Professor spreads the gospel of ‘good fire’ through eco-cultural lens

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS

 

IMAGE: MELINDA ADAMS USES A DRIP TORCH TO LEAD A CULTURAL BURN AT THE KU FIELD STATION. view more 

CREDIT: JOEY ORR, ANDREW W. MELLON CURATOR FOR RESEARCH, SPENCER MUSEUM OF ART, KU

LAWRENCE – A pyromaniac is someone unhealthily obsessed with the destructive power of fire. Melinda Adams instead is pulled toward the term pyromantic – a lover of “good fire” for the benefits it can bring to people, communities and the environment as a whole.

The Langston Hughes Assistant Professor in Indigenous Studies and Geography & Atmospheric Science at the University of Kansas, Adams extols the benefits of cultural or ceremonial fire in a new paper she has co-authored in the journal Ecopsychology.

Adams collaborated on the paper titled “Solastalgia to Soliphilia: Cultural Fire, Climate Change, and Indigenous Healing” ----- link to: https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2022.0085 ------- with Erica Tom, an instructor in the English Department of Santa Rosa (Calif.) Junior College, and Ron W. Goode, Honorable Chairman of California’s North Fork Mono Tribe. ----- link to: https://www.northforkrancheria-nsn.gov/ ----- They detail the benefits to university students and community members who took part in a series of ceremonial burns on Indigenous lands in California that they organized as part of ongoing community-based participatory research project in partnership with the University of California-Davis (where Adams obtained her doctoral degree) and the Southwest Climate Adaptation Center. ----- link to: https://www.swcasc.arizona.edu/ -------

The researchers write that by taking part in a ceremonial burn (the term Goode and Adams both use) a few acres at a time -- usually through pile burning ----- link to: https://www.nps.gov/articles/yose-pile-burning.htm  ------ or grass burning for the restoration of culturally significant plants -- and guided by traditional environmental knowledge, the participants were able to move in significant ways from the “Solastalgia” of the paper’s title – a word coined by Australian philosopher Glen Albrecht for looming environmental dread – to “Soliphilia,” defined as a heightened state of environmental awareness and concern, which the authors say also engenders feelings of control.

“Whether you are a native person that's learning about fire, an allied person that's wanting to learn about the presence of Indigenous peoples and our land-stewardship and climate solutions, or community members that care about the places that we all live and work in and hopefully all care about, there's a role for everybody in learning about good fire,” said Adams.

As wildfires have grown larger and more frequent as the result of climate change, so, too, has the fear of them grown in the Western United States.

“We've had young people and students who experienced the Carr Fire ----- link to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carr_Fire ------ or the Paradise fire, ------- link to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Fire_(2018) ------ so they've lost their family homes or been affected in some way,” Adams explained. “Or they were already afraid of fire from engrained ideas that all fire is bad fire. So students participated in the ceremonial burn demonstrations to learn an Indigenous perspective of not running from fire but working with it as a land-stewardship tool. The experience is powerful as a healing concept. ... There's growing interest in cultural fire because it's a mitigation tool that people are starting to educate themselves about. These are practices that we have held onto, as Indigenous Peoples, since time immemorial.”

Adams studies and leads cultural/ceremonial fire from an Indigenous lens and invites others to learn from Traditional practices, with Indigenous peoples always leading these demonstrations. She says her eco-cultural work serves to reiterate what Indigenous communities have always known: through close connections with lands and waters, and scientific observation over time, there are numerous benefits to purposely lit cultural fire.

“In addition to the cultural-social effects of cultural fire, I also study the soil effects of cultural fire, of native fire, and its potential for carbon storage -- everybody's raving about carbon storage with climate effects – and I also talk about the water-holding capacity that good fire invites to soilscapes,” Adams said.

The authors say the benefits of “placing fire on the land” can be expanded from an individual to an environmental level as participants in programs like the one Adams helped lead in California take the lessons they’ve learned into their careers in the field.

Adams, who joined KU’s faculty in the spring of 2023, led her first ceremonial burn at the KU Field Station ----- link to: https://biosurvey.ku.edu/welcome-ku-field-station ----- in March. She looks forward to more, working with Tribes, nearby Haskell Indian Nations University (of which Adams is also an alumna), faculty and community members and Indigenous peoples in the Midwest.

