Biological Control Strategies for Mosquito Vectors of Arboviruses

Historically, biological control utilizes predatory species and pathogenic microorganisms to reduce the population of mosquitoes as disease vectors. This is particularly important for the control of mosquito-borne arboviruses, which normally do not have specific antiviral therapies available. Although development of resistance is likely, the advantages of biological control are that the resources used are typically biodegradable and ecologically friendly. Over the past decade, the advancement of molecular biology has enabled optimization by the manipulation of genetic materials associated with biological control agents. Two significant advancements are the discovery of cytoplasmic incompatibility induced by Wolbachia bacteria, which has enhanced replacement programs, and the introduction of dominant lethal genes into local mosquito populations through the release of genetically modified mosquitoes. As various arboviruses continue to be significant public health threats, biological control strategies have evolved to be more diverse and become critical tools to reduce the disease burden of arboviruses.

Transgenic Mosquitoes - Fact or Fiction?

Technologies for controlling mosquito vectors based on genetic manipulation and the release of genetically modified mosquitoes (GMMs) are gaining ground. However, concrete epidemiological evidence of their effectiveness, sustainability, and impact on the environment and nontarget species is lacking; no reliable ecological evidence on the potential interactions among GMMs, target populations, and other mosquito species populations exists; and no GMM technology has yet been approved by the WHO Vector Control Advisory Group. Our opinion is that, although GMMs may be considered a promising control tool, more studies are needed to assess their true effectiveness, risks, and benefits. Overall, several lines of evidence must be provided before GMM-based control strategies can be used under the integrated vector management framework.

Ethical issues in field trials of genetically modified disease-resistant mosquitoes

Mosquito-borne diseases take a tremendous toll on human populations, especially in developing nations. In the last decade, scientists have developed mosquitoes that have been genetically modified to prevent transmission of mosquito-borne diseases, and field trials have been conducted. Some mosquitoes have been rendered infertile, some have been equipped with a vaccine they transmit to humans, and some have been designed to resist diseases. This article focuses on ethical issues raised by field trials of disease-resistant, genetically modified mosquitoes. Some of these issues include: protecting the public and the environment from harm, balancing benefits and risks, collaborating with the local community, avoiding exploitation, and safeguarding the rights and welfare of research subjects. One of the most difficult problems involves protecting the welfare of community members who will be impacted by the release of mosquitoes but who are not enrolled in the study as research subjects. To address this concern, field trials should take place only when the targeted disease is a significant public health problem in an isolated area, the benefits of the trial for the community are likely to outweigh the risks, community leaders approve of the trial, and there are measures in place to protect the welfare of un-enrolled community members, such as informing the community about the study and offering free treatment to people who contract mosquito-borne diseases. Since the justification of any field trial depends on a careful examination of the scientific and ethical issues, proposed studies should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

An analysis of two island groups as potential sites for trials of transgenic mosquitoes for malaria control

Considerable technological advances have been made towards the generation of genetically modified mosquitoes for vector control. In contrast, less progress has been made towards field evaluations of transformed mosquitoes which are critical for evaluating the success of, and hazards associated with, genetic modification. Oceanic islands have been highlighted as potentially the best locations for such trials. However, population genetic studies are necessary to verify isolation. Here, we used a panel of genetic markers to assess for evidence of genetic isolation of two oceanic island populations of the African malaria vector, Anopheles gambiae s.s. We found no evidence of isolation between the Bijagós archipelago and mainland Guinea-Bissau, despite separation by distances beyond the known dispersal capabilities of this taxon. Conversely, the Comoros Islands appear to be genetically isolated from the East African mainland, and thus represent a location worthy of further investigation for field trials. Based on assessments of gene flow within and between the Comoros islands, the island of Grande Comore was found to be genetically isolated from adjacent islands and also exhibited local population structure, indicating that it may be the most suitable site for trials with existing genetic modification technologies.

Proceedings of an expert workshop on community agreement for gene drive research in Africa - Co-organised by KEMRI, PAMCA and Target Malaria

Gene drive research is progressing towards future field evaluation of modified mosquitoes for malaria control in sub-Saharan Africa. While many literature sources and guidance point to the inadequacy of individual informed consent for any genetically modified mosquito release, including gene drive ones, (outside of epidemiological studies that might require blood samples) and at the need for a community-level decision, researchers often find themselves with no specific guidance on how that decision should be made, expressed and by whom. Target Malaria, the Kenya Medical Research Institute and the Pan African Mosquito Control Association co-organised a workshop with researchers and practitioners on this topic to question the model proposed by Target Malaria in its research so far that involved the release of genetically modified sterile male mosquitoes and how this could be adapted to future studies involving gene drive mosquito releases for them to offer reflections about potential best practices. This paper shares the outcomes of that workshop and highlights the remaining topics for discussion before a comprehensive model can be designed.

Framing genetically modified mosquitoes in the online news and Twitter: Intermedia frame setting in the issue-attention cycle

We investigate how the online news and Twitter framed the discussion about genetically modified mosquitoes, and the interplay between the two media platforms. The study is grounded in the theoretical frameworks of intermedia agenda setting, framing, and the issue-attention cycle and combines methods of manual and computational content analysis, and time series analysis. The findings show that the Twitter discussion was more benefit-oriented, while the news coverage was more balanced. Initially, Twitter played a leading role in framing the discussion about genetically modified mosquitoes. When the public learned about the issue, online news gained momentum and led the Twitter publics to discuss the risks of genetically modified mosquitoes. Based on the findings, we argue that the intermedia frame setting may change its direction over time, and different media outlets may be influential in leading different aspects of the conversation.

Public health concerns over gene-drive mosquitoes: will future use of gene-drive snails for schistosomiasis control gain increased level of community acceptance?

With the advent of CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat)-based gene drive, present genetic research in schistosomiasis vector control envisages the breeding and release of transgenic schistosome-resistant (TSR) snail vectors to curb the spread of the disease. Although this approach is still in its infancy, studies focussing on production of genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes (including gene-drive mosquitoes) are well advanced and set the pace for other transgenic vector research. Unfortunately, as with other GM mosquitoes, open field release of gene-drive mosquitoes is currently challenged in part by some concerns such as gene drive failure and increased transmission potential for other mosquito-borne diseases among others, which might have adverse effects on human well-being. Therefore, not only should we learn from the GM mosquito protocols, frameworks and guidelines but also appraise the applicability of its current hurdles to other transgenic vector systems, such as the TSR snail approach. Placing these issues in a coherent comparative perspective, I argue that although the use of TSR snails may face similar technical, democratic and diplomatic challenges, some of the concerns over gene-drive mosquitoes may not apply to gene-drive snails, proposing a theory that community consent will be no harder and possibly easier to obtain for TSR snails than the experience with GM mosquitoes. In the future, these observations may help public health practitioners and policy makers in effective communication with communities on issues regarding the use of TSR snails to interrupt schistosomiasis transmission, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

Two unresolved issues in community engagement for field trials of genetically modified mosquitoes

There is an emerging consensus among scientists, ethicists, and public health officials that substantive and effective engagement with communities and the wider public is required prior to releasing genetically modified mosquitoes into the environment. While there is little disagreement about the need for community and public engagement prior to releasing genetically modified mosquitoes into the environment, two important issues have not been resolved, namely: defining the community and dealing with potential conflicts between the community and the wider public. This commentary addresses these unresolved issues.

What happens when we modify mosquitoes for disease prevention? A systematic review

The release of modified mosquitoes to suppress/replace vectors constitutes a promising tool for vector control and disease prevention. Evidence regarding these innovative modification techniques is scarce and disperse. This work conducted a systematic review, gathering and analysing research articles from PubMed and Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde databases whose results report efficacy and non-target effects of using modified insects for disease prevention, until 2016. More than 1500 publications were screened and 349 were analysed. Only 12/3.4% articles reported field-based evidence and 41/11.7% covered modification strategies' post-release efficacy. Variability in the effective results (90/25.7%) questioned its reproducibility in different settings. We also found publications reporting reversal outcomes 38/10.9%, (e.g. post-release increase of vector population). Ecological effects were also reported, such as horizontal transfer events (54/15.5%), and worsening pathogenesis induced by natural wolbachia (10/2.9%). Present work revealed promising outcomes of modifying strategies. However, it also revealed a need for field-based evidence mainly regarding epidemiologic and long-term impact. It pointed out some eventual irreversible and important effects that must not be ignored when considering open-field releases, and that may constitute constraints to generate the missing field evidence. Present work constitutes a baseline of knowledge, offering also a methodological approach that may facilitate future updates.