Cas9-triggered chain ablation of cas9 as a gene drive brake

With the advent of clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)–CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) technology, researchers can construct gene drives that can bias the inheritance of edited alleles to alter entire populations. As demonstrated with the mutagenic chain reaction in Drosophila4, the CRISPR-Cas9 system can propagate genomic modification together with the genome-editing machinery itself. Although gene drives might have the potential to control insect-borne diseases and agricultural pests, substantial concerns have been raised over unanticipated ecological consequences as a result of drive use. Here we report the development of a potential Cas9-based gene drive 'brake' that remains inert in a wild-type genome but is activated by Cas9 to both cleave the genomic cas9 sequence and to convert an incoming cas9 allele into a brake. This means that the propagation of the brake is favored in a cas9-carrying population

Potential of gene drives with genome editing to increase genetic gain in livestock breeding programs

Abstract Background This paper uses simulation to explore how gene drives can increase genetic gain in livestock breeding programs. Gene drives are naturally occurring phenomena that cause a mutation on one chromosome to copy itself onto its homologous chromosome. Methods We simulated nine different breeding and editing scenarios with a common overall structure. Each scenario began with 21 generations of selection, followed by 20 generations of selection based on true breeding values where the breeder used selection alone, selection in combination with genome editing, or selection with genome editing and gene drives. In the scenarios that used gene drives, we varied the probability of successfully incorporating the gene drive. For each scenario, we evaluated genetic gain, genetic variance ( \u3c3 A 2 ) , rate of change in inbreeding ( \u394 F ), number of distinct quantitative trait nucleotides (QTN) edited, rate of increase in favourable allele frequencies of edited QTN and the time to fix favourable alleles. Results Gene drives enhanced the benefits of genome editing in seven ways: (1) they amplified the increase in genetic gain brought about by genome editing; (2) they amplified the rate of increase in the frequency of favourable alleles and reduced the time it took to fix them; (3) they enabled more rapid targeting of QTN with lesser effect for genome editing; (4) they distributed fixed editing resources across a larger number of distinct QTN across generations; (5) they focussed editing on a smaller number of QTN within a given generation; (6) they reduced the level of inbreeding when editing a subset of the sires; and (7) they increased the efficiency of converting genetic variation into genetic gain. Conclusions Genome editing in livestock breeding results in short-, medium- and long-term increases in genetic gain. The increase in genetic gain occurs because editing increases the frequency of favourable alleles in the population. Gene drives accelerate the increase in allele frequency caused by editing, which results in even higher genetic gain over a shorter period of time with no impact on inbreeding

Evaluating Gene Drive Approaches for Public Benefit

Gene drive approaches—those which bias inheritance of a genetic element in a population of sexually reproducing organisms—have the potential to provide important public benefits. The spread of selected genetic elements in wild populations of organisms may help address certain challenges, such as transmission of vector-borne human and animal diseases and biodiversity loss due to invasive animals. Adapting various naturally occurring gene drive mechanisms to these aims is a long-standing research area, and recent advances in genetics have made engineering gene drive systems significantly more technically feasible. Gene drive approaches would act through changes in natural environments, thus robust methods to evaluate potential research and use are important. Despite the fact that gene drive approaches build on existing paradigms, such as genetic modification of organisms and conventional biological control, there are material challenges to their evaluation. One challenge is the inherent complexity of ecosystems, which makes precise prediction of changes to the environment difficult. For gene drive approaches that are expected to spread spatially and/or persist temporally, responding to this difficulty with the typical stepwise increases in the scale of studies may not be straightforward after studies begin in the natural environment. A related challenge is that study or use of a gene drive approach may have implications for communities beyond the location of introduction, depending on the spatial spread and persistence of the approach and the population biology of the target organism. This poses a particular governance challenge when spread across national borders is plausible. Finally, community engagement is an important element of responsible research and governance, but effective community engagement for gene drive approaches requires addressing complexity and uncertainty and supporting representative participation in decision making. These challenges are not confronted in a void. Existing frameworks, processes, and institutions provide a basis for effective evaluation of gene drive approaches for public benefit. Although engineered gene drive approaches are relatively new, the necessities of making decisions despite uncertainty and governing actions with potential implications for shared environments are well established. There are methodologies to identify potential harms and assess risks when there is limited experience to draw upon, and these methodologies have been applied in similar contexts. There are also laws, policies, treaties, agreements, and institutions in place across many jurisdictions that support national and international decision making regarding genetically modified organisms and the potential applications of gene drive approaches, such as public health and biodiversity conservation. Community engagement is an established component of many decision-making processes, and related experience and conceptual frameworks can inform engagement by researchers. The existence of frameworks, processes, and institutions provides an important foundation for evaluating gene drive approaches, but it is not sufficient by itself. They must be rigorously applied, which requires resources for risk assessment, research, and community engagement and diligent implementation by governance institutions. The continued evolution of the frameworks, processes, and institutions is important to adapt to the growing understanding of gene drive approaches. With appropriate resources and diligence, it will be possible to responsibly evaluate and make decisions on gene drive approaches for public benefit

A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae.

Gene drive systems that enable super-Mendelian inheritance of a transgene have the potential to modify insect populations over a timeframe of a few years. We describe CRISPR-Cas9 endonuclease constructs that function as gene drive systems in Anopheles gambiae, the main vector for malaria. We identified three genes (AGAP005958, AGAP011377 and AGAP007280) that confer a recessive female-sterility phenotype upon disruption, and inserted into each locus CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive constructs designed to target and edit each gene. For each targeted locus we observed a strong gene drive at the molecular level, with transmission rates to progeny of 91.4 to 99.6%. Population modeling and cage experiments indicate that a CRISPR-Cas9 construct targeting one of these loci, AGAP007280, meets the minimum requirement for a gene drive targeting female reproduction in an insect population. These findings could expedite the development of gene drives to suppress mosquito populations to levels that do not support malaria transmission

Application of the ANP to the prioritization of project stakeholders in the context of responsible research and innovation

[EN] This paper presents a methodology to assess the stakeholders¿ influence in a research project within the context of responsible research and innovation. The methodology is based on a combination of the multicriteria decision making technique analytic network process and the key areas of responsible research. The method allows ranking and ordering the project¿s stakeholders based on their influence upon its responsibility. The purpose of such an assessment is to help research teams to more efficiently devote their limited resources to stakeholder management. The procedure is applied to a case study of the Information and Communication Technology business sector. It is an ongoing project at an early phase of development. Influential stakeholders have been identified first, and have been further classified into groups based on their relative importance. The assessment of their influence has been based on up to 16 different criteria, mainly belonging to the framework of responsible research and innovation. In the case study, the most influential criterion was the Capability to promote public engagement, while Developers were found to be the stakeholders most contributing to the research project responsibility. However, as explained, this is a temporary situation, valid for the current project development situation. It may vary over time as criteria vary in weight and stakeholders vary in influence.The authors would like to thank to our anonymous referees for their constructive comments and suggestions that helped us to improve the quality of the paper. Also, to the “Bolívar Gana con Ciencia” program from the Gobernación de Bolívar (Colombia) for the financial support. For the same reason, the authors are grateful to the Spanish Agencia Estatal de Investigación for its support of the project Propuesta de Indicadores para Impulsar el Diseño de Una Política Orientada al Desarrollo de Investigación e Innovación Responsable en España (CSO2016-76828-R)Ligardo-Herrera, I.; Gómez-Navarro, T.; Gonzalez-Urango, H. (2018). Application of the ANP to the prioritization of project stakeholders in the context of responsible research and innovation. Central European Journal of Operations Research. 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-018-0573-4S123Akbari N, Irawan CA, Jones DF, Menachof D (2017) A multi-criteria port suitability assessment for developments in the offshore wind industry. Renew Energy 102:118–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.10.035Aragonés-Beltrán P, García-Melón M, Montesinos-Valera J (2017) How to assess stakeholders’ influence in project management? A proposal based on the analytic network process. Int J Proj Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.001Barrios Ortiz MA, De Felice F, Negrete KP et al (2016) An AHP-topsis integrated model for selecting the most appropriate tomography equipment. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 15:861–885. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021962201640006XBhupendra KV, Sangle S (2017) What drives successful implementation of product stewardship strategy? The role of absorptive capability. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 24:186–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1394Botero C, Pereira C, Tosic M, Manjarrez G (2015) Design of an index for monitoring the environmental quality of tourist beaches from a holistic approach. Ocean Coast Manag 108:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.07.017Brugha R (2000) Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plan 15:239–246. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/15.3.239Burget M, Bardone E, Pedaste M (2017) Definitions and conceptual dimensions of responsible research and innovation: a literature review. Sci Eng Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1Caballero-Luque A, Aragonés-Beltrán P, García-Melón M, Dema-Pérez C (2010) Analysis of the alignment of Company goals to Web content using ANP. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 9:419–436. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622010003889Claudia K, Köppl A, Stagl S (2014) Towards an operational measurement of socio-ecological performance. Working Paper no 52Colin E, Ackermann F (1998) Making strategy: the journey of strategic management. SAGE Publications Ltd, LondonDahlsrud A (2006) How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 13:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csrde Jong IM, Kupper F, Broerse J (2016) Inclusive deliberation and action in emerging RRI practices: the case of neuroimaging in security management. J Responsib Innov 3:26–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2015.1137752De Lopez T (2001) Stakeholder management for conservation projects: a case study of Ream National Park, Cambodia. J Environ Manag 28:47–60De Lotto R, Gazzola V, Gossenberg S et al (2016) Proposal to reduce natural risks: analytic network process to evaluate efficiency of city planning strategies. Springer, Cham, pp 650–664European Commission (2011) DG Research workshop on Responsible Research & Innovation in EuropeGeoghegan-Quinn M (2012) Responsible research and innovation. Europe’s ability to respond to societal challengesGörener A (2012) Comparing AHP and ANP: an application of strategic decisions making in a Manufacturing Company. Int J Bus Soc Sci 3:194–208Jaafari A, Najafi A, García-Melón M (2015) Decision-making for the selection of a best wood extraction method: an analytic network process approach. For Policy Econ 50:200–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.010Koops BJ (2015) The concepts, approaches, and applications of responsible innovations: an introduction. In: Koops BJ, Oosterlaken I, Romijn H, Swierstra T, van den Hoven J (eds) Responsible innovation 2: concepts, approaches, and applications. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–15Ligardo-Herrera I, Gómez-Navarro T, Inigo EA, Blok V (2018) Addressing climate change in responsible research and innovation: recommendations for its operationalization. Sustainability 10:20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062012Lubberink R, Blok V, van Ophem J, Omta O (2017) Lessons for responsible innovation in the business context: a systematic literature review of responsible, social and sustainable innovation practices. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050721Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really. Acad Manag Rev 22:853–886. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022105Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (2013) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, New YorkPeris J, García-Melón M, Gómez-Navarro T, Calabuig C (2013) Prioritizing local agenda 21 programmes using analytic network process: a Spanish case study. Sustain Dev 21:338–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.514Ramzan N, Degenkolbe S, Witt W (2008) Evaluating and improving environmental performance of HC’s recovery system: a case study of distillation unit. Chem Eng J 140:201–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2007.09.042Rosso M, Bottero M, Pomarico S et al (2014) Integrating multicriteria evaluation and stakeholders analysis for assessing hydropower projects. Energy Policy 67:870–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.007Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-ISaaty TL (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces (Providence) 24:19–43Saaty TL (2001) The analytic network process: decision making with dependence and feedback. RWS Publications, PittsburghSaaty TL (2005) Theory and applications of the analytic network process: decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and its generalization to dependence and feedback, the Analytic Network Process (ANP), are methods of relative measurement of tangibles and intangibles. Being able to derive such measurements is essential for making goSaaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1:83. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590Saaty TL, Peniwati K (2008) Group decision making : drawing out and reconciling differences. RWS Publications, PittsburghSangle S, Babu PR (2007) Evaluating sustainability practices in terms of stakeholders’ satisfaction. Int J Bus Gov Ethics 3:56. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBGE.2007.011934Shiau TA, Chuen-Yu JK (2016) Developing an indicator system for measuring the social sustainability of offshore wind power farms. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050470Šijanec M, Žarnić R, Šelih J (2009) Multicriterial sustainability assessment of residential buildings. Technol Econ Dev Econ 15:612–630. https://doi.org/10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.612-630Sipahi S, Timor M (2010) The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: an overview of applications. Manag Decis 48:775–808. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011043920Sólnes J (2003) Environmental quality indexing of large industrial development alternatives using AHP. Environ Impact Assess Rev 23:283–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00004-0Stahl BC, Coeckelbergh M (2016) Ethics of healthcare robotics: towards responsible research and innovation. Rob Auton Syst 86:152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2016.08.018Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42:1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008Strand R, Spaapen J, Bauer MW et al (2015) Indicators for promoting and monitoring responsible research and innovation report from the expert group on policy indicatorsVaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028van de Poel I, Asveld L, Flipse S et al (2017) Company strategies for responsible research and innovation (RRI): a conceptual model. Sustainability 9:2045. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112045Von Schomberg R (2011) Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. Tech abschätzen lehren Bild transdisziplinärer Methoden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93468-6_2Wu X, Cui P (2016) A study of the time-space evolution characteristics of urban-rural integration development in a mountainous area based on ESDA-GIS: the case of the Qinling-Daba mountains in China. Sustainability 8:1085. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111085Yüksel I, Dagdeviren M (2007) Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis—a case study for a textile firm. Inf Sci (NY) 177:3364–3382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2007.01.00

Context Differences Reveal Insulator and Activator Functions of a Su(Hw) Binding Region

Insulators are DNA elements that divide chromosomes into independent transcriptional domains. The Drosophila genome contains hundreds of binding sites for the Suppressor of Hairy-wing [Su(Hw)] insulator protein, corresponding to locations of the retroviral gypsy insulator and non-gypsy binding regions (BRs). The first non-gypsy BR identified, 1A-2, resides in cytological region 1A. Using a quantitative transgene system, we show that 1A-2 is a composite insulator containing enhancer blocking and facilitator elements. We discovered that 1A-2 separates the yellow (y) gene from a previously unannotated, non-coding RNA gene, named yar for y-achaete (ac) intergenic RNA. The role of 1A-2 was elucidated using homologous recombination to excise these sequences from the natural location, representing the first deletion of any Su(Hw) BR in the genome. Loss of 1A-2 reduced yar RNA accumulation, without affecting mRNA levels from the neighboring y and ac genes. These data indicate that within the 1A region, 1A-2 acts an activator of yar transcription. Taken together, these studies reveal that the properties of 1A-2 are context-dependent, as this element has both insulator and enhancer activities. These findings imply that the function of non-gypsy Su(Hw) BRs depends on the genomic environment, predicting that Su(Hw) BRs represent a diverse collection of genomic regulatory elements

A High Density Consensus Map of Rye (Secale cereale L.) Based on DArT Markers

L.) is an economically important crop, exhibiting unique features such as outstanding resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses and high nutrient use efficiency. This species presents a challenge to geneticists and breeders due to its large genome containing a high proportion of repetitive sequences, self incompatibility, severe inbreeding depression and tissue culture recalcitrance. The genomic resources currently available for rye are underdeveloped in comparison with other crops of similar economic importance. The aim of this study was to create a highly saturated, multilocus linkage map of rye via consensus mapping, based on Diversity Arrays Technology (DArT) markers.Recombinant inbred lines (RILs) from 5 populations (564 in total) were genotyped using DArT markers and subjected to linkage analysis using Join Map 4.0 and Multipoint Consensus 2.2 software. A consensus map was constructed using a total of 9703 segregating markers. The average chromosome map length ranged from 199.9 cM (2R) to 251.4 cM (4R) and the average map density was 1.1 cM. The integrated map comprised 4048 loci with the number of markers per chromosome ranging from 454 for 7R to 805 for 4R. In comparison with previously published studies on rye, this represents an eight-fold increase in the number of loci placed on a consensus map and a more than two-fold increase in the number of genetically mapped DArT markers.Through the careful choice of marker type, mapping populations and the use of software packages implementing powerful algorithms for map order optimization, we produced a valuable resource for rye and triticale genomics and breeding, which provides an excellent starting point for more in-depth studies on rye genome organization

Three Drosophila Hox Complex microRNAs Do Not Have Major Effects on Expression of Evolutionarily Conserved Hox Gene Targets during Embryogenesis

The discovery of microRNAs has resulted in a major expansion of the number of molecules known to be involved in gene regulation. Elucidating the functions of animal microRNAs has posed a significant challenge as their target interactions with messenger RNAs do not adhere to simple rules. Of the thousands of known animal microRNAs, relatively few microRNA:messenger RNA regulatory interactions have been biologically validated in an normal organismal context. Here we present evidence that three microRNAs from the Hox complex in Drosophila (miR-10-5p, miR-10-3p, miR-iab-4-5p) do not have significant effects during embryogenesis on the expression of Hox genes that contain high confidence microRNAs target sites in the 3′ untranslated regions of their messenger RNAs. This is significant, in that it suggests that many predicted microRNA-target interactions may not be biologically relevant, or that the outcomes of these interactions may be so subtle that mutants may only show phenotypes in specific contexts, such as in environmental stress conditions, or in combinations with other microRNA mutations

De Novo assembly and transcriptome analysis of the mediterranean fruit fly ceratitis capitata early embryos

The agricultural pest Ceratitis capitata, also known as the Mediterranean fruit fly or Medfly, belongs to the Tephritidae family, which includes a large number of other damaging pest species. The Medfly has been the first non-drosophilid fly species which has been genetically transformed paving the way for designing geneticbased pest control strategies. Furthermore, it is an experimentally tractable model, in which transient and transgene-mediated RNAi have been successfully used. We applied Illumina sequencing to total RNA preparations of 8-10 hours old embryos of C. capitata, This developmental window corresponds to the blastoderm cellularization stage. In summary, we assembled 42,614 transcripts which cluster in 26,319 unique transcripts of which 11,045 correspond to protein coding genes; we identified several hundreds of long ncRNAs; we found an enrichment of transcripts encoding RNA binding proteins among the highly expressed transcripts, such as CcTRA-2, known to be necessary to establish and, most likely, to maintain female sex of C. capitata. Our study is the first de novo assembly performed for Ceratitis capitata based on Illumina NGS technology during embryogenesis and it adds novel data to the previously published C. capitata EST databases. We expect that it will be useful for a variety of applications such as gene cloning and phylogenetic analyses, as well as to advance genetic research and biotechnological applications in the Medfly and other related Tephritidae