Content uploaded by Gordana Rašić
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gordana Rašić on Jan 06, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Monitoring Needs for Gene Drive
Mosquito Projects: Lessons From
Vector Control Field Trials and
Invasive Species
Gordana Rašić
1
, Neil F. Lobo
2
, Eileen H. Jeffrey Gutiérrez
3
, Héctor M. Sánchez C.
3
and
John M. Marshall
3
,
4
*
1
Mosquito Genomics, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia,
2
Department of Biological Sciences,
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, United States,
3
Divisions of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health,
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States,
4
Innovative Genomics Institute, University of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA, United States
As gene drive mosquito projects advance from contained laboratory testing to semi-field
testing and small-scale field trials, there is a need to assess monitoring requirements to: i)
assist with the effective introduction of the gene drive system at field sites, and ii) detect
unintended spread of gene drive mosquitoes beyond trial sites, or resistance mechanisms
and non-functional effector genes that spread within trial and intervention sites. This is of
particular importance for non-localized gene drive projects, as the potential scale of
intervention means that monitoring is expected to be more costly than research,
development and deployment. Regarding monitoring needs for population replacement
systems, lessons may be learned from experiences with Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes,
and for population suppression systems, from experiences with releases of genetically
sterile male mosquitoes. For population suppression systems, assessing monitoring
requirements for tracking population size and detecting rare resistant alleles are
priorities, while for population replacement systems, allele frequencies must be
tracked, and pressing concerns include detection of gene drive alleles with non-
functional effector genes, and resistance of pathogens to functional effector genes. For
spread to unintended areas, open questions relate to the optimal density and placement of
traps and frequency of sampling in order to detect gene drive alleles, drive-resistant alleles
or non-functional effector genes while they can still be effectively managed. Invasive
species management programs face similar questions, and lessons may be learned from
these experiences. We explore these monitoring needs for gene drive mosquito projects
progressing through the phases of pre-release, release and post-release.
Keywords: population replacement, population suppression, Wolbachia, RIDL, invasive species, resistant alleles,
gene drive, monitoring
Edited by:
Atashi Sharma,
Virginia Tech, United States
Reviewed by:
Diego Alonso,
São Paulo State University, Brazil
Daniel Powell,
University of the Sunshine Coast,
Australia
*Correspondence:
John M. Marshall
john.marshall@berkeley.edu
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Evolutionary and Population Genetics,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Genetics
Received: 20 September 2021
Accepted: 06 December 2021
Published: 06 January 2022
Citation:
RašićG, Lobo NF,
Jeffrey Gutiérrez EH, Sánchez C. HM
and Marshall JM (2022) Monitoring
Needs for Gene Drive Mosquito
Projects: Lessons From Vector Control
Field Trials and Invasive Species.
Front. Genet. 12:780327.
doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.780327
Frontiers in Genetics | www.frontiersin.org January 2022 | Volume 12 | Article 7803271
PERSPECTIVE
published: 06 January 2022
doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.780327
INTRODUCTION
As the impact of currently-available tools to control malaria stagnates,
gene drive mosquitoes have been described as a promising and
potentially transformative technology. Exciting progress has been
made in Anopheles vector species towards two general classes of
strategies: i) population replacement, whereby inheritance is biased in
favor of an allele that confers refractoriness to pathogen transmission
(Adolfiet al., 2020;Carballar-Lejarazú et al., 2020), and ii) population
suppression, whereby vector populations are suppressed by biassing
inheritance in favor of an allele that induces a severe fitnesscostorsex
bias (Hammond et al., 2016;Kyrou et al., 2018). A key strength and
challenge facing this technology is its potential scale of impact, and as
products advance from contained laboratory testing to semi-field
testing and small-scale field trials, monitoring programs must be
envisioned that align with the scale of intervention (James et al., 2018).
While Anopheles gene drive projects pose challenges,
precedents exist from monitoring of biological and self-
limiting genetic control trials, albeit in Aedes mosquitoes
(Hoffmann et al., 2011;Carvalho et al., 2015;Utarini et al.,
2021). Field trials of Wolbachia-infected Aedes aegypti in
Queensland, Australia tracked the frequency of Wolbachia
infection in the mosquito population over time, including
heterogeneity in space and spread to areas neighboring the
trial site (Hoffmann et al., 2011;Schmidt et al., 2017), and
more recently, a randomized control trial in Yogyakarta,
Indonesia, monitored dengue incidence in the human
population (Utarini et al., 2021). Field trials of releases of Ae.
aegypti carrying a dominant lethal gene (RIDL) intended for
population suppression tracked mosquito population density
over time with a high degree of spatial resolution (Carvalho
et al., 2015). On a wider scale, precedents also exist for invasive
species monitoring programs (Koch et al., 2020).
Here, we draw from these programs to explore the monitoring
needs of Anopheles gene drive projects as they move through the
phases of pre-release, release and post-release (Table 1). We
consider distinct requirements for population replacement versus
suppression, focusing on low-threshold approaches.
PRE-RELEASE MONITORING
Pre-release monitoring data serves a range of purposes. First, it
allows us to better understand the temporal dynamics of
mosquito populations, their drivers, and effective sampling
tools. Second, it enables us to design efficient release strategies
TABLE 1 | Monitoring priorities for Anopheles gene drive projects as they move through the phases of pre-release, release and post-release. “R”refers to population
replacement, and “S”refers to population suppression.
Question/endpoint Activity Indicators Priority
Pre-release During
release
Post-
release
Target mosquito vector abundance Adult and pupal sampling throughout
the study area and across seasons
Number of adults per trap per period,
number of pupae per breeding site per
period
High (R, S) Medium (R),
High (S)
Medium (R),
High (S)
Environmental drivers of mosquito
population
Measuring environmental data within
and across seasons
Daily rainfall, temperature, humidity etc. High (R, S) High (R, S) Medium
(R, S)
Target mosquito local-scale
movement
Mark-release-recapture experiments Local dispersal kernel, average dispersal
distance
High (R, S) Medium
(R, S)
Low (R, S)
Target mosquito intermediate and
wide-scale movement
Adult and larval sampling over a wide
scale and population genetic analysis
Effective dispersal distance, migration
rates at larger spatial scales
High (R, S) Medium
(R, S)
Low (R, S)
Target mosquito insecticide
resistance
Larval sampling, rearing and laboratory
testing
Fraction of knockdown and dead
mosquitoes after exposure to insecticide
High (R),
Medium (S)
High (R),
Low (S)
Medium (R),
Low (S)
Target and non-target vector biting
rates
Adult sampling by human landing
catch, or proxy
Human biting rate (mosquitoes per person
per night)
High (R, S) Medium (R),
High (S)
Medium (R),
High (S)
Target and non-target vector
competence
Larval sampling and laboratory rearing
and testing
Fraction of exposed mosquitoes with
disseminated infection
High (R, S) High (R),
Medium (S)
High (R),
Medium (S)
Target and non-target vector
sporozoite rate
Adult sampling, dissection and
microscopy
Fraction of examined mosquitoes with
sporozoites
High (R, S) High (R),
Medium (S)
High (R),
Medium (S)
Malaria incidence and prevalence Passive case detection, cohort
studies, cross-sectional surveys
Health system case reports, cohort-based
incidence, cross-sectional prevalence
High (R, S) High (R, S) High (R, S)
Prevalence of gene drive allele in
target species
Adult and larval sampling in target and
non-target areas and molecular
assays
Allele frequency throughout the study area
and allele presence elsewhere over time
N/A High (R, S) High (R, S)
Presence of gene drive allele in non-
target mosquito species
Adult and larval sampling in target and
non-target areas and molecular
assays
Allele presence in non-target species N/A Medium
(R, S)
Medium
(R, S)
Phenotypic stability of gene drive
construct in target mosquito
species
Adult and larval sampling in target and
non-target areas and laboratory
testing
Gene drive efficacy, effectiveness of
effector gene (R), sex bias or fitness
cost (S)
N/A High (R, S) High (R, S)
Fitness of gene drive mosquitoes Fitting models to data, parameter
estimation
Male mating competitiveness, female
fecundity, adult lifespan
N/A High (R, S) High (R, S)
Prevalence of resistance to gene
drive in target mosquito species
Adult and larval sampling, molecular
assays, laboratory evaluation
Prevalence of drive-resistance
mechanisms throughout the study area
High (R, S) Medium (R),
High (S)
Medium (R),
High (S)
Frontiers in Genetics | www.frontiersin.org January 2022 | Volume 12 | Article 7803272
Rašićet al. Monitoring of Gene Drive Mosquitoes
that enhance the likelihood of intervention success, and to
minimize risks such as escape of transgenic organisms to non-
target populations. And third, baseline data provides an
understanding of intervention-related changes both to the
vector population and to vector-borne disease transmission.
One of the most common forms of pre-release monitoring data
for genetic and biological control systems is the temporal measure of
local mosquito population size, alongside environmental data such
as temperature and rainfall. Population size estimates and seasonal
patterns help to inform the timing and size of releases for both
suppression and replacement gene drive systems, and represent a
fundamental entomological endpoint to assess the efficacy of a
suppression strategy. Highly seasonal mosquito population
dynamics, such as in the Sahel of Africa, are especially important
to monitor, as gene drive modeling studies reveal a large influence of
seasonality on the outcome of a control program (North et al., 2019).
Effective sampling tools to measure relative mosquito population
density depend on the species and location of interest. For the RIDL
trial in Juazeiro, Brazil, and the Wolbachia trial in Queensland, Ae.
aegypti was the main species of interest and a combination of
ovitraps and BG Sentinel traps were used, with human landing
catches (HLCs) also being used for the RIDL trial (Hoffmann et al.,
2011;Carvalho et al., 2015). For Anopheles species, evaluation of
sampling devices that accurately represent local mosquito densities is
needed, and selection of these tools will depend on local regulations
(e.g., HLCs are not always permissible). Most entomological
monitoring is directed at adult female mosquitoes, so details of
the adult male population may need to be inferred from captures of
adult females and juvenile stages.
Monitoring data on mosquito movement patterns, although
difficult to collect, is essential prior to field trials of gene drive
mosquitoes. This can help to inform: i) the spatial resolution
required for releases, and ii) the risk of escape to non-target
populations. Data on autonomous dispersal of Ae. aegypti has
been used to determine the size of buffer zones around treatment
areas for suppression programs, and the size of the release area for the
Wolbachia replacement programs (Schmidt et al., 2017). Similar
Anopheles data could inform gene drive programs. Mark-release-
recapture experiments are an effective way to estimate Anopheles
dispersal patterns on a village or suburban scale (Taylor et al., 2001;
Epopa et al., 2017), and have previously been used to quantify
movement patterns of genetically sterile male Aedes prior to field
trials (Lacroix et al., 2012). Population genetics offers complementary
tools to infer local (Filipovićet al., 2020) and intermediate to large-
scalemovementpatternsthatresultfromhuman-assisteddispersal
(Marsden et al., 2013).Thiscanhelptoidentifypotentialroutesof
escape, with monitoring encompassing mosquito populations close to
the target population or those connected via transport routes.
One form of pre-release monitoring uniquely required by gene
drive mosquito projects is assessment of DNA sequence
polymorphisms at the specific genetic locus targeted by the
drive system. Some of these alternate alleles may confer a
drive-resistant phenotype to the mosquitoes carrying them.
For population suppression strategies, these confer a
significant selective advantage over intact drive alleles,
preventing the success of suppression programs. For
population replacement strategies, alternate alleles may have a
mild selective advantage over intact drive alleles; but even if not,
could prevent the drive system from reaching a high frequency in
the population. Modeling studies suggest that pre-existing drive-
resistant alleles with population frequencies less than
1% are
tolerable for population replacement programs (Lanzaro et al.,
2021). A recent study found an abundance of conserved sites that
could potentially be targeted by gene drive systems by screening
Anopheles specimens from the UC Davis Vector Genetics Lab
archive and An. gambiae 1,000 Genomes Consortium (Schmidt
et al., 2020). Modeling would ideally inform pre-release
monitoring requirements, with samples corresponding to the
location or region of interest.
Pre-release monitoring should focus on the target species, but
include some consideration of: i) other local vector species for the
pathogen of interest, ii) species between which there is some gene
flow, albeit at potentially low levels, and iii) species that may
compete for a similar niche (for population suppression
strategies). Other local vector species are important to quantify
in order to understand the proportion of pathogen transmission
attributed to the target species, and hence the expected impact on
disease transmission. Species between which there is a low level of
gene flow could result in spread of the construct with ecological
consequences. For Anopheles, limited gene flow occurs between
members of the An. gambiae species complex, which includes An.
coluzzii,An. arabiensis, and others (Taylor et al., 2001;Weetman
et al., 2014). The potential for niche replacement is an important
consideration for population suppression strategies where non-
target species have some vectorial capacity.
MONITORING DURING A RELEASE
Monitoring during a release serves three key purposes. First, it
allows us to monitor the progress of the release, as measured by
changes in genotype frequencies and population size. This also
allows us to adapt the release scheme in an iterative fashion.
Second, it allows us to compare changes in the vector population
and, ideally, vector-borne disease incidence, to the pre-release
baseline or control area. And third, it allows us to assess biosafety
features such as confinement to a trial site.
For population replacement systems, there is a need to monitor: i)
how intact drive alleles spread through the population, ii) the extent
to which drive-resistant alleles emerge and spread, and iii)
effectiveness of the effector gene. As a case study in Aedes,initial
trials of Wolbachia-infected Ae. aegypti in Queensland demonstrated
how a network of ovitraps (∼1 per two houses) and BG Sentinel traps
(∼1per30–45 houses) combined with a PCR assay to determine
mosquito species and Wolbachia status successfully documented the
spread of Wolbachia over time (Hoffmann et al., 2011). For
population replacement strategies in Anopheles, additional assays
will be needed to monitor for the intact drive allele and alternative
alleles in target mosquito species, as well as their presence in non-
target species, which can be efficiently achieved through targeted
NGS amplicon sequencing, for instance.
For population suppression systems, there may be no effector
gene to monitor, but there is a need to monitor the stability of
suppression phenotype (e.g., fecundity reduction, lethality of juvenile
Frontiers in Genetics | www.frontiersin.org January 2022 | Volume 12 | Article 7803273
Rašićet al. Monitoring of Gene Drive Mosquitoes
stages, or sex ratio bias) and reduction in mosquito density. As a case
study in Aedes, a grid of ovitraps spanning treated and control areas
was used to provide an indirect measure of adult Ae. aegypti
abundancefortheRIDLtrialinJuazeiro(Carvalho et al., 2015).
Larvae were also scored for the transgene based on a red fluorescent
marker phenotype, and non-fluorescent larvae were reared to adults
to check for other vector species. For population suppression gene
drive projects in Anopheles, it is especially important to assay for
drive-resistant alleles which, due to their selective advantage over
intact drive alleles, are expected to rapidly spread through
populations following emergence. These assays can be informed,
in part, by experiments on caged populations that mimic genotype
fixation and can be designed to rapidly select and identify functional
resistance alleles among the detected variants in CRISPR-based
suppression gene drives (Fuchs et al., 2021). For large-scale
interventions, it will be essential to detect these alleles quickly if
their spatial spread is to be curtailed.
Close monitoring of intervention progress is highly valuable as
it enables releases to occur in an adaptive and iterative manner.
For instance, as Wolbachia-infected Ae. aegypti were released and
monitored in Queensland, the fitness cost parameter estimate was
refined and model predictions ensured the release scheme would
result in Wolbachia exceeding its threshold frequency (Hoffmann
et al., 2011). For releases of An. gambiae with low-threshold gene
drive systems, ongoing monitoring will allow us to refine model
parameters and ensure release schemes achieve entomological
and epidemiological targets. Parameters such as mating
competitiveness and adult lifespan are essential to refine, as
lab measurements are not reliable in the field.
In seeking to understand the drivers of pathogen transmission
when a gene drive intervention targets only one of several local
vector species, multiple sampling tools will be needed to capture
entomological indicators of transmission corresponding to each
local vector species. Sampling tools should be selected that take
advantage of vector species behaviors, and that collect data
reflective of the question to be addressed. Other factors should
be monitored that could explain potential epidemiological
outcomes, such as the inclusion of additional interventions as
part of the gene drive release (e.g., insecticide-treated nets), and
the inclusion of insecticide-susceptibility in the released modified
mosquitoes, potentially combined with ongoing spread of
insecticide resistance alleles in the local wild mosquito
population. Epidemiological data is often detected passively
through reported cases of symptomatic disease, and should be
compared leading up to, during and after the release (Utarini
et al., 2021).
Lastly,monitoringduringareleaseallowsbiosafetyfeaturesofa
gene drive intervention to be assessed - most importantly,
confinement to the target area. As a case study, monitoring of
Wolbachia-infected Ae. aegypti in Queensland included a site
across a major highway from one release site, and another
separated by over 1 km from the second release site (Hoffmann
et al., 2011). Wolbachia was sporadically detected in both non-release
locations, suggesting occasional movement of Ae. aegypti spanning
more than 20 times their average dispersal distance (Muir and Kay,
1998;Russell et al., 2005). Anopheles mosquitoes disperse greater
distances than Aedes (Guerra et al., 2014), suggesting the potential for
low-threshold gene drive systems in Anopheles to spread on a wide-
scale. This highlights the need for rigorous monitoring of non-target
populations during trials and interventions, even more so for
Anopheles, including at sites that could facilitate wide-scale spread,
such as nearby sea and airports.
POST-RELEASE MONITORING
Post-release monitoring is needed at multiple scales. At the scale
of the release and its immediate vicinity, it is needed to monitor
the continued persistence and effectiveness of the intervention,
and on a wider scale, it is needed to assess the extent to which a
low-threshold gene drive system has spread spatially, as well as
the extent to which alternative alleles are spreading.
Local-scalemonitoringneedsdependonthegenedrivesystem
being implemented. For population replacement systems, it is
important to monitor: i) persistence of intact drive alleles, ii)
prevalence of drive-resistant alleles, and iii) continued effectiveness
of the effector gene. A key concern for these systems is that drive-
resistant alleles may emerge that are less costly than intact drive
alleles, as when there are fewer cleavable wild-type alleles left in the
population, these resistant alleles may replace the drive alleles
(Eckhoff et al., 2017). Monitoring for this scenario will be essential
in the aftermath of a successful release. Loss of effector gene function
is also essential to monitor post-release, as this could conceivably
happen in the months and years following a release, whether through
loss-of-function mutations in the effector gene, evolution of effector
gene-resistant pathogen strains, or some combination thereof
(Marshall et al., 2019).
For population suppression systems, it is important to monitor:
i) target species population size, ii) presence and abundance of
non-target vector species, iii) presence of drive-resistant alleles, and
iv) persistence of intact drive alleles. Modeling of population
suppression drive systems in spatially-structured populations
warns against the expectation of local target species elimination.
Although this is a possibility for an ideally-functioning drive
system, a more likely scenario is a fluctuating level of
suppression, as populations are repeatedly eliminated and
recolonized by wild and drive-carrying organisms (Eckhoff
et al., 2017;North et al., 2019). This means that populations
must continue to be monitored even following an initially
successful release. In addition to monitoring the target species,
local non-target vector species should be closely monitored, as
suppression programs may leave vacant or partially vacant
ecological niches that other species may inhabit. Along with
adult trapping and “dipping”for larvae, presence and relative
abundance of target and non-target species could be monitored
through a molecular technique such as eDNA that detects trace
DNA shed by mosquito larvae and pupae in water and sediment
samples (Boerlijst et al., 2019;Krol et al., 2019). As previously
mentioned, it is essential to rigorously monitor for drive-resistant
alleles, as early detection is key to preventing their spatial spread,
and the more time that passes, the more likely they are to emerge.
For both replacement and suppression strategies, epidemiological
data shouldcontinue to bemonitored post-release, and may help to
signal program failures.
Frontiers in Genetics | www.frontiersin.org January 2022 | Volume 12 | Article 7803274
Rašićet al. Monitoring of Gene Drive Mosquitoes
Gene drive-modified mosquito projects are unique in the field of
vector control in that they involve transgenes that could potentially
spread on a wide scale. This means that, in certain cases, monitoring
will be required on a wide scale. When a gene drive system is only
intended to spread locally, for instance during a trial, it will be
essential to monitor areas of unwanted spread for the intact drive
allele, and when the gene drive system is intended to spread on a
wide scale, it will be of interest to monitor on this scale for alternative
alleles (e.g., homing-resistance alleles and non-functional effector
genes). The scale, cost and projected effectiveness of wide-scale
monitoringprogramsisimportanttoconsiderasthisisexpectedto
be a major cost driver of gene drive mosquito projects as they
advance from lab to field.
Wide-scale monitoring programs to detect intact or alternative
gene drive alleles stand to learn from experiences with invasive
species, in which early invasions may be halted through effective
monitoring programs (Koch et al., 2020). These programs often take
into account the life history of the species in question, its predicted
geographic distribution, expected pattern of spread, and the costs of
monitoring activities. Multiple scenarios are then modeled to
determine the most cost-effective option. A key result is that
early detection is critical to minimizing the impact of an invasion
and to preserving the possibility of local elimination (Holden et al.,
2016). Future modeling analyses should explore the optimal density
and placement of traps and frequency of sampling in order to detect
gene drive alleles, drive-resistant alleles or non-functional effector
genes while they can still be effectively managed (Figure 1).
Given the expected expense of these monitoring programs, cost-
efficiency will be a priority. Difficult questions must be addressed
regarding what can feasibly be achieved by wide-scale monitoring
FIGURE 1 | Optimal density and placement of traps to detect gene drive alleles, drive-resistant alleles and non-functional effector genes. (A–B) Transects may be
used to optimize monitoring efforts to detect gene drive and alternate alleles in the vicinity of a release site during and post-release. (A) In the pictured scenario, during
release, basic molecular tests would be conducted on adults to establish presence/a bsence of the construct and percent allele prevalence. Tested sites include primary
sites (red triangles) adjacent to the release site (crimson circle), and secondary sites (green triangles) adjacent to primary sites, in order to capture early spread. In the
pictured scenario, the lower-right arm of the sampling transect extends along a natural corridor of increased dispersal (e.g., prevailing wind direction). Traps along this
section are placed at shorter intervals, extending further beyond the release site. (B) Post-release, molecular testing becomes less frequent, but more specific, once a site
has reached high frequency or fixation for the gene drive construct. Once a large fraction of mosquitoes at a site has the construct, sampled mosquitoes having the
construct will go on to have the construct and surrounding insertion site sequenced to verify construct integrity and functionality. Criteria should also be discussed
regarding when, how and the frequency at which resistance in the malaria pathogen should be tested. (C–F) A mosquito metapopulation is denoted by a set of circles,
each circle corresponding to a partially-isolated population connected to others by migration. Populations without the gene drive system are open circles with blue
outlines, those with the gene drive are purple circles, those with traps are magenta circles, and the circle of first detection is plum, also denoted by an arrow. (C) In this
simulation, with only 1 trap per 128 populations, the gene drive allele invades 101 populations before first detection. (D–F) As the number of traps is increased, the
number of populations invaded at the time of detection declines: in this simulation, there are 56, 46 and 9 invaded populations for the cases of 5, 9 and 15 traps,
respectively. Questions arise as to the density of traps required to detect a gene drive or alternate allele in time for it to be effectively managed, and how much investment
would be required to achieve this.
Frontiers in Genetics | www.frontiersin.org January 2022 | Volume 12 | Article 7803275
Rašićet al. Monitoring of Gene Drive Mosquitoes
programs. Thus far, monitoring of the invasion of An. stephensi in
the Horn of Africa (Seyfarth et al., 2019), and of Ae. aegypti in
California (Lee et al., 2019), has resulted in documentation and
genetic reconstruction of the invasions, rather than control or
elimination. Hence, for Anopheles gene drive mosquito projects,
how much investment is required to detect intact or alternate gene
drive alleles in time for them to be effectively managed?
DISCUSSION
Low-threshold gene drive systems, whether intended for
population replacement or suppression, pose significant
demands on monitoring programs, both in terms of their
persistence and potential to spread. Fortunately, lessons can be
learned from examples of monitoring programs for genetic and
biological control systems in Ae. aegypti, including analogs of
high-threshold replacement via Wolbachia, and suppression via
RIDL. Many of the monitoring priorities before, during and after
a release also hold for low-threshold gene drive systems,
especially at the stage of confined field trials. However, it
should be noted that these case study systems have all been
engineered in Ae. aegypti, while the low-threshold systems that
are furthest along in development are all in Anopheles species.
Hence, while many of the high-level considerations apply,
consideration must also be given to their biological differences -
greater dispersal distances, separation of breeding and blood-
feeding sites, and trapping methods for Anopheles species. In
parallel, methodology used for planning monitoring programs
for invasive species appears to apply well to the detection of
intact or alternative gene drive alleles; however, open questions
remain as to what can be achieved with available resources. This
will be an interesting area of research as this potentially
transformative technology advances from lab to field.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The original contributions presented in the study are included in
the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding
author.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual
contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
FUNDING
This work was supported by funds from the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation (INV-017683), the UC Irvine Malaria Initiative, and
a DARPA Safe Genes Program Grant (HR0011-17-2-0047)
awarded to JMM. The funders had no role in the study
design, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Adolfi, A., Gantz, V. M., Jasinskiene, N., Lee, H.-F., Hwang, K., Terradas, G., et al.
(2020). Efficient Population Modification Gene-Drive rescue System in the
Malaria Mosquito Anopheles stephensi.Nat. Commun. 11, 426. doi:10.1038/
s41467-020-19426-0
Boerlijst, S. P., Trimbos, K. B., Van der Beek, J. G., Dijkstra, K. D. B., Van der
Hoorn, B. B., and Schrama, M. (2019). Field Evaluation of DNA Based
Biodiversity Monitoring of Caribbean Mosquitoes. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 240.
doi:10.3389/fevo.2019.00240
Carballar-Lejarazú, R., Ogaugwu, C., Tushar, T., Kelsey, A., Pham, T. B., Murphy,
J., et al. (2020). Next-generation Gene Drive for Population Modification of the
Malaria Vector Mosquito, Anopheles gambiae.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
117, 22805–22814. doi:10.1073/pnas.2010214117
Carvalho, D. O., McKemey, A. R., Garziera, L., Lacroix, R., Donnelly, C. A., Alphey,
L., et al. (2015). Suppression of a Field Population of Aedes aegypti in Brazil by
Sustained Release of Transgenic Male Mosquitoes. Plos Negl. Trop. Dis. 9,
e0003864. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003864
Eckhoff, P. A., Wenger, E. A., Godfray, H. C. J., and Burt, A. (2017). Impact of
Mosquito Gene Drive on Malaria Elimination in a Computational Model with
Explicit Spatial and Temporal Dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114,
E255–E264. doi:10.1073/pnas.1611064114
Epopa,P.S.,Millogo,A.A.,Collins,C.M.,North,A.,Tripet,F.,Benedict,M.
Q., et al. (2017). The Use of Sequential Mark-Release-Recapture
Experiments to Estimate Population Size, Survival and Dispersal of
Male Mosquitoes of the Anopheles gambiae Complex in Bana, a West
African Humid savannah Village. Parasites Vectors 10, 376. doi:10.1186/
s13071-017-2310-6
Filipović, I., Hapuarachchi, H. C., Tien, W. P., Razak, M. A. B. A., Lee, C., Tan, C.
H., et al. (2020). Using Spatial Genetics to Quantify Mosquito Dispersal for
Control Programs. BMC Biol. 18, 104. doi:10.1186/s12915-020-00841-0
Fuchs, S., Garrood, W. T., Beber, A., Hammond, A., Galizi, R., Gribble, M., et al.
(2021). Resistance to a CRISPR-Based Gene Drive at an Evolutionarily
Conserved Site Is Revealed by Mimicking Genotype Fixation. Plos Genet.
17, e1009740. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1009740
Guerra, C. A., Reiner, R. C., Jr, Perkins, T. A., Lindsay, S. W., Midega, J. T., Brady,
O. J., et al. (2014). A Global Assembly of Adult Female Mosquito Mark-Release-
Recapture Data to Inform the Control of Mosquito-Borne Pathogens. Parasites
Vectors 7, 276. doi:10.1186/1756-3305-7-276
Hammond, A., Galizi, R., Kyrou, K., Simoni, A., Siniscalchi, C., Katsanos, D., et al.
(2016). A CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Drive System Targeting Female Reproduction in
the Malaria Mosquito Vector Anopheles gambiae.Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 78–83.
doi:10.1038/nbt.3439
Hoffmann, A. A., Montgomery, B. L., Popovici, J., Iturbe-Ormaetxe, I., Johnson, P.
H., Muzzi, F., et al. (2011). Successful Establishment of Wolbachia in Aedes
Populations to Suppress Dengue Transmission. Nature 476, 454–457.
doi:10.1038/nature10356
Holden, M. H., Nyrop, J. P., and Ellner, S. P. (2016). The Economic Benefitof
Time-Varying Surveillance Effort for Invasive Species Management. J. Appl.
Ecol. 53, 712–721. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12617
James, S., Collins, F. H., Welkhoff, P. A., Emerson, C., Godfray, H. C. J., Gottlieb,
M., et al. (2018). Pathway to Deployment of Gene Drive Mosquitoes as a
Potential Biocontrol Tool for Elimination of Malaria in Sub-saharan Africa:
Recommendations of a Scientific Working Group †.Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 98,
1–49. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.18-0083
Koch, F. H., Yemshanov, D., Haight, R. G., MacQuarrie, C. J. K., Liu, N., Venette,
R., et al. (2020). Optimal Invasive Species Surveillance in the Real World:
Practical Advances from Research. Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 4, 513–520.
doi:10.1042/etls20200305
Krol, L., Van der Hoorn, B., Gorsich, E. E., Trimbos, K., Bodegom, P. M. v., and
Schrama, M. (2019). How Does eDNA Compare to Traditional Trapping?
Detecting Mosquito Communities in South-African Freshwater Ponds. Front.
Ecol. Evol. 7, 260. doi:10.3389/fevo.2019.00260
Frontiers in Genetics | www.frontiersin.org January 2022 | Volume 12 | Article 7803276
Rašićet al. Monitoring of Gene Drive Mosquitoes
Kyrou, K., Hammond, A. M., Galizi, R., Kranjc, N., Burt, A., Beaghton, A. K., et al.
(2018). A CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Drive Targeting Doublesex Causes Complete
Population Suppression in Caged Anopheles gambiae Mosquitoes. Nat.
Biotechnol. 36, 1062–1066. doi:10.1038/nbt.4245
Lacroix, R., McKemey, A. R., Raduan, N., Kwee Wee, L., Hong Ming, W., Guat Ney,
T., et al. (2012). Open Field Release of Genetically Engineered Sterile Male
Aedes aegypti in Malaysia. PLoS One 7, e42771. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0042771
Lanzaro, G. C., Sánchez C, H. M., Collier, T. C., Marshall, J. M., and James, A. A.
(2021). Population Modification Strategies for Malaria Vector Control Are
Uniquely Resilient to Observed Levels of Gene Drive Resistance Alleles.
Bioessays 43, e2000282. doi:10.1002/bies.202000282
Lee, Y., Schmidt, H., Collier, T. C., Conner, W. R., Hanemaaijer, M. J., Slatkin, M.,
et al. (2019). Genome-wide Divergence Among Invasive Populations of Aedes
aegypti in California. BMC Genomics 20, 204. doi:10.1186/s12864-019-5586-4
Marsden,C.D.,Cornel,A.,Lee,Y.,Sanford,M.R.,Norris,L.C.,Goodell,P.B.,etal.
(2013). An Analysis of Two Island Groups as Potential Sites for Trials of Transgenic
Mosquitoes for Malaria Control. Evol. Appl. 6, 706–720. doi:10.1111/eva.12056
Marshall, J. M., Raban, R. R., Kandul, N. P., Edula, J. R., León, T. M., and Akbari,
O. S. (2019). Winning the Tug-Of-War between Effector Gene Design and
Pathogen Evolution in Vector Population Replacement Strategies. Front. Genet.
10, 1072. doi:10.3389/fgene.2019.01072
Muir, L. E., and Kay, B. H. (1998). Aedes aegypti Survival and Dispersal Estimated
by Mark-Release-Recapture in Northern Australia. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 58,
277–282. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.1998.58.277
North, A. R., Burt, A., and Godfray, H. C. J. (2019). Modelling the Potential of
Genetic Control of Malaria Mosquitoes at National Scale. BMC Biol. 17, 26.
doi:10.1186/s12915-019-0645-5
Russell, R. C., Webb, C. E., Williams, C. R., and Ritchie, S. A. (2005). Mark-release-
recapture Study to Measure Dispersal of the Mosquito Aedes aegypti in Cairns,
Queensland, Australia. Med. Vet. Entomol. 19, 451–457. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2915.2005.00589.x
Schmidt, H., Collier, T. C., Hanemaaijer, M. J., Houston, P. D., Lee, Y., and
Lanzaro, G. C. (2020). Abundance of Conserved CRISPR-Cas9 Target Sites
within the Highly Polymorphic Genomes of Anopheles and Aedes Mosquitoes.
Nat. Commun. 11, 1425. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-15204-0
Schmidt, T. L., Barton, N. H., Rašić, G., Turley, A. P., Montgomery, B. L., Iturbe-
Ormaetxe, I., et al. (2017). Local Introduction and Heterogeneous Spatial
Spread of Dengue-Suppressing Wolbachia through an Urban Population of
Aedes aegypti.Plos Biol. 15, e2001894. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2001894
Seyfarth, M., Khaireh, B. A., Abdi, A. A., Bouh, S. M., and Faulde, M. K. (2019). Five
Years Following First Detection of Anopheles stephensi (Diptera: Culicidae) in
Djibouti, Horn of Africa: Populations Established-Malaria Emerging. Parasitol.
Res. 118, 725–732. doi:10.1007/s00436-019-06213-0
Taylor,C.,Touré,Y.T.,Carnahan,J.,Norris,D.E.,Dolo,G.,Traoré,S.F.,etal.(2001).
Gene Flow Among Populations of the Malaria Vector, Anopheles gambiae,inMali,
West Africa. Genetics 157, 743–750. doi:10.1093/genetics/157.2.743
Utarini, A., Indriani, C., Ahmad, R. A., Tantowijoyo, W., Arguni, E., Ansari, M. R.,
et al. (2021). Efficacy of Wolbachia-Infected Mosquito Deployments for the
Control of Dengue. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 2177–2186. doi:10.1056/
nejmoa2030243
Weetman, D., Steen, K., Rippon, E. J., Mawejje, H. D., Donnelly, M. J., and Wilding,
C. S. (2014). Contemporary Gene Flow between Wild An. Gambiae s.s. and An.
Arabiensis. Parasites Vectors 7, 345. doi:10.1186/1756-3305-7-345
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of
the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Copyright © 2022 Rašić, Lobo, Jeffrey Gutiérrez, Sánchez C. and Marshall. This is an
open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply
with these terms.
Frontiers in Genetics | www.frontiersin.org January 2022 | Volume 12 | Article 7803277
Rašićet al. Monitoring of Gene Drive Mosquitoes
