ArticleBMC ecology and evolution2021
A common gene drive language eases regulatory process and eco-evolutionary extensions.
Article in BMC ecology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parental-effect gene-drive elements under partial selfing, or why do Caenorhabditis genomes have hyperdivergent regions?Genetics · 2025Article
- Parental-effect gene-drive elements under partial selfing, or why dobioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Moving beyond narrow definitions of gene drive: Diverse perspectives and frames enable substantive dialogue among science and humanities teachers in the United States and United Kingdom.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2023Article
- Correction to: A common gene drive language eases regulatory process and eco-evolutionary extensions.BMC ecology and evolution · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSynthetic gene drive technologies aim to spread transgenic constructs into wild populations even when they impose organismal fitness disadvantages. The extraordinary diversity of plausible drive mechanisms and the range of selective parameters they may encounter makes it very difficult to convey their relative predicted properties, particularly where multiple approaches are combined. The sheer number of published manuscripts in this field, experimental and theoretical, the numerous techniques resulting in an explosion in the gene drive vocabulary hinder the regulators' point of view. We address this concern by defining a simplified parameter based language of synthetic drives.
resultsEmploying the classical population dynamics approach, we show that different drive construct (replacement) mechanisms can be condensed and evaluated on an equal footing even where they incorporate multiple replacement drives approaches. Using a common language, it is then possible to compare various model properties, a task desired by regulators and policymakers. The generalization allows us to extend the study of the invasion dynamics of replacement drives analytically and, in a spatial setting, the resilience of the released drive constructs. The derived framework is available as a standalone tool.
conclusionBesides comparing available drive constructs, our tool is also useful for educational purpose. Users can also explore the evolutionary dynamics of future hypothetical combination drive scenarios. Thus, our results appraise the properties and robustness of drives and provide an intuitive and objective way for risk assessment, informing policies, and enhancing public engagement with proposed and future gene drive approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.