Genetically engineered mosquitoes

[Jonti]

The Guardian has front page coverage this morning of a plan deliberately to change the nature of the mosquito that carries malaria. You can read it here.

There are many sorts of biting insects and mosquitoes, but only one can transmit malaria. Scientists have now worked out why that is. And they can genetically engineer the malaria mosquito so it can no longer transmit the disease.

It would be possible to breed large numbers of the genetically engineered organism and release it into the wild to eventually squeze out the old-fashioned, disease transmitting variety.

 

[Callie]

Then we will all die of killer mutant mosquitoes that will bite our eyes off and suck our brains out

 

[snorbury]

Genetically modified humans next,

for the army

 

[Giles]

Cool.

Apparently they might make the GM mozzies have glowing green or red eyes so they can be spotted in the wild.



Giles..

 

[Callie]

hmm mosquito alternative lighting source??!! cool! you could keep them in jars

 

[HeroineSheep]

Mosquitoes are responsible for more human deaths than any other species.

They can't stop biting me either.

 

[HeroineSheep]

Oops double post. It's that bad.

 

[gracious]

malaria is a bigger killer than aids...

 

[axon]

Sounds like a fantastic idea. Release the bees! (mosquitoes).

 

[axon]

After a quick search, (with no help from the bloody Guardian who were too fucking shite to give any details about the paper)

Mauro T. Marrelli, Chaoyang Li, Jason L. Rasgon, and Marcelo Jacobs-Lorena
Transgenic malaria-resistant mosquitoes have a fitness advantage when feeding on Plasmodium-infected blood
PNAS published March 19, 2007, 10.1073/pnas.0609809104

The introduction of genes that impair Plasmodium development into mosquito populations is a strategy being considered for malaria control. The effect of the transgene on mosquito fitness is a crucial parameter influencing the success of this approach. We have previously shown that anopheline mosquitoes expressing the SM1 peptide in the midgut lumen are impaired for transmission of Plasmodium berghei. Moreover, the transgenic mosquitoes had no noticeable fitness load compared with nontransgenic mosquitoes when fed on noninfected mice. Here we show that when fed on mice infected with P. berghei, these transgenic mosquitoes are more fit (higher fecundity and lower mortality) than sibling nontransgenic mosquitoes. In cage experiments, transgenic mosquitoes gradually replaced nontransgenics when mosquitoes were maintained on mice infected with gametocyte-producing parasites (strain ANKA 2.34) but not when maintained on mice infected with gametocyte-deficient parasites (strain ANKA 2.33). These findings suggest that when feeding on Plasmodium-infected blood, transgenic malaria-resistant mosquitoes have a selective advantage over nontransgenic mosquitoes. This fitness advantage has important implications for devising malaria control strategies by means of genetic modification of mosquitoes.

Sounds like a pretty good plan, use an engineered endogenous mosquito bacteria. Although I wonder how you would get the engineered bacteria into the environment?

 

[Callie]

bacteria?

 

[axon]

Ooops not bacteria, Plasmodium. Protozoa I think.

 

[bluestreak]

Although I wonder how you would get the engineered bacteria into the environment?

leave a window open?

 

[jayeola]

Why don't they fill the mutant mozies with prozac? You'd get a bite and feel good

 

[Yetman]

malaria is a bigger killer than aids...

Its not as big as the biggest killer ever, the mighty Chuck Norris

 

[Aldebaran]

It would be possible to breed large numbers of the genetically engineered organism and release it into the wild to eventually squeze out the old-fashioned, disease transmitting variety.

I heard about this research some time and how it was considered "the cure" for the spread of malaria.

Once again the human parasite in action in its typical criminally irresponsible selfish self-centered way.

salaam.

 

[Jonti]

I don't understand.

Are you saying we should let millions of people die of parasitical infection when it is within our power to prevent that?

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't understand.

Are you saying we should let millions of people die of parasitical infection when it is within our power to prevent that?

It has nothing to do with that. It there is a sickness, find a cure instead of resorting to genetically modify animal life that in fact has nothing to do with human life.

I see it as criminally irresponsible to modify an insect that has its role to play in Nature, or it wouldn't exist.
If you modify its genes, how can you know the effect of that on its own species, let alone on its predators?
There is no research done on that. Which is typical for the parasitical human behaviour.