“That's part of my work in trying to widen the scope of good fire,” Adams said. “We say good fire, meaning it's purposeful, it has an ecological, cultural or social benefit that it's bringing, as opposed to catastrophic wildfire, forest fire, which in most of us it's ingrained to be dangerous and something to stay away from. ...

“Not all fire is bad fire.”

---

JOURNAL

Ecopsychology

DOI

10.1089/eco.2022.0085 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Observational study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

Solastalgia to Soliphilia: Cultural Fire, Climate Change, and Indigenous Healing

Empowering vulnerable communities in the face of growing natural threats

Peer-Reviewed Publication

STANFORD WOODS INSTITUTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

 

IMAGE: RESEARCHERS AND COLLABORATORS DISCUSS ONGOING PILOT PROJECT view more 

CREDIT: TOM CASCIATO

Heavy wildfire smoke drifting from Canada to U.S. cities hundreds of miles away is a stark reminder that no community is immune from climate change-fueled hazards. A Stanford-led study published recently in Environmental Research Letters provides a blueprint for empowering  people in frontline communities – those that experience the “first and worst” consequences of climate change – to better understand and deal with wildfire smoke, extreme heat, and other hazards.

The research – done in four predominantly low-income, non-English-speaking San Francisco Bay Area communities – details ways for frontline communities to gather relevant data through surveys and instruments that monitor air quality, temperature, and participant sleep health, and how to improve outcomes through various interventions.

Below, lead author Natalie Herbert, senior author Gabrielle Wong-Parodi and coauthor Cade Cannedydiscuss the pilot study’s implications for policymaking, community-led science, and more. Herbert is a research scientist in the department of Earth system science at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, Wong-Parodi is an assistant professor of Earth system science and a center fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Cannedy is a program manager at Climate Resilient Communities and a Stanford graduate.

 

How have frontline communities suffered disproportionately from wildfire smoke, extreme heat, and other climate hazards?

Cannedy: In the communities we studied, housing is often very old or in poor condition. This allows smoke, heat, and other hazards to penetrate the home. Also, the impact of these events is often cumulative. For example, wildfire smoke can have greater consequences for your health if you already have asthma from growing up in a chronically pollution burdened community like those in our study area. 

What are some key interventions frontline communities can employ to deal with wildfire smoke, extreme heat, and other climate hazards?

Herbert: We found communities are already acting to protect their health from climate hazards. For example, they’re wearing masks and staying inside during smoke and heat. Yet there are opportunities for more interventions that provide additional protection, whether from public health agencies, weatherization assistance programs, or funders who support the work of our community partners. For wildfire smoke, we want to increase the number of households with better weatherization to reduce infiltration, who have and use air cleaners with HEPA filters, and who wear better masks like N95s when they’re outside.

 

Why should policymakers care about your pilot study?

Herbert: We learned through our pilot that the programs policymakers might wish to deploy – such as improved improving weatherization and increasing access to air purifiers – could have unintended consequences for low-income communities. Weatherization in rental units could cause landlords to increase rents, and air purifiers won’t get used if people cannot afford the associated power bill. Renter protections and outreach from low-income home energy assistance programs can help.

Wong-Parodi: Our pilot highlights a key insight for policymakers: the reason many frontline communities are exposed to climate hazards stems from structural and institutional systems that create situations where some people have been marginalized and have fewer resources. It’s important to acknowledge we have little or no information about how people in these communities are exposed, or what they are thinking, doing, and feeling in response to these threats. This information is key to developing programs and policies that can best and appropriately meet the needs of frontline communities.

 

What are some of the important lessons learned from this pilot study, and how might they be incorporated into similar studies?

Wong-Parodi: Our pilot would not have been successful without our community partners and community ambassadors. They reached out to their networks of friends, families, and neighbors to enroll participants. They were key in helping us to explain the study and its benefits, as well as allaying concerns.

Cannedy: Many people want to make actions accessible, but often don’t consider the equity implications. For example, having people download a smartphone app might be a great, low cost intervention for users with a lot of resources and technical expertise. But for folks who are already experiencing the worst consequences of climate change, that might not be the best solution.

 

The study was funded by Stanford Impact Labs, the Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences, the United States Parcel Service Endowment Fund at Stanford, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation.

Additional coauthors affiliated with Stanford include Jinpu Cao, a PhD student in civil and environmental engineering; Stephanie Fischer, a PhD student in Earth system science; Sergio Sanchez Lopez, a PhD student in the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER);Derek Ouyang, a research manager in the Regulation, Evaluation, and Governance Lab of Stanford Law School; Jenny Suckale, an assistant professor of geophysics and center fellow, by courtesy, at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment; and Zhihao Zhang, a graduate student researcher in the department of energy science and engineering. Coauthors also include researchers from Climate Resilient Communities, RTI International,  Sonoma Technology, and El Concilio of San Mateo County.

---

JOURNAL

Environmental Research Letters

DOI

10.1088/1748-9326/acddf9 

ARTICLE TITLE

Improving adaptation to wildfire smoke and extreme heat in frontline communities: evidence from a community-engaged pilot study in the San Francisco Bay Area

Fewer than half of new drugs add substantial therapeutic value over existing treatments

Patients need better treatments, not just more of the same, says expert

Peer-Reviewed Publication

BMJ

New drugs are often used not only for one disease (first approved indication) but also for other diseases (supplemental indications). 

But a study published by The BMJ today finds that less than half of approved first indications for new drugs in the US and Europe between 2011 and 2020 add substantial therapeutic value over existing treatments and only around a third of supplemental approvals add substantial therapeutic value compared with first approvals. 

The researchers argue that when first or supplemental indications do not offer added benefit over existing treatments, this information should be clearly communicated to patients and reflected in the price of the drugs.

Previous research on the added value of new drugs is unclear. So researchers set out to examine all new drugs approved for more than one indication in the US and Europe between 2011 and 2020 and assess the therapeutic value of supplemental indications compared with first indications. 

They used publicly available data to identify 124 first and 335 supplemental indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and 88 first and 215 supplemental indications approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between January 2011 and December 2020.

In the US, 48% of drugs had one supplemental indication, 20% had two, 14% had three, and 18% had four or more. In Europe, 48% of drugs had one supplemental indication, 23% had two, 13% had three, and 17% had four or more. Most (58%) of indications approved by the FDA and EMA were for treatment of cancer.

Therapeutic ratings from French and German health technology assessment (HTA) bodies were available for 107 (86%) first and 179 (53%) supplemental indications in the US and for 87 (99%) first and 184 (86%) supplemental indications in Europe. 

Among FDA-approved indications with available ratings, 41% (44 of 107) had high therapeutic value ratings for first, compared with 34% (61 of 179) for supplemental indications. In Europe, 47% (41 of 87) of first and 36% (67 of 184) of supplemental indications had high therapeutic value ratings.

Among FDA approvals, when the sample was restricted to the first three approved indications, second indication approvals were 36% less likely to have a high value rating and third indication approvals were 45% less likely when compared to the first indication approval. Similar findings were observed for Europe.

These are observational findings and the researchers acknowledge that therapeutic value ratings were not available for all indications, particularly indications approved in the US but not in Europe. Furthermore, the methods and value assessment system can be influenced by country specific factors and assumptions.

However, they point out that they focused on the highest rating provided by one of the two HTA bodies and did sensitivity analyses with the value scores of each authority separately, which confirmed the initial results.

As such, they conclude: “Fewer than half of approved first indications in the US and Europe were rated as having high therapeutic value, and the proportion of approved supplemental indications rated as having high therapeutic value was substantially lower than for approved first indications."

"When indications do not offer added therapeutic benefit over other available treatments, that information should be clearly communicated to patients and reflected in the price of the drugs.”

The fact that new does not necessarily mean better needs to be clearly communicated to both patients and clinicians, agrees Beate Wieseler at the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, in a linked editorial.

“The system’s current performance does not meet the expectations of patients and the public, clinicians, or policy makers,” she writes. “Having experienced the potential of a coordinated drug development effort during the covid-19 pandemic, we should seek to align current legislation on drug development more closely with defined public health goals.”

[Ends] 

---

JOURNAL

The BMJ

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2022-074166 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Observational study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

Therapeutic value of first versus supplemental indications of drugs in US and Europe (2011-20): retrospective cohort study

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

5-Jul-2023

COI STATEMENT

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz), the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF, grant number 194607), and Kaiser Permanente Institute of Health Policy for the submitted work; KNV’s work is supported by the SNSF and the Swiss Cancer Research Foundation; ASK’s work is supported by Arnold Ventures; JSR receives research support through Yale University from Johnson & Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology (NEST), from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from Arnold Ventures; in addition, JSR is an expert witness at the request of Relator’s attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen Inc.

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAl

International migrants left behind in HIV response: study

Peer-Reviewed Publication

MONASH UNIVERSITY

International migrants in Australia and beyond are at increased risk of HIV infection due to reduced access to a highly effective prevention measure, a world-first global review led by Monash University has found.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is up to 99 per cent effective in preventing HIV. The antiretroviral tablet is available by prescription and taken to prevent HIV infection. 

Published in The Lancet Public Health, the study identified barriers that migrant populations in Australia and around the world face to access PrEP.

Multiple barriers included lack of awareness, low risk perception for HIV, and service issues such as cost and provider discrimination. They also faced uncertainty in navigating the health system and stigma around HIV, gay and bisexual identities and using PrEP. 

Senior author and Melbourne Sexual Health Centre physician, Monash University Central Clinical School Associate Professor Jason Ong, said a concerning number of migrants were being left behind in the HIV response compared to those who were Australian-born.

He said the study identified the need for culturally tailored approaches for PrEP access, and to address migration and HIV-related discriminatory policies, including making it much harder for people with HIV to obtain permanent residency.

“Navigating the landscape of HIV prevention is like traversing a maze, with barriers blocking the way at every turn,” Associate Professor Ong said. “Culturally tailored approaches act as guiding lights, illuminating the path forward.

“To improve health inequities, we suggest strategies at societal, service and individual levels that address the barriers of using PrEP among those who would benefit from it the most.”

Associate Professor Ong said PrEP was “game-changing” in preventing HIV. 

“Getting this into the hands of the right people remains a significant barrier in our fight against HIV,” he said. “Our study shows that it is possible to improve health inequity in our society if we can direct resources to the right people." 

Professor Darryl O’Donnell, the CEO of Health Equity Matters concurred.

“We know PrEP is highly effective in preventing HIV. Australia has made PrEP available at low cost to its own citizens. We have a national goal of virtually eliminating HIV transmission,” Professor O’Donnell said. “We will only achieve this if PrEP is available to all who can benefit, including people migrating to Australia.”

The study involved Alfred Health, Monash University, Australia, UNAIDS, WHO, UNSW Sydney, and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

 

---

JOURNAL

The Lancet Public Health

DOI

10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00105-6 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Systematic review

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

Improving access to oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV among international migrant populations

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

5-Jul-2023

Invasive non-native species cost UK economy an estimated £4bn a year, new CABI-led study reveals

CABI scientists have carried out a study which reveals invasive non-native species (INNS) – such as the aquatic water weeds floating pennywort and Japanese knotweed as well as signal crayfish – cost the UK economy an estimated £4bn a year.

Peer-Reviewed Publication

CABI

 

IMAGE: FLOATING PENNYWORT ON THE RIVER WEY, WEYBRIDGE, UK view more 

CREDIT: DJAMI DJEDDOUR CABI

CABI scientists have carried out a study which reveals invasive non-native species (INNS) – such as the aquatic water weeds floating pennywort and Japanese knotweed as well as signal crayfish – cost the UK economy an estimated £4bn a year.

However, when species only covered by the GB Non-native Species Strategy are considered – for instance with fungi excluded from the estimate – the total cost was estimated to be £1.9bn.

Researchers working from CABI’s centres in Egham, UK, as well as Switzerland and Kenya, found a 135% increase in comparable costs since the last assessment was conducted in 2010. Annual estimated costs in 2021 were £3.02bn, £499m, £343m and £150m to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.

The cost to forestry increased eightfold, the cost to aquaculture and agriculture increased by 139.5% and 112.7%, respectively, and the cost of most of the other sectors increased roughly in line with inflation (47.6% for GB and 55.7% for Northern Ireland).

Agriculture is the industry affected the most with estimated costs for the UK put at £1.088bn followed by construction, development and infrastructure at £270m and tourism and recreation at £136m. The impact upon forestry is £123m.

The study, published in the journal Biological Invasions, updates the earlier assessment using the same methodology and the diversity of changes among sectors and species highlights the value of such a detailed approach.

There are currently around 2,000 INNS in the UK with 10-12 new species establishing themselves every year. The list includes well-known established species such as grey squirrel, killer shrimp, giant hogweed, mink and parakeets, as well as recently arrived, but highly impactful species such as the sea squirt Didemnum vexillum and ash dieback.

The fungus Hymenoscyphus fraxineus, which causes ash dieback disease has become the costliest species in the past decade in the UK at an estimated £883.5m followed by followed by Japanese knotweed (£246.5m), rabbits (£169.7m), rats and mice (£84.4m), cockroaches (£69.8m) and deer (£62.9m).

As a group, fungi were the costliest to the UK, accounting for 52.9% of the total estimated costs, followed by mammals, plants and terrestrial arthropods (21.9%, 15.5% and 7.5% of the total, respectively).

Dr Rene Eschen, lead author and Senior Scientist, Ecosystems Management, said, “Our research illustrates the usefulness of repeating economic cost assessments for INNS, as INNS are dynamic and their impacts vary.

“Repeat assessments like this one are important to maintain a focus on the impact of INNS, changes in impacts as a result of new or spreading species, as well as the identification of potential impacts of management or policies.”

The researchers recommend continued investment in sustainable, long-term solutions for widespread damaging species, such as classical biological control, which, they say, has been shown worldwide to be a cost-effective, safe and environmentally sensitive management option when other methods prove ineffective or are no longer feasible.

Dr Richard Shaw, co-author and Senior Regional Director, Europe and The Americas, said, “This assessment again shows the important costs of INNS to the UK economy. Few effects of INNS specific management efforts can be seen in these results. However, they highlight the need to continue prevention and early detection, followed by eradication of the highest-risk species prior to establishment.”

In February, the GB Invasive Non-native Species Strategy, which draws upon CABI’s research, was published to provide a strategic framework within which the actions of government departments, their related bodies and key stakeholders can be better co-ordinated.

Defra Head of GB Non-Native Secretariat, Niall Moore, said: “Invasive Non-Native species pose a serious threat to our natural environment and this Government is taking action through the recently launched GB Invasive Non-Native Species strategy, to protect our native animals and plants from INNS.

“CABI’s research, funded by Defra, reveals the significant financial impact of INNS. It is vital that we work together with researchers, scientists, and others, who are working to tackle INNS, to prevent their entry into and establishment in Great Britain and, when they do become established, to mitigate their negative impacts.”

Additional information

Main image: Floating pennywort is one invasive non-native species of concern. The aquatic weed causes dense mats that cover the water’s surface – such as here on this water course on the River Wey, Weybridge, UK (Credit: Djami Djeddour).

Full paper reference

René Eschen, Mariam Kadzamira, Sonja Stutz, Adewale Ogunmodede, Djami Djeddour, Richard Shaw, Corin Pratt, Sonal Varia, Kate Constantine and Frances Williams, ‘An updated assessment of the direct costs of invasive non-native species to the United Kingdom,’ 6 July 2023, Biological Invasions, DOI: 10.1007/s10530-023-03107-2

The paper can be read in full open access from 1am UK Time 6 July 2022 here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-023-03107-2

 

Acknowledgement

This work was funded by the UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under contract #34247. CABI is an international intergovernmental organisation, and we gratefully acknowledge the core financial support from our member countries (and lead agencies) including the United Kingdom (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office), China (Chinese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs), Australia (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research), Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), Netherlands (Directorate-General for International Cooperation), and Switzerland (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation). See https://www.cabi.org/about-cabi/who-we-work-with/key-donors/ for full details.

 

---

JOURNAL

Biological Invasions

DOI

10.1007/s10530-023-03107-2 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Experimental study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

An updated assessment of the direct costs of invasive non-native species to the United Kingdom

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

6-Jul-2023

New genetic technology developed to halt malaria-spreading mosquitoes

As envisioned, first-of-its-kind African mosquito suppression system would reduce child mortality and aid economic development

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - SAN DIEGO

 

IMAGE: UC SAN DIEGO RESEARCHERS HAVE DEVELOPED A NEW TECHNOLOGY TO SUPPRESS ANOPHELES GAMBIAE, THE MOSQUITOES THAT PRIMARILY SPREAD MALARIA IN AFRICA AND CONTRIBUTE TO ECONOMIC POVERTY IN AFFECTED REGIONS. view more 

CREDIT: AKBARI LAB, UC SAN DIEGO

Malaria remains one of the world’s deadliest diseases. Each year malaria infections result in hundreds of thousands of deaths, with the majority of fatalities occurring in children under five. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently announced that five cases of mosquito-borne malaria were detected in the United States, the first reported spread in the country in two decades.

Fortunately, scientists are developing safe technologies to stop the transmission of malaria by genetically editing mosquitoes that spread the parasite that causes the disease. Researchers at the University of California San Diego led by Professor Omar Akbari’s laboratory have engineered a new way to genetically suppress populations of Anopheles gambiae, the mosquitoes that primarily spread malaria in Africa and contribute to economic poverty in affected regions. The new system targets and kills females of the A. gambiae population since they bite and spread the disease.

Publishing July 5 in the journal Science Advances, first-author Andrea Smidler, a postdoctoral scholar in the UC San Diego School of Biological Sciences, along with former master’s students and co-first authors James Pai and Reema Apte, created a system called Ifegenia, an acronym for “inherited female elimination by genetically encoded nucleases to interrupt alleles.” The technique leverages the CRISPR technology to disrupt a gene known as femaleless (fle) that controls sexual development in A. gambiae mosquitoes.

Scientists at UC Berkeley and the California Institute of Technology contributed to the research effort.

Ifegenia works by genetically encoding the two main elements of CRISPR within African mosquitoes. These include a Cas9 nuclease, the molecular “scissors” that make the cuts and a guide RNA that directs the system to the target through a technique developed in these mosquitoes in Akbari’s lab. They genetically modified two mosquito families to separately express Cas9 and the fle-targeting guide RNA.

“We crossed them together and in the offspring it killed all the female mosquitoes,” said Smidler, “it was extraordinary.” Meanwhile, A. gambiae male mosquitoes inherit Ifegenia but the genetic edit doesn’t impact their reproduction. They remain reproductively fit to mate and spread Ifegenia. Parasite spread eventually is halted since females are removed and the population reaches a reproductive dead end. The new system, the authors note, circumvents certain genetic resistance roadblocks and control issues faced by other systems such as gene drives since the Cas9 and guide RNA components are kept separate until the population is ready to be suppressed.

“We show that Ifegenia males remain reproductively viable, and can load both fle mutations and CRISPR machinery to induce fle mutations in subsequent generations, resulting in sustained population suppression,” the authors note in the paper. “Through modeling, we demonstrate that iterative releases of non-biting Ifegenia males can act as an effective, confinable, controllable and safe population suppression and elimination system.”

Traditional methods to combat malaria spread such as bed nets and insecticides increasingly have been proven ineffective in stopping the disease’s spread. Insecticides are still heavily used across the globe, primarily in an effort to stop malaria, which increases health and ecological risks to areas in Africa and Asia.

Smidler, who earned a PhD (biological sciences of public health) from Harvard University before joining UC San Diego in 2019, is applying her expertise in genetic technology development to address the spread of the disease and the economic harm that comes with it. Once she and her colleagues developed Ifegenia, she was surprised by how effective the technology worked as a suppression system.

“This technology has the potential to be the safe, controllable and scalable solution the world urgently needs to eliminate malaria once and for all,” said Akbari, a professor in the Department of Cell and Developmental Biology. “Now we need to transition our efforts to seek social acceptance, regulatory use authorizations and funding opportunities to put this system to its ultimate test of suppressing wild malaria-transmitting mosquito populations. We are on the cusp of making a major impact in the world and won’t stop until that’s achieved.”   

The researchers note that the technology behind Ifegenia could be adapted to other species that spread deadly diseases, such as mosquitoes known to transmit dengue (break-bone fever), chikungunya and yellow fever viruses.

The full author list includes Andrea Smidler, James Pai, Reema Apte, Hector Sanchez C., Rodrigo Corder, Eileen Jeffrey Gutierrez, Neha Thakre, Igor Antoshechkin, John Marshall and Omar Akbari.

 

Larva of Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes were injected with CRISPR-based genetic editing tools in a new population suppression system.

CAPTION

Ifegenia technology study first author Andrea Smidler (left) and co-first author Reema Apte.

CREDIT

Akbari Lab, UC San Diego

JOURNAL

Science Advances

DOI

10.1126/sciadv.ade8903 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Experimental study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Animals

ARTICLE TITLE

A confinable female-lethal population suppression system in the malaria vector, Anopheles gambiae

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

5-Jul-2023

COI STATEMENT

Akbari is a co-founder with equity interest of Agragene Inc. and Synvect Inc. Akbari, Apte, Pai and Smidler have filed a provisional patent application on the Ifegenia technology.