Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32164660›Full record

ArticleBMC biology2020

Performance analysis of novel toxin-antidote CRISPR gene drive systems.

Jackson Champer, Isabel K Kim, Samuel E Champer, Andrew G Clark, Philipp W Messer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Predicting the invasiveness of threshold-dependent gene drives.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Engineering drive-selection balance for localized population suppression with neutral dynamics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jackson ChamperDepartment of Computational Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA. jc3248@cornell.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3814-3774
Isabel K KimDepartment of Computational Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Samuel E ChamperDepartment of Computational Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Andrew G ClarkDepartment of Computational Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Philipp W MesserDepartment of Computational Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Cornell University · US

Funding

Evolutionary dynamics of CRISPR gene drives in natural populationsR01GM127418 · NIGMS · CORNELL UNIVERSITY · PI MESSER, PHILIPP W · 2018 to 2022
$1.6M
Improving the efficiency and control of CRISPR/Cas9 gene drive systemsR21AI130635 · NIAID · CORNELL UNIVERSITY · PI CLARK, ANDREW G, MESSER, PHILIPP W · 2017 to 2018
$431k
Dynamics of Gene Drives in Natural PopulationsF32AI138476 · NIAID · CORNELL UNIVERSITY · PI CHAMPER, JACKSON · 2018 to 2020
$192k
NIAID NIH HHS F32 AI138476NIAID NIH HHS R21 AI130635NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM127418
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCRISPR gene drive systems allow the rapid spread of a genetic construct throughout a population. Such systems promise novel strategies for the management of vector-borne diseases and invasive species by suppressing a target population or modifying it with a desired trait. However, current homing-type drives have two potential shortcomings. First, they can be thwarted by the rapid evolution of resistance. Second, they lack any mechanism for confinement to a specific target population. In this study, we conduct a comprehensive performance assessment of several new types of CRISPR-based gene drive systems employing toxin-antidote (TA) principles, which should be less prone to resistance and allow for the confinement of drives to a target population due to invasion frequency thresholds.

resultsThe underlying principle of the proposed CRISPR toxin-antidote gene drives is to disrupt an essential target gene while also providing rescue by a recoded version of the target as part of the drive allele. Thus, drive alleles tend to remain viable, while wild-type targets are disrupted and often rendered nonviable, thereby increasing the relative frequency of the drive allele. Using individual-based simulations, we show that Toxin-Antidote Recessive Embryo (TARE) drives targeting an haplosufficient but essential gene (lethal when both copies are disrupted) can enable the design of robust, regionally confined population modification strategies with high flexibility in choosing promoters and targets. Toxin-Antidote Dominant Embryo (TADE) drives require a haplolethal target gene and a germline-restricted promoter, but they could permit faster regional population modification and even regionally confined population suppression. Toxin-Antidote Dominant Sperm (TADS) drives can be used for population modification or suppression. These drives are expected to spread rapidly and could employ a variety of promoters, but unlike TARE and TADE, they would not be regionally confined and also require highly specific target genes.

conclusionsOverall, our results suggest that CRISPR-based TA gene drives provide promising candidates for flexible ecological engineering strategies in a variety of organisms.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsAntidotesAntitoxinsGene Drive TechnologyGenes, EssentialHaploinsufficiencyModels, GeneticAntidotesAntitoxinsBiotechnologyConfinedCRISPRGene driveModelingPopulation modificationPopulation suppressionToxin-antidote

Identifiers

PMID32164660
PMCPMC7068947
OpenAlexW3010799259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.