Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 11;9(1):348-365.
doi: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1722035. eCollection 2020.

What happens when we modify mosquitoes for disease prevention? A systematic review

Teresa Nazareth  1 , Isabel Craveiro  2 , Alanny Moutinho  1 , Gonçalo Seixas  1 , Cátia Gonçalves  3 , Luzia Gonçalves  2   4 , Rosa Teodósio  1   5 , Carla A Sousa  1
Affiliations

What happens when we modify mosquitoes for disease prevention? A systematic review

Teresa Nazareth et al. Emerg Microbes Infect. .

Abstract

The release of modified mosquitoes to suppress/replace vectors constitutes a promising tool for vector control and disease prevention. Evidence regarding these innovative modification techniques is scarce and disperse. This work conducted a systematic review, gathering and analysing research articles from PubMed and Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde databases whose results report efficacy and non-target effects of using modified insects for disease prevention, until 2016. More than 1500 publications were screened and 349 were analysed. Only 12/3.4% articles reported field-based evidence and 41/11.7% covered modification strategies' post-release efficacy. Variability in the effective results (90/25.7%) questioned its reproducibility in different settings. We also found publications reporting reversal outcomes 38/10.9%, (e.g. post-release increase of vector population). Ecological effects were also reported, such as horizontal transfer events (54/15.5%), and worsening pathogenesis induced by natural wolbachia (10/2.9%). Present work revealed promising outcomes of modifying strategies. However, it also revealed a need for field-based evidence mainly regarding epidemiologic and long-term impact. It pointed out some eventual irreversible and important effects that must not be ignored when considering open-field releases, and that may constitute constraints to generate the missing field evidence. Present work constitutes a baseline of knowledge, offering also a methodological approach that may facilitate future updates.

Keywords: Vector-borne diseases; Wolbachia; genetically modified mosquitoes; transgenesis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Figures

None
Graphical abstract
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
PRISMA Flowchart reporting the number of publications in each stage of the review.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Schematic representation of the themes, topics, and type of outcomes described in the “Results” section.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Distribution of the: (i) (above) publications whose results contributed to each of the major themes (n = 349); (ii) (below) publications whose results contributed to each type of outcomes in efficacy (According to Figure 2 Primary covering Modification, Technique, and Fitness topics, and Main covering Release, Epidemiology, and Long-term topics) (n = 237).
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Distribution of the publications regarding Wolbachia and other symbiont-based modification strategies, whose results contribute to each efficacy topic, distinguishing effective/ineffective outcomes (n = 195).
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Distribution of the publications regarding Transgenesis and other non-symbiont-based modification strategies, whose results contribute to each efficacy topic, distinguishing effective/ineffective outcomes (n = 37).
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Number of publications reporting each Wolbachia-induced effect per taxonomic group.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Medlock JM, Hansford KM, Schaffner F, et al. . A review of the invasive mosquitoes in Europe: ecology, public health risks, and control options. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012;12(6):435–447. Available from: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vbz.2011.0814. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nazareth T, Seixas G, Sousa CA.. Climate change and mosquito-borne diseases. In: Leal Filho W, Brandli L, Kuznetsova O, Finisterra do Paço AM, editors. Integrative approaches to sustainable development at university level. Cham: Springer; 2015. p. 187–199. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-10690-8 - DOI
    1. Ashley EA, Pyae Phyo A, Woodrow CJ.. Malaria. Lancet. 2018;391(10130):1608–1621. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30324-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fernandes JN, Moise IK, Maranto GL, et al. . Revamping mosquito-borne disease control to tackle future threats. Trends Parasitol. 2018;34(5):359–368. DOI:10.1016/j.pt.2018.01.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pang T, Mak TK, Gubler DJ.. Prevention and control of dengue—the light at the end of the tunnel. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17(3):e79–e87. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30471-6 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types