Evading evolution of resistance to gene drives

R. Gomulkiewicz, M. L. Thies and J. J. Bull,  bioRxiv,  2020.08.27.270611. 2020.

Gene drives offer the possibility of altering and even suppressing wild populations of countless plant and animal species, and CRISPR technology now provides the technical feasibility of engineering them. However, population-suppression gene drives are prone to select resistance, should it arise. Here we develop mathematical and computational models to identify conditions under which suppression drives will evade resistance, even if resistance is present initially. We show that linkage between the resistance and drive loci is critical to the evolution of resistance and that evolution of resistance requires (negative) linkage disequilibrium between the two loci. When the two loci are unlinked or only partially so, a suppression drive that causes limited inviability can evolve to fixation while causing only a minor increase in resistance frequency. Once fixed, the drive allele no longer selects resistance. Our analyses suggest that among gene drives that cause moderate suppression, toxin-antidote systems are less apt to select for resistance than homing drives. Single drives of this type would achieve only partial population suppression, but multiple drives (perhaps delivered sequentially) would allow arbitrary levels of suppression. The most favorable case for evolution of resistance appears to be with suppression homing drives in which resistance is dominant and fully suppresses transmission distortion; partial suppression by resistance heterozygotes or recessive resistance work against resistance evolution. Given that it is now possible to engineer CRISPR-based gene drives capable of circumventing allelic resistance, this design may allow for the engineering of suppression gene drives that are effectively resistance-proof.
You are viewing Version 2, the most recent version of this article.
REVISION SUMMARY
1) Analytical results have been extended to the case of diploid fitness and arbitrary effects of resistance; much of this is in the Appendix. 2) Numerical analyses are extended beyond 1-sex homing drive with dominant, complete resistance. Cases are now considered for 2-sex drives, recessive resistance (with 1-sex drives) and for toxin-antidote drive systems. Figures have gone from 2 to 6. 3) Discussion now includes a section on the relevance of this work to containment. 4) The Appendix is extended to the diploid case.


More related to this:

Evading evolution of resistance to gene drives

Evolution of driving X chromosomes and resistance factors in experimental populations of Drosophila simulans

Multiple loci of small effect confer wide variability in efficiency and resistance rate of CRISPR gene drive

CRISPR gene drives could eliminate many vector-driven pests and diseases, but challenges remain

Resistance to natural and synthetic gene drive systems