ArticleParasites & vectors2025
Growth and development of two predator species fed a diet of genetically engineered mosquitoes.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenetically engineered mosquitoes (GEMs) with gene drives have been developed for malaria control but remain untested in natural environments. Upon release, GEMs are expected to modify or replace wild-type counterparts, potentially uniquely interacting with nontarget organisms (NTOs). Concerns exist over possible negative effects on NTOs and broader ecological harm. Predators consuming GEMs represent a group that interacts closely with these modified mosquitoes.
methodsHere, we examine the effect of GEM and wild-type Anopheles coluzzii diets on the growth of two predator species: the aquatic mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and the terrestrial bold jumping spider (Phidippus audax). Gambusia affinis was fed lyophilized gravid mosquitoes, and growth was measured using length and mass. Phidippus audax was fed live semi-gravid mosquitoes, with growth tracked via eye size, body size, and mass.
resultsNo adverse effects were found in either predator species fed GEM diets. Gambusia affinis showed no significant growth differences between diet groups. However, P. audax that were fed GEMs consumed more mosquitoes, grew larger, and matured faster.
conclusionsDifferences in predator growth rate suggest that GEMs' nutritional content is similar to that of wild-type mosquitoes, but that they may be more vulnerable to predation. Further research is needed to explore whether GEM visual or behavioral traits increase their susceptibility to predators.
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.