At the World Conservation Congress last October, IUCN members rejected a moratorium calling for a “precautionary suspension of the release of genetically modified wild organisms into natural ecosystems”. The use of gene drives is a particular cause for concern. What exactly is it?
Virginie Courtier-Orgogozo. Gene drives make it possible to eradicate or genetically modify an entire species of wildlife in its natural habitat, starting with just a few modified individuals released into the wild. This method involves introducing a genetic modification that is passed on almost systematically to offspring. A genetic mutation normally has a one-in-two chance of being passed on. In the context of gene drives, transmission is altered through the insertion of other DNA sequences, which allow the mutation to spread to other chromosomes. This ensures that the mutation is passed on to offspring at a rate of 95 to 98 %.
This technique has been developed since 2015, thanks to the CRISPR-Cas9 molecular scissors. It first emerged with the aim of combating mosquito species that transmit malaria. Two methods were proposed: either the elimination of mosquito populations through the spread of a mutation rendering females sterile, or the development of mosquitoes resistant to the malaria parasite. The idea of using gene drives in the field of conservation emerged a few years later. The aim is either to directly manipulate endangered species to make them resistant to a threat, or to modify species that pose a threat to endangered species.
What are the current applications in the field of conservation?
With regard to the genetic modification of endangered species, an American team is attempting to make the leopard frog resistant to a pathogenic fungus that is fatal to it. Scientists are also seeking to identify mutations that enable corals to better withstand heat. These genetic modifications could be carried out without the use of gene drives, following the example of the genetically modified domestic species we are already familiar with [Editor’s note: such as cotton or soya], since the mutation, which is beneficial to the individuals, would spread through natural selection. In the case of endangered species, gene drives would provide an additional boost.
Regarding the manipulation of species that threaten others, a flagship but highly controversial project is underway in New Zealand to eradicate rats from the island. These rodents, introduced either deliberately or accidentally by humans, are an invasive species. They are a major source of problems, as they feed on the eggs of various native species of birds. However, all this research is currently only at the experimental stage. To my knowledge, no genetically modified individuals from a wild species have been released into the wild as part of a conservation project. Nevertheless, genetically modified mosquitoes have already been released, in Florida for example, to combat the spread of disease.
The use of gene drives is controversial. What are the risks associated with this method?
Gene drives involve risks that are sometimes difficult to predict. Every living being is the result of interactions between its body, its genetic material and its environment. Even with knowledge of genes and mutations, it is therefore impossible to predict exactly the impact of interactions between the thousands of genes in a genome, let alone those with the external environment and other living beings. The first clearly identified risk is the spread of the genetic mutation to other species in the event of hybridisation or horizontal gene transfer. DNA fragments can indeed pass from one species to another via intermediaries, such as viruses. By manipulating a target species, we therefore risk affecting others.
Furthermore, it is impossible to predict the impacts at the level of an entire ecosystem. Once the leopard frog has become resistant to the fungus, it could be infected by another pathogen that would take over. In New Zealand, the goal of returning to a pre-invasion state is also not guaranteed. Often, an established invasive species occupies its own ecological niche. Once freed up, this niche could be occupied by another species, which in turn could be harmful. Furthermore, how can we ensure that a genetically modified rat will not be accidentally transported by boat?
Are there actually any safeguards or ways to reverse the process?
Unlike chemical methods, the consequences of gene drives are difficult to contain. If a pesticide is deemed harmful, it is no longer used, and the impact gradually diminishes. When it comes to gene drives, once the modified animals have been released, the mutation continues to spread, even when no more are released. In 2016 and 2020, researchers proposed genetic brakes designed to neutralise gene drives. We modelled the impact of these brakes and concluded that they were too dependent on specific criteria to be reliable. However, we only studied certain types of gene drive and brakes. Researchers are developing other drive methods that could be stopped more effectively. This field of research is rapidly expanding.
Is this technique currently regulated?
There are no international regulations. The US National Academy of Sciences has concluded that laboratory experiments are acceptable but that the technique is not yet sufficiently developed to be tested in natural environments. In 2018, at the Convention on Biological Diversity, a decision adopted and ratified by 195 countries stipulated that, given the uncertainties, the release of organisms modified by gene drive is only possible with the prior consent of indigenous and local communities. But this remains unclear: how should the local populations concerned be defined? Insects and rats know no borders.
At European level, discussions are underway to adapt the regulations governing GMOs to this specific case of gene drives. Gene drives fall into a particular category of GMOs: they are capable of spreading throughout an entire population more rapidly than conventional GMOs. For the time being, the use of gene drives for conservation is therefore discouraged, but not prohibited.