ArticleMolecular ecology2022
Slow and steady wins the race: Spatial and stochastic processes and the failure of suppression gene drives.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A simulation-based deep learning framework for spatially explicit malaria modeling of CRISPR suppression gene drive mosquitoes.iScience · 2026Article
- Seed dormancy shapes gene drive dynamics in plants.Nature plants · 2026Article
- Genetic Allee Effects for Controlling Invasive Populations.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Controlling the frequency dynamics of homing gene drives for intermediate outcomes.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Article
- Population dynamics in spatial suppression gene drive models and the effect of resistance, density dependence, and life history.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Performance characteristics allow for confinement of a CRISPR toxin-antidote gene drive for population suppression in a reaction-diffusion model.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Slow and steady wins the race: Spatial and stochastic processes and the failure of suppression gene drives.Molecular ecology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.