Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35790043›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology2022

Slow and steady wins the race: Spatial and stochastic processes and the failure of suppression gene drives.

Jeff F Paril, Ben L Phillips

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. eLife · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
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

2 authors.

Jeff F ParilSchool of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5693-4123
Ben L PhillipsSchool of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2580-2336

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene drives that skew sex ratios offer a new management tool to suppress or eradicate pest populations. Early models and empirical work suggest that these suppression drives can completely eradicate well-mixed populations, but models that incorporate stochasticity and space (i.e. drift and recolonization events) often result in loss or failure of the drive. We developed a stochastic model to examine these processes in a simple one-dimensional space. This simple space allows us to map the events and outcomes that emerged and examine how properties of the drive's wave of invasion affect outcomes. Our simulations, across a biologically realistic section of parameter space, suggest that drive failure might be a common outcome in spatially explicit, stochastic systems, and that properties of the drive wave appear to mediate outcomes. Surprisingly, the drives that would be considered fittest in an aspatial model were strongly associated with failure in the spatial setting. The fittest drives cause relatively fast moving, and narrow waves that have a high chance of being penetrated by wild-types (WTs) leading to WT recolonization, leading to failure. Our results also show that high rates of dispersal reduce the chance of failure because drive waves get disproportionately wider than WT waves as dispersal rates increase. Overall, wide, slow-moving drive waves were much less prone to failure. Our results point to the complexity inherent in using a genetic system to effect demographic outcomes and speak to a clear need for ecological and evolutionary modelling to inform the drive design process.

Indexed as

Gene Drive TechnologyBiological EvolutionStochastic Processesgene drive chasinginvasion wavesspatial simulationssuppression gene driveW-shredderX-shredder

Identifiers

PMID35790043
PMCPMC9541681

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.