Growth and development of two predator species fed a diet of genetically engineered mosquitoes
Abstract Background Genetically 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 (N...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-08-01
|
| Series: | Parasites & Vectors |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-025-06987-6 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849226598080839680 |
|---|---|
| author | Claire M. Egan Lisa Chamberland Robert E. Ditter Melina Campos Fatima Batchelor Aleena Bosky Christine H. Coleman Andrew J. Goffinet Ariana Hosseini Morgan Kammersgard Brian Leetakubuulidde Danspaid P. Mabuka Ivan Mulongo Mugeni Gregory C. Lanzaro |
| author_facet | Claire M. Egan Lisa Chamberland Robert E. Ditter Melina Campos Fatima Batchelor Aleena Bosky Christine H. Coleman Andrew J. Goffinet Ariana Hosseini Morgan Kammersgard Brian Leetakubuulidde Danspaid P. Mabuka Ivan Mulongo Mugeni Gregory C. Lanzaro |
| author_sort | Claire M. Egan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Genetically 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. Methods Here, 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. Results No 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. Conclusions Differences 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. Graphical abstract |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-bb2fbac6526743478046655b2a9f1e45 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1756-3305 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-08-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Parasites & Vectors |
| spelling | doaj-art-bb2fbac6526743478046655b2a9f1e452025-08-24T11:10:35ZengBMCParasites & Vectors1756-33052025-08-0118111510.1186/s13071-025-06987-6Growth and development of two predator species fed a diet of genetically engineered mosquitoesClaire M. Egan0Lisa Chamberland1Robert E. Ditter2Melina Campos3Fatima Batchelor4Aleena Bosky5Christine H. Coleman6Andrew J. Goffinet7Ariana Hosseini8Morgan Kammersgard9Brian Leetakubuulidde10Danspaid P. Mabuka11Ivan Mulongo Mugeni12Gregory C. Lanzaro13Vector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, UC DavisVector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, UC DavisVector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, UC DavisVector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, UC DavisVector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, UC DavisVector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, UC DavisVector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, UC DavisVector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, UC DavisVector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, UC DavisVector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, UC DavisVector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, UC DavisVector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, UC DavisVector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, UC DavisVector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, UC DavisAbstract Background Genetically 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. Methods Here, 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. Results No 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. Conclusions Differences 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. Graphical abstracthttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-025-06987-6Genetically engineered mosquitoesGene driveMalariaNontarget organismsGMO environmental impact |
| spellingShingle | Claire M. Egan Lisa Chamberland Robert E. Ditter Melina Campos Fatima Batchelor Aleena Bosky Christine H. Coleman Andrew J. Goffinet Ariana Hosseini Morgan Kammersgard Brian Leetakubuulidde Danspaid P. Mabuka Ivan Mulongo Mugeni Gregory C. Lanzaro Growth and development of two predator species fed a diet of genetically engineered mosquitoes Parasites & Vectors Genetically engineered mosquitoes Gene drive Malaria Nontarget organisms GMO environmental impact |
| title | Growth and development of two predator species fed a diet of genetically engineered mosquitoes |
| title_full | Growth and development of two predator species fed a diet of genetically engineered mosquitoes |
| title_fullStr | Growth and development of two predator species fed a diet of genetically engineered mosquitoes |
| title_full_unstemmed | Growth and development of two predator species fed a diet of genetically engineered mosquitoes |
| title_short | Growth and development of two predator species fed a diet of genetically engineered mosquitoes |
| title_sort | growth and development of two predator species fed a diet of genetically engineered mosquitoes |
| topic | Genetically engineered mosquitoes Gene drive Malaria Nontarget organisms GMO environmental impact |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-025-06987-6 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT clairemegan growthanddevelopmentoftwopredatorspeciesfedadietofgeneticallyengineeredmosquitoes AT lisachamberland growthanddevelopmentoftwopredatorspeciesfedadietofgeneticallyengineeredmosquitoes AT roberteditter growthanddevelopmentoftwopredatorspeciesfedadietofgeneticallyengineeredmosquitoes AT melinacampos growthanddevelopmentoftwopredatorspeciesfedadietofgeneticallyengineeredmosquitoes AT fatimabatchelor growthanddevelopmentoftwopredatorspeciesfedadietofgeneticallyengineeredmosquitoes AT aleenabosky growthanddevelopmentoftwopredatorspeciesfedadietofgeneticallyengineeredmosquitoes AT christinehcoleman growthanddevelopmentoftwopredatorspeciesfedadietofgeneticallyengineeredmosquitoes AT andrewjgoffinet growthanddevelopmentoftwopredatorspeciesfedadietofgeneticallyengineeredmosquitoes AT arianahosseini growthanddevelopmentoftwopredatorspeciesfedadietofgeneticallyengineeredmosquitoes AT morgankammersgard growthanddevelopmentoftwopredatorspeciesfedadietofgeneticallyengineeredmosquitoes AT brianleetakubuulidde growthanddevelopmentoftwopredatorspeciesfedadietofgeneticallyengineeredmosquitoes AT danspaidpmabuka growthanddevelopmentoftwopredatorspeciesfedadietofgeneticallyengineeredmosquitoes AT ivanmulongomugeni growthanddevelopmentoftwopredatorspeciesfedadietofgeneticallyengineeredmosquitoes AT gregoryclanzaro growthanddevelopmentoftwopredatorspeciesfedadietofgeneticallyengineeredmosquitoes |