Y-linked Genome Editor (YLE) a Self-Limiting Genetic Control Tool: An Updated Review

Authors: Poornima R.; Mahalakshmi B.R.; Shruthi D.J.; Rajesha S.; Kiran Kumar H.B.
Y-linked Genome Editor (YLE) a Self-Limiting Genetic Control Tool: An Updated Review
DOI
10.25125/ijoear-oct-2026-15
DIN
IJOEAR-OCT-2026-15
Abstract

Invasive species are increasingly impacting forests, food, fisheries, and agriculture, with global economic repercussions. The majority of vertebrate pest management methods lack effective strategic control tools and are unsustainable and unsuitable for effective landscape-scale management. The application of genetic techniques is intended to prevent invasive populations. Employment of a mix of strategies has enabled sustained control, depending on the species, region, and degree of dissemination. Advantages of the genetic methods include species specificity, long-term and self-sustainability, 100% trait transferability, minimum infrastructure requirement, and non-requirement of physical modification of the landscape. This renders these methods feasible and applicable globally to control a large number of invasive pests. The possibility of using gene drive technology in conjunction with conventional control techniques opens new horizons in the management of vertebrate invasive populations. Since these techniques are environmentally suitable and non-polluting, they are suited for a green economy. The success of these methods is currently illustrated in the control of invasive species across vast geographic regions, such as Asian carp in the Mississippi River, lionfish in the Caribbean, and zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. Thus, judiciously designed experimental and field study methods suited for a particular pest will enable long-term goals of control and sustenance of invasive pest control.

Keywords
Sex reversal; CRISPR/Cas9; autosomal sex distorter (ASD); Y-Chromosome Erasure (Y-CUT).
Download Options
Download Full PDF
Share Article
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Introduction

Globally, invasive species are increasingly impacting forestry, food, fisheries, and agriculture resources [1]. Additionally, they have detrimental effects on human health, endanger the preservation of biological diversity, and have dire global economic repercussions [2], [3]. The transportation of vertebrate pests by humans has significantly impacted agricultural productivity and contributed to species extinction. "An alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health" is the definition of an invasive species. The financial, environmental, and social costs associated with the majority of invasive species are difficult to measure and are rarely reported. According to Ruscoe et al. [4], invasive European carp cost $11.8 million, feral cats cost $144 million, and foxes cost $190 million annually. Once invasive species have established themselves, it is frequently impossible to eradicate them. Sometimes invasive species can be contained at the original introduction location and eliminated before they spread outside of the boundaries of the area where eradication procedures work. In other situations, management procedures are invested to stop further spread rather than eradication [5]. The release of organisms with genetic techniques intended to prevent invasive populations from reproducing is known as genetic biocontrol. Insects, plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria have been shown to be controlled by gene drives [6]. Irradiation and hormonal sex reversal to produce sterile or sexually incompatible genotypes are the conventional methods of control [7], [8]. The use of naturally existing genotypes, parasitic microorganisms that skew sex ratios, and genetic engineering technology are examples of newer biological methods [9], [10]. In order to achieve population management, a mix of strategies is usually needed for sustained control, depending on the species, region, and degree of dissemination. When it comes to larger-scale application, which is necessary to effectively manage widespread established pests, the traditional methods are expensive and unfeasible. As a result, there is a lot of interest in the possibility of using gene drive technology in conjunction with conventional control techniques to manage vertebrate invasive populations [11]. Although these techniques have the potential to manage or even completely eradicate invasive species, an important caveat is that they must minimize environmental damage. Advantages include species specificity, which solely depends on the target organisms' normal mating behavior [12]. Next, these techniques are long-term and self-sustaining, and they do not require physical modification of the landscape infested by the invasive species [13]. CRISPR-based suppression gene drives guarantee 100% trait transfer [14]. Gene drive is effective, requires minimum infrastructure, and targets several invasive species [15]. Table-1 is a comparison of chemical and biological methods of control. Studies have shown that these techniques are effective in controlling invasive mussels [16] and have been proved suitable for eliminating invading rodent populations on islands [17]. The method is based on the rationale that a recessive mutation resulting in infertility or death could be disseminated by gene drives intended for population control [18]. An alternative strategy is to design a gene drive that achieves population suppression by biasing offspring sex ratios so that one sex becomes limiting [19]. Recently, elimination of the murine Y chromosome in cultured cells and embryos has been achieved using a CRISPR/Cas9 system adapted from Streptococcus pyogenes (Sp) incorporating gRNA(s) that target multiple chromosomal locations simultaