Science World First: Genetically Engineered Moth Is Released Into an Open Field

1580670810919.png

Collage of flying Diamondback moths. Credit: Oxitec.


The diamondback moth, also known as Plutella xylostella, is one of the most destructive insect pests of brassica crops such as cauliflower, cabbage, broccoli and canola.

Resistance of the moth to synthetic insecticides has been reported in numerous parts of the world, and in extreme situations crops have been ploughed and declared unmarketable. The threat of the pest is considered particularly significant particularly in China, as the Chinese cabbage is one of the country's significant vegetable crops.1

"The diamondback moth is a global pest that costs $4-5 billion annually and has developed resistance to most insecticides, making it very difficult to manage," says Dr Neil Morrison of the biotechnology company Oxitec.

A genetically engineered, self-limiting moth

To circumvent the issue this pest poses, Oxitec have developed a genetically engineered diamondback moth that is self-limiting.

Morrison told Technology Networks, "Two genes – a self-limiting gene and a marker gene – are introduced into the insect, such that it can pass them onto offspring just like any other gene. The resulting self-limiting moths are non-toxic and non-allergenic."

The idea behind the genetically engineered moth is that when males of this strain are introduced into the environment, they find and mate with pest females. The self-limiting gene is passed onto the offspring, which then prevents the female caterpillars from surviving.


World's first open-field release of self-limiting agricultural pest

A new study published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology outlines the world's first open-field release of Oxitec's moth (or any genetically engineered moth for that matter) and suggests that this method is both effective and sustainable for pest regulation.2

The study was led by Professor Anthony Shelton in the Department of Entomology at Cornell University's AgriTech in New York.

The open-field test adds to previous published work by Shelton in which his team demonstrated that sustained releases of self-limiting strains are able to supress pest populations and prevent the development of insecticide resistance.

"Our research builds on the sterile insect technique for managing insects that was developed back in the 1950s and celebrated by Rachel Carson in her book, Silent Spring," says Shelton. "Using genetic engineering is simply a more efficient method to get to the same end."

Mark-release-recapture

Shelton's team adopted a "mark-release-recapture" method in the study which has been long-used to study insect movements.

"Professor Shelton’s team in Cornell conducted releases of self-limiting male moths alongside non-modified male moths, from the centre of the trial field planted with cabbage. Traps throughout the field were set to recapture a proportion of released moths and, because they were marked with coloured powders, we were able to track their dispersal and lifespan in the field," says Morrison.

"When released into a field, the self-limiting male insects behaved similarly to their non-modified counterparts in terms of factors that are relevant to their future application in crop protection, such as survival and distance travelled. In laboratory studies they competed equally well for female mates," says Shelton.

The researchers' mathematical model also suggests that the self-limiting strain of diamondback moth would be sufficient to control pest populations without the need for supplementary insecticides.

The researchers declared the experiment a success. When Technology Networks asked Morrison if there were any challenges encountered, he said, "The studies went very well, aside from the usual challenges of fieldwork, such as collecting traps in the rain and mud!"

He continues, "This study demonstrates the immense potential of this exciting technology as a highly effective pest management tool, which can protect crops in an environmentally sustainable way and is self-limiting in the environment."

On the practical applications of the study, Morrison says, "Oxitec is currently evaluating where farmers would benefit most from this solution after which would follow further studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach to protect crops against this devastating pest."

Self-limiting mosquitoes

We asked if there are any other agricultural pests to which this approach would be applicable. Morrison said, "Self-limiting mosquitoes have been deployed in Brazil, Panama and the Caribbean, successfully controlling populations of Aedes aegypti – which transmits deadly diseases like dengue, zika, chikungunya and yellow fever – in multiple cities and towns."

He continued, "Oxitec has now joined the fight against malaria, working to develop solutions to two malaria-transmitting mosquito species. In agriculture, the self-limiting approach is being developed in a number of target pests, including the fall armyworm, a caterpillar that which is native throughout much of the Americas but in 2016 arrived in West Africa and has since spread throughout Sub-Saharan Africa and to Asia, expanding its devastating impact on agricultural productivity."
 
A year down the line, the moths are gone. The predators that eat them are dead, and in their absence, four other pest species they ate are running amok. One carries a human disease and outbreaks are recorded in the area. Worse still, it’s now known that the moths pollinated an important food crop, which has now collapsed...
we just don’t understand the ecology of any ecosystem enough to do stuff like this. Bad idea, humanity.

The Diamandback Moth is an invasive species from the old world. Moths arn't the type of creatures that can become "global" without human assistance in the first place, you can totally wipe it out without ruining the local ecosystem. Its main predator is lacewings, which are perfectly happy eating other pests that arn't going to be wiped out anytime soon.

I'm not sure why you think ecology is so unknowable that scientists capable of effectively changing DNA wouldn't realize its effects.
 
>inb4 the "scientists" REALLY fuck up and unleash something that they can't control that is destroying a vital link in the environment, followed by humanity dying of starvation after the world ecosystem collapses.

In the late 90s, a novel came out called Ill Wind. In the novel, a giant oil tanker runs aground near San Francisco, and the oil is fucking up the shoreline. So the scientists release a microbe that will eat the oil. The problem is, the microbe then proceeds to eat not only every drop of oil on earth, but everything made from oil, such as plastic. Civilization does a hard crash, with 6 billion people eating each other. The main characters flee across the desert carrying a handful of remnants of civilization. (If you are looking for this book on Ebay and come across a shitty pulp novel having to do with "Weather Wardens", that's the wrong book, and was put out about a decade after this one.)

There was a news article last year about a bacteria that almost was released that was later found to sterilize soil. If it got out, the earth would have been wiped clean of all life. Oops!
 
"Had to be me. Someone else might have gotten it wrong." - Man attempting to reverse this in the future when it's had disastrous consequences
 
I thought we were going to do this with mosquitoes first...

It was; the article touches on that at the end. However, it mistakenly calls that venture 'successful', when it was not, the population, despite crashing as anticipated following the initial release, unexpectedly rebounded because the lab-engineered mosquitoes which were supposed to produce un-viable offspring ended up "life finds a way"-ing.


Edit: Also, I should note that this moth trial is also being carried out by Oxitec, the same firm that created the engineered mosquitoes. So they're not being honest in this article.
 
Last edited:
Did the biofag who made this fella do the pee-pee dance with his dick tucked?
 
What about a wholesome Mothman?

Well that was considerably less scary than the Mothman movie I remember. Love that movie.


On-topic, this reminds me of when some scientists transplanted toxic genes from a catapillar into a strain of wheat. That was particularly alarming because it was a cross-over that could never happen naturally. Imagine if that cross-bred with other strains of wheat making it into the wild. Wheat that was toxic to insects and birds would have an incredible evolutionary advantage; now imagine what effect that could have on the biosphere in the next hundred or two hundred years where plants are becoming toxic to wildlife?

But you try to explain this to some people and they recite tropes like "nature has been doing this for thousands of years" and calling you a anti-science hippie or something. When 9 times out of 10 you actually no more than they do about it.
 
This sounds creepy, but it has precedent in how we successfully exterminated gigantic amounts of a bug known as the Screwfly, which would lay its eggs in warm-blooded flesh and, well, you know what happens next. It devastated cattle for centuries until we figured out a way to make their ability to reporduce literally re.tarded and we released thousands upon thousands of these things during their mating season until their populations were virtually annhilated. There are many mitigating factors in the scenario that allowed this to succeed, and it wasn't true genetic engineering (just radiation doses to sterilize them), but it did work and we have the fuckers penned in at the Panama Isthmus (luckily geography is on our side in this one).

If that name sounds familar to you, an author wrote a short horror story about this happening to humans called The Screwfly Solution. Except to up the ante it made all sexual feelings into violent aggression, but that was just for shock value. So far we can't really make them kill each other.

Horror stories aside, this is probably a good thing since we know it worked once on a greatly destructive species, and pesticide overuse is a severe problem in poorer areas since bugs tend to adapt quickly to all but the strongest poisons. Famous last words? Maybe, but this project has been in the works for a very long time, they were talking about this decades ago.

Edit; wanted to touch on this one:

it was tried, it failed miserably. Notice that after it was attempted each time there was profound silence as if nothing was tried at all. They failed to consider that a few, relatively speaking, engineered neutered skeeter would barely even make a dent in the local population.

To be fair, mosquitos are an incredibly powerful reproductive machine. I think we'll have a better shot at wiping destructive moths out first. I don't expect us to be free of mosquitos until genetic technology really matures.
 
Last edited:
So kaiju will inherit the planet if corona kills us all. Good to know.
 
Last edited:
something tells me we shouldnt be fucking with nature in this fashion....... the real climate issue is human interference like this. We see it everywhere. Stopping natural forest fires and then getting an unstoppable monster down the line because of all the un-burnt brush. people scream and complain about "global warming" while simultaneously doing shit like this.
 
the microbe then proceeds to eat not only every drop of oil on earth, but everything made from oil, such as plastic

That's stupid because usually these things are cultivated that involves plastic somehow (disposable lab gear, pipettes, storage, etc.) or end-products from petrochemicals that can also come from natural non-oil sources, but chemically identical (benzaldehyde, for instance, can be derived from petrochemicals, or a variety of almond) because petrochemicals are a breakdown of organics anyway. And if it releases carbon dioxide as a byproduct of consuming oil, why isn't that also consumed as it's technically produced from oil as well?

tl;dr there are many problems with that idea
 
Guys, the genes here aren't really all that complicated.

You've only got two: A marker and the self-kill. All of us have self-kill genes. If something goes wrong, our cells will kill themselves. In viruses, bad replication, you had a bad day, or just because the cell freaks that it's balance isn't right. It pops itself. Cancer is a failure of self-kill and self-terminate.

The marker is just so: "Did we insert this? Y/N" And the second is a self limiting gene that probably exists in the moths to begin with and is a genetic defect. You're all acting like these moths are viruses or bacteria that can freely transmit genes to other organisms. Higher lifeforms DO NOT WANT foreign DNA. That's why we're not absorbing the genes of everything we consume.

Its the same thing with genetically engineered food. We don't 'obtain the genes' by anything we eat. We're specifically built to reject foreign DNA. And that's assuming that DNA's purpose is to be integrated. Our bodies are CRAWLING with DNAases and RNAses to degrade DNA and RNA. It is virtually impossible for high-level organisms to transmit their DNA to each other outside of reproduction and that's a highly involved, imperfect process. Simply put, we are not designed to integrate foreign DNA or keep it around. At all.

In bacteria and viruses, it is a survival strategy. In anything above, it usually means dysfunction so anything foreign is destroyed. The worst that happens is the moths naturally out-breed the defect. Or the defect is rendered uninheritable. That's about it.
 
Back