Back

Propagation of seminal toxins through binary expression gene drives can suppress polyandrous populations

Hurtado, J.; Revale, S.; Matzkin, L. M.

2021-11-24 bioinformatics
10.1101/2021.11.23.469777 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Gene drives can be highly effective in controlling a target population by disrupting a female fertility gene. To spread across a population, these drives require that disrupted alleles be largely recessive so as not to impose too high of a fitness penalty. We argue that this restriction may be relaxed by using a double gene drive design to spread a split binary expression system. One drive carries a dominant lethal/toxic effector alone and the other a transactivator factor, without which the effector will not act. Only after the drives reach sufficiently high frequencies would individuals have the chance to inherit both system components and the effector be expressed. We explore through mathematical modeling the potential of this design to spread dominant lethal/toxic alleles and suppress populations. We show that this system could be implemented to spread engineered seminal proteins designed to kill females, making it highly effective against polyandrous populations.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 1%
15.1%
Similar papers in this journal
2
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 2%
12.9%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Evolutionary Applications
○ 108 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 28%
5.2%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Peer Community Journal
● 281 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.8%
Similar papers in this journal
6
ACS Synthetic Biology
● 287 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.0%
7
Molecular Ecology Resources
○ 171 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
8
Molecular Biology and Evolution
◐ 542 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
9
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.4%
10
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
◐ 351 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
Ecology and Evolution
○ 267 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.4%
12
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 11%
2.4%
13
Journal of Theoretical Biology
○ 162 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
14
BMC Bioinformatics
○ 457 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
15
BMC Biology
○ 265 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
16
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
◐ 252 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
17
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
○ 176 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
18
Bioinformatics
◐ 1204 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.7%
19
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
● 235 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
20
GENETICS
◐ 483 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
21
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
22
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 62%
1.0%
23
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
● 242 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
24
F1000Research
○ 88 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
25
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 34%
0.6%
26
Science Advances
● 1243 papers in training set
Top 33%
0.6%
27
Physical Biology
○ 46 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
Bioinformatics Advances
◐ 203 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
29
Molecular Ecology
○ 336 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
30
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 44%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.