Advertisement

Impact of Technological Improvements on Traditional Control Strategies

  • Mark Q. Benedict
  • Alan S. Robinson
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 627)

Abstract

Since 1982 when transgenesis of Drosophila melanogaster splashed onto the scientific scene, 1,2 members of the vector biology community (e.g., refs. 3, 4) and international public health organization5 have recognized the potential utility of transgenesis to produce a modern incarnation of a historically puzzling observation: “anophelism without malaria:” The presence of anophelines but without disease. The corresponding concept among arbovirologists does not have a similarly appealing description, but the essence is the same: replacement of mosquito populations that are capable of transmitting disease with modified populations that are not. Visionary proponents argue that such a strategy is not only technically feasible, but that it leverages the power of biotechnology and a modern understanding of the means by which modified phenotypes can be spread through populations using transposable elements, cytoplasmic incompatibility, homing endonucleases, and meiotic drive. If theoretical possibilities are realized, such a vector population transformation would have minimal disruption to an ecosystem due to specific modification of only one vector/pathogen interaction and that without the use of drugs or environmentally harmful insecticides. Advocates cautiously emphasize that such applications will likely never be magic bullet solutions, and that they will be implemented only in integrated vector management programs. Nonetheless, realization of such a goal would be a remarkable demonstration of biological power for the benefit of human health.

Keywords

Sterile Insect Technique Cytoplasmic Incompatibility Homing Endonuclease Selfish Gene Wild Female 
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.
    Rubin GM, Spradling AC. Genetic transformation of Drosophila with transposable element vectors. Science 1982; 218:348–353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spradling AC, Rubin GM. Transposition of cloned P elements into Drosophila germ line chromosomes. Science 1982; 218:341–347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crampton J, Morris A, Lycett G et al. Transgenic mosquitoes — A future vector control strategy. Parasitol Today 1990; 6:31–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moreira LA, Ghosh AK, Abraham EG et al. Genetic transformation of mosquitoes: A quest for malaria control. Int J Parasiolt 2002; 32:1599–1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 6.
    Dyck VA, Hendrichs J, Robinson AS. The Sterile Insect Technique: Principles and Practice in Area-Wide Integrated Pest Management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Borkoveck AB. Insect Chemosterilants. New York: Wiley Interscience, 1966.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Lofgren CS, Dame DA, Breeland SG et al. Release of chemosterilized males for the control of Anopheles albimanus in El Salvador. III. Field methods and population control. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1974; 23:288–297.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 9.
    Curtis CF. Induced sterility in insects. Adv Reprod Physiol 1971; 5:119–165.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 10.
    Pal R, Lachance LE. The operational feasibility of genetic methods for control of insects of medical and veterinary importance. Ann Rev Entomol 1974; 19:269–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 11.
    Alphey LS, Andreasen M. Dominant lethality and insect population control. Molec Biochem Parasitol 2002; 121:173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 12.
    Thomas DD, Donnelly CA, Wood RJ et al. Insect population control using a dominant, repressible, lethal genetic system. Science 2000; 287:2474–2476.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 13.
    Heinrich JC, Scott MJ. A repressible female-specific lethal genetic system for making transgenic insect strains suitable for a sterile-release program. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000; 97(15):8229–8232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 14.
    Craig GB. Mosquitoes: Female monogamy induced by male accessory gland substance. Science 1967; 156:1499–1501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 15.
    Klowden MJ. Sexual receptivity in Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes: Absence of control by male accessory gland substances. J Insect Physiol 2001; 47:661–666.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 16.
    Perotti ME, Cattaneo F, Pasini ME et al. Male sterile mutant casanova gives clues to mechanisms of sperm-egg interactions in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Reprod Dev 2001; 60:248–259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 17.
    Fisher K, Caceres C. A filter rearing system for mass reared genetic sexing strains of Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Penang, Malaysia: Paper presented at: International Conference on Area-wide Control of Insect Pests and of the Fifth International Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Importance, 2002, (1998).Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    Reisen WK, Baker RH, Sakai F et al. Anopheles culicifacies Giles: Mating behavior and competitiveness in nature of chemosterilized males carrying a genetic sexing system. Ann Entomol Soc Am 1981; 74:395–401.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Kaiser PE, Seawright JA, Dame DA et al. Development of a genetic sexing system for Anopheles albimanus. J Econ Entomol 1978; 71:766–771.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Lines JD, Curtis CF. Genetic sexing systems in Anopheles arabiensis Patton (Diptera: Culicidae). J Econ Entomol 1985; 78:848–851.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 21.
    Baker RH, Sakai RK, Raana K. Genetic sexing for a mosquito sterile-male release. J Heredity 1981; 72:216–218.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Kaiser PE, Bailey DL, Lowe RE et al. Mating competitiveness of chemo sterilized males of a genetic sexing strain of Anopheles albimanus in laboratory and field tests. Mosquito News 1979; 39:768–775.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Markaki M, Craig RK, Savakis C. Insect population control using female specific pro-drug activation. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 2004; 34:131–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 24.
    Zakharkin SO, Headley VV, Kumar NK et al. Female-specific expression of a hexamerin gene in larvae of an autogenous mosquito. Eur J Biochem 2001; 268:5713–5722.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 25.
    McCray EM. A mechanical device for the rapid sexing of Aedes aegypti pupae. J Econ Entomol 1961; 54:819.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    Bellini R, Calvitti A, Carrier M, et al. Use of the sterile insect technque against Aedes albopictus in Italy: first results of a pilot trial. In: Vreysen MJB, Robinson AS, Hendrichs J, eds. Area-wide Control of Insect Pests: From Research to Field Implementation. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    Robinson AS. Genetic sexing strains in medfly, Ceratitis capitata, sterile insect technique programmes. Genetica 2002; 116:5–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 28.
    Dowell FE, Parker AG, Benedict MQ et al. Sex separation of tsetse fly pupae using near-infrared spectroscopy. Bull Entomol Res 2005; 95:249–257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 29.
    Catteruccia F, Benton JP, Crisanti A. An Anopheles transgenic sexing strain for vector control. Nat Biotechnol 2005; 23:1414–1417.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 30.
    Knols BG, Hood-Nowotny RC, Bossin H, et al. GM sterile mosquitoes—a cautionary note. Nat Biotechnol 2006; 24: 1067–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 31.
    Pane A, Salvemini M, Delli Bovi P et al. The transformer gene in Ceratitis capitata provides a genetic basis for selecting and remembering the sexual fate. Development 2002; 129:3715–3725.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 32.
    Alphey LS. Reengineering the sterile insect technique. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 2002; 32:1243–1247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 33.
    Burt A. Site-specific selfish genes as tools for the control and genetic engineering of natural populations. Proc Biol Sci 2003; 270:921–928.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 34.
    Gould F, Magori K, Huang Y. Genetic strategies for controlling mosquito-borne diseases. Am Scientist 2006; 94:238–246.Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    Schliekelman P, Gould F. Pest control by the release of insects carrying a female-killing allele on multiple loci. J Econ Entomol 2000; 93:1566–1579.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 37.
    Vreysen MJ, Saleh KM, Ali MY et al. Glossina austeni (Diptera: Glossinidae) eradicated on the island of Unguja, Zanzibar, using the sterile insect technique. J Econ Entomol 2000; 93:123–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 38.
    Van Der Vloedt AMV, Barnor HF. Effects of ionizing radiation on tsetse biology. Their relevance to entomological monitoring during integrated control programs using the sterile insect technique. Insect Sci Applied 1984; 5:431–437.Google Scholar
  37. 39.
    Van Den Bossche P, Akoda K, Djagmah B et al. Effect of isometamidium chloride treatment on susceptibility of tsetse flies (Diptera: Glossinidae) to trypanosome infections. J Med Entomol 2006; 43:564–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 40.
    Aksoy S, Maudlin I, Dale C et al. Prospects for control of African trypanosomiasis by tsetse vector manipulation. Trends Parasitol 2001; 17:29–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 41.
    Handler AM, Zimowska GJ, Horn C. Post-integration stabilization of a transposon vector by terminal sequence deletion in Drosophila melanogaster. Nat Biotechnol 2004; 22:1150–1154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 42.
    Dafa’alla TH, Condon GC, Condon KC et al. Transposon-free insertions for insect genetic engineering. Nat Biotechnol 2006; 24:820–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 43.
    Holt RA, Subramanian GM, Halpern A et al. The genome sequence of the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Science 2002; 298:129–149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 44.
    Nimmo DD, Alphey L, Meredith JM et al. High efficiency site-specific genetic engineering of the mosquito genome. Insect Mol Biol 2006; 15:129–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 45.
    Chen H, Fillinger U, Yan G. Oviposition behavior of female Anopheles gambiae in Western Kenya inferred from microsatellite markers. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2006; 75:246–250.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 46.
    Apostol BL, Black WC, Reiter P et al. Use of randomly amplified polymorphic dna amplified by polymerase chain reaction markers to estimate the number of Aedes aegypti families at oviposition sites in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1994; 5:89–97.Google Scholar
  45. 47.
    Helinski ME, Hood-Nowotny R, Mayr L, et al. Stable isotope-mass spectrometric determination of semen transfer in malaria mosquitoes. J Exp Biol 2007; 210:1266–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 48.
    Dame DA. P-32-labeled semen for mosquito mating studies. J Econ Entomol 1964; 57:669–672.Google Scholar
  47. 49.
    Service MM. Mosquito Ecology: Field Sampling Methods. 1st ed. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1993.Google Scholar
  48. 50.
    Spielman A. Why entomological antimalaria research should not focus on transgenic mosquitoes. Parasitol Today 1994; 10:374–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Entomology BranchNCZVED/CCIDAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Agency’s LaboratoriesJoint FAO/IAEA Programme of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture Insect Pest Control Sub-Programme International Atomic Energy AgencySeibersdorfAustria

Personalised recommendations