections are expected to behave. While inferences can be made by observing the dynamics of naturally-occurring infections, there is no ideal way to empirically test the efficacy of a Wolbachia gene driver under field conditions prior to the first actual release. Mathematical models are a powerful way to predict the outcomes of transgenic insect releases and allow one to identify knowledge gaps, identify parameters that are critical to the success of releases, conduct risk-assessment analysis and investigate worst-case scenarios, and ultimately identify the most effective, most logistically feasible control method or methods. In this chapter, I review current and historical advances in applied models of Wolbachia spread, specifically within the context of applied population replacement strategies for vector-borne disease control.

Keywords

Fitness Cost Vectorial Capacity Cytoplasmic Incompatibility Wolbachia Infection Extrinsic Incubation Period 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hemingway J, Ranson H. Insecticide resistance in insect vectors of human disease. Annu Rev Entomol 2000; 45:371–391.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shiff CJ. Can roll back malaria achieve its goal? A challenge. Parasitol Today 2000; 16:271–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Talisuna AO, Bioland P, Alessandro U. History, dynamics, and public health importance of malaria parasite resistance. Clin Microbiol 2004; 17:235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Townson H, Nathan MB, Zaim M et al. Exploiting the potential of vector control for disease prevention. Bull World Health Organ 2005; 83:942–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beaty BJ. Genetic manipulation of vectors: A potential novel approach for control of vector-borne diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000; 97:10295–10297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    James AA. Gene drive systems in mosquitoes: Rules of the road. Trends Parasitol 2005; 21:64–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turelli M, Hoffmann AA. Microbe-induced cytoplasmic incompatibility as a mechanism for introducing transgenes into arthropod populations. Insect Mol Biol 1999; 8:243–255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turelli M, Hoffmann AA. Cytoplasmic incompatibility in Drosophila simulans: Dynamics and parameter estimates from natural populations. Genetics 1995; 140:1319–1338.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gould F, Schliekelman P. Population genetics of autocidal control and strain replacement. Annu Rev Entomol 2004; 49:193–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stouthamer R, Breeuwer JA, Hurst GD. Wolbachia pipientis: Microbial manipulator of arthropod reproduction. Annu Rev Microbiol 1999; 5371–102.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoffmann AA, Clancy DJ, Merton E. Cytoplasmic incompatibility in Australian populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 1994; 136:993–999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoffmann AA, Hercus M, Dagher H. Population dynamics of the Wolbachia infection causing cytoplasmic incompatibility in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 1998; 148:221–231.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rasgon JL, Scott TW. Wolbachia and cytoplasmic incompatibility in the California Culex pipiens mosquito species complex: Parameter estimates and infection dynamics in natural populations. Genetics 2003; 165:2029–2038.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rasgon JL, Scott TW. An initial survey for Wolbachia (Rickettsiales: Rickettsiaceae) infections in selected California mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 2004; 41:255–257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cornel A, McAbee R, Rasgon J et al. Differences in extent of genetic introgression between sympatric Cx. pipiens and Cx. quinquefasciatus in California and South Africa. J Med Entomol 2003; 40:125–132.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rasgon JL, Scott TW. Impact of population age structure on Wolbachia transgene driver efficacy: Ecologically complex factors and release of genetically-modified mosquitoes. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 2004; 34:707–713.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garrett-Jones C. The human blood index of malaria vectors in relations to epidemiological assessment. Bull World Health Organ 1964; 30:241–261.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Powers AM, Kamrud KI, Olson KE et al. Molecularly engineered resistance to California serogroup virus replication in mosquito cells and mosquitoes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93:4187–4191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Higgs S, Rayner JO, Olson KE et al. Engineered resistance in insect vectors of human disease. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1998; 58:663–670.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ito J, Ghosh A, Moreira LA et al. Transgenic anopheline mosquitoes impaired in transmission of a malaria parasite. Nature 2002; 417:452–455.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boete C, Koella JC. A theoretical approach to predicting the success of genetic manipulation of malaria mosquitoes in malaria control. Malar J 2002; 1:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miller BR, Monath TP, Tabachnick WJ et al. Epidemic yellow fever caused by an incompetent mosquito vector. Trop Med Parasitol 1989; 40:396–399.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Walker ED, Torres EP, Villanueva RT. Components of the vectorial capacity of Aedes poicilius for Wuchereria bancrofti in Sorsogon province, Philippines. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 1998; 92:603–614.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mellor PS, Boorman J, Baylis M. Culicoides biting midges: Their role as arbovirus vectors. Annu Rev Entomol 2000; 45:307–340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Min KT, Benzer S. Wolbachia, normally a symbiont of Drosophila, can be virulent, causing degeneration and early death. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997; 94:10792–10796.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sinkins SP, O’Neill SL. Wolbachia as a vehicle to modify insect populations. In: Handler AM, James AA, eds. Insect Transgenesis: Methods and Applications. New York: CRC Press, 2000:271–287.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rasgon JL, Styer LM, Scott TW. Wolbachia-induced mortality as a mechanism to modulate pathogen transmission by vector arthropods. J Med Entomol 2003; 40:125–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brownstein JS, Hett E, O’Neill SL. The potential of virulent Wolbachia to modulate disease transmission by insects. J Invertebr Pathol 2003; 84:24–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fine PEM. On the dynamics of symbiote-dependent cytoplasmic incompatibility in Culicine mosquitoes. J Invertebr Pathol 1978; 30:10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sinkins SP. Wolbachia and cytoplasmic incompatibility in mosquitoes. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 2004; 34:723–729.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sinkins SP, Curtis CF, O’Neill SL. The potential application of inherited symbiont systems to pest control. In: O’Neill SL, Hoffmann AA, Werren JH, eds. Influential Passengers. Oxford: Oxforn University Press, 1997:155–175.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sinkins SP, Godfray HC. Use of Wolbachia to drive nuclear transgenes through insect populations. Proc Biol Sci 2004; 271:1421–1426.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sinkins SP, Walker T, Lynd AR et al. Wolbachia variability and host effects on crossing type in Culex mosquitoes. Nature 2005; 436:257–260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Poinsot D, Bourtzis K, Markakis G et al. Wolbachia transfer from Drosophila melanogaster into D. simulans: Host effect and cytoplasmic incompatibility relationships. Genetics 1998; 150:227–237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bordenstein SR, Werren JH. Effects of A and B Wolbachia and host genotype on interspecies cytoplasmic incompatibility in Nasonia. Genetics 1998; 148:1833–1844.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sasaki T, Ishikawa I. Transinfection of Wolbachia in the mediterranean flour moth, Ephestia kuehniella, by embryonic microinjection. Heredity 2000; 85:130–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sakamoto H, Ishikawa Y, Sasaki T et al. Transinfection reveals the crucial importance of Wolbachia genotypes in determining the type of reproductive alteration in the host. Genet Res 2005; 85:205–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason L. Rasgon
    • 1
  1. 1.The W. Harry Feinstone Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Bloomberg School of Public HealthJohns Hopkins University, and The Johns Hopkins Malaria Research InstituteBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations