4.7 Article

Population Dynamics of Underdominance Gene Drive Systems in Continuous Space

期刊

ACS SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 779-792

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssynbio.9b00452

关键词

-

资金

  1. New Zealand's Predator Free 2050 program [SS/05/01]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01GM127418, F32AI138476]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Underdominance systems can quickly spread through a population, but only when introduced in considerable numbers. This promises a gene drive mechanism that is less invasive than homing drives, potentially enabling new approaches in the fight against vector-borne diseases. If regional confinement can indeed be achieved, the decision-making process for a release would likely be much simpler compared to other, more invasive types of drives. The capacity of underdominance gene drive systems to spread in a target population without invading other populations is typically assessed via network models of panmictic demes linked by migration. However, it remains less clear how such systems would behave in more realistic population models where organisms move over a continuous landscape. Here, we use individual-based simulations to study the dynamics of several proposed underdominance systems in continuous-space. We find that all these systems can fail to persist in such environments, even after an initially successful establishment in the release area, confirming previous theoretical results from diffusion theory. At the same time, we find that a two-locus two-toxin-antidote system can invade connected demes through a narrow migration corridor. This suggests that the parameter space where underdominance systems can establish and persist in a release area while at the same time remaining confined to that area could be quite limited, depending on how a population is spatially structured. Overall, these results indicate that realistic spatial context must be considered when assessing strategies for the deployment of underdominance drives.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据