The insect (and many others) devellopped a resistance to human invented insecticides thanks to the shortsided, parasitical human behaviour. Now the "solution" is to genetically modify the insect itself and let it loose on Nature withouth any other hindsight then "save" humans?
In my view no less then criminal in its utterly human arrogance.

salaam.

 

[Jonti]

You seem to favour the protozoan parasite over the human

There is an english saying, "The devil is in the detail." It describes a agreement or contract that superficially looks OK, but turns out to be a nightmare if one reads it closely. Like a EULA, for example

The modified mosquito is quite the contrary. It superficially looks devilish, but look into the detail, and very little is changed in the world, apart from the extinction in the wild of the malaria protozoa. We're well rid of it. The lives of millions will be spared, and the lives of many times that hugely improved.

It may make you feel uneasy, but take a good hard look at the impact of malaria and the scientific understanding involved in unravelling the mystery. If it's possible to tweak the mosquito in the way suggested, I'd say it's a moral imperative to do just that.

 

[Aldebaran]

You seem to favour the protozoan parasite over the human

Not exactly. I prefer Natural Nature over Nature Messed Up By Human Arogance.

There is an english saying, "The devil is in the detail." It describes a agreement or contract that superficially looks OK, but turns out to be a nightmare if one reads it closely. Like a EULA, for example

End user license agreement is much - and often- disputed as legal concept.

The modified mosquito is quite the contrary. It superficially looks devilish, but look into the detail, and very little is changed in the world, apart from the extinction in the wild of the malaria protozoa.

No. The effects of this manipulation I know of (but I suppose there are more) are:
a) females can't serve as first host for a set of species of the malaria parasite
b) these females reproduce much faster then those who can get infected
Hence the role of the infection is clear enough: it regulates the reproduction cyclus of the mosquito.

The first obvious side effect shall be a higher fertility rate = more of these type of mosquitos overall in a very short time following the release of this genetically disturbed insect in the wild.

Nobody looked at the effect of this on the biotopes. As far as I am informed nobody seems interested in it, nor in the other side effects that no doubt shall occur within a very short period of time.
The result:
a) a disturbed insect
b) a disturbed balance in the biotopes involved
c) those species of the malaria parasite that are thus blocked from reproducing adapt themselves to using an other host.

The lives of millions will be spared, and the lives of many times that hugely improved.

And then the majority can starve or live their lives in appaling misery, isn't it.

it's a moral imperative to do just that.

No. It is a moral imperative to make prevention and medication available to everyone in the world. For free if people can't pay for it.
It is also a moral imperative to spend the money used for this useless, dangerous genetical modification of an innocent little insect to the research on a cure.

salaam

 

[Jonti]

It must surely have taken years of hard work and study before you were able to see it as "ethical" to allow millions of people to die every year, quite unnecessarily.

 

[Dr Jon]

I bet they're also genetically engineering mosquitoes to carry germ warfare agents.


Always wear repellent!

 

[Aldebaran]

It must surely have taken years of hard work and study before you were able to see it as "ethical" to allow millions of people to die every year, quite unnecessarily.

You only demonstrate your wish to read my posts in a version blurred by your eagerness to post a pointless ad hominem.

I don't waste my time on such "style" of "debate".

salaam.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

c) those species of the malaria parasite that are thus blocked from reproducing adapt themselves to using an other host.

That's not how it works. If the malaria plasmodium could adapt it's already done so or doing so, it won't happen because there are no moquitos to infect, what might happen is that malaria does not die out completely and some substrain carried by elephants (or other random creature) becomes the main vector. That's revealing another vector, very, very different from creating one.

Better to treat the problem than treat the symptoms. Better to erradicate an illness than to let it simmer away as you would with better anti malarials and/or wider use of current ones.

 

[Aldebaran]

what might happen is that malaria does not die out completely and some substrain carried by elephants (or other random creature) becomes the main vector. That's revealing another vector, very, very different from creating one.

To my (incomplete) knowledge there are only 4 types of malaria that can use humans as their host after being passed on by an infected mosquito. Others use other warm blooded species.
I don't think that making the mosquito host unavailable for the "human" types is going to result in erradication.
I find it rather plausible that adaptation to an other first host shall occur, most probably an other type of mosquito which then on its turn is able to infect humans.

I am not informed on the issue but such a pattern looks like simple evolutionary logic to me.

salaam

 

[Bob_the_lost]

If it were capable of adapting to other creatures then why hasn't it done it yet? There's no way that it can decide to do it, in fact removing the malaria carrying mosquitos from the population should reduce the chances if anything.

You do have to admit that erradicating malaria would be a more effective manner of reducing the death toll than just treating the symptoms. This is one step in the right direction, if it's used.

 

[Aldebaran]

If it were capable of adapting to other creatures then why hasn't it done it yet?

In the light of its ongiong survival it is possible already doing it. It was able to develop immunity to several insecticides and in its parasitical stage inside humans immunity to several attempts to kill it off with medication.

You do have to admit that erradicating malaria would be a more effective manner of reducing the death toll than just treating the symptoms. This is one step in the right direction, if it's used.

I don't think it *can* be erradicated.
Trying to do it using genetical manipulation of a host is typical parasitical human behaviour.

I listed my objections and the reasons why in earlier posts.
This is definitely not a step in the "right direction" but a typical human behaviour that doesn't look at allround and long-term consequences.
Researchers (and funding!) should focus on development of a protective vaccin.
*That* would be not only a *step* in the right direction, it would provide for a solution.

salaam.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

In the light of its ongiong survival it is possible already doing it. It was able to develop immunity to several insecticides and in its parasitical stage inside humans immunity to several attempts to kill it off with medication.

This is the cause of my objection, you talk as if this collection of plasmodiums is acting with a will. That it's somehow guided or has intent. Looking back at evolution it can appear that way but that is most certainly not how it works.

As to your comments about developing imunity, this isn't just another anti malarial (as you advocate), this is an attack at the fundamental method of transmission. But even if it only lasts for a decade or so then how many millions will be saved?

It's also cheaper than any vaccine would be, let's say that there's 800 million people in africa and that it costs £1 a year to make and distribute the anti malarials per person. That's 800million a year, it's an ongoing cost and one that'll only rise as the population does the same.

You're misusing langauge again, there's nothing parasitical about humans modifying insect DNA.

I think you're wrong and your ethical objection would lead to the unnessisary deaths of millions.

 

[Aldebaran]

This is the cause of my objection, you talk as if this collection of plasmodiums is acting with a will.

Evolution doesn't have a "will" but I would think it has of course the inherent intent of survival (and through religious lenses it is of course possible to consider it as guided by the Creator).

As to your comments about developing imunity, this isn't just another anti malarial (as you advocate), this is an attack at the fundamental method of transmission.

Of course. I don't "advocate" anything else.

But even if it only lasts for a decade or so then how many millions will be saved?

And how much dammage is done to all the interdependend biological factors?

It's also cheaper than any vaccine would be

How much did it cost to come to the genetically modified insect? Would there be a vaccin if money and focus would have gone there instead?

let's say that there's 800 million people in africa and that it costs £1 a year to make and distribute the anti malarials per person. That's 800million a year, it's an ongoing cost and one that'll only rise as the population does the same.

So? If it costs money, then money should be made available. If we are talking "cost" of "saving people".
How much does it cost to throw one bomb on innocents? What is the prize of one rocket, rifle, bullet?

By the way: birth rates are already dramatically high in those regions. What about the millions "saved" from the malaria parasite adding to this. Are they "saved" to starve next (see one of my previous posts, asking the same)

You're misusing langauge again, there's nothing parasitical about humans modifying insect DNA.

There is no other word for it.
The Modern Human *is* a parasite.

I think you're wrong and your ethical objection would lead to the unnessisary deaths of millions.

It is not that I am able to stop arrogant lunatics from spreading modified insects onto biotopes they themselves don't live in, *without* consulting those who live there, let alone all the animals who live there (let alone the mosquitos themselves).

I'm not in the least convinced it shall save "millions", let alone I am convinced of a long-term effect.

On the other hand the simple methods to minimize the risk of malaria infection and the medicaiton/preventive medication are known and available.
The only thing that lacks is interest in and will to educate those at risk about these simple methods and to make both methods and medication available for them.

*That* is criminal unethical behaviour.

salaam.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The Modern Human *is* a parasite.

This is science and enviroment, not theology or philosophy. As such the meaning of words is very specific. There is no way a human can be described as a parasite with respect to malaria plasmoids or mosquitos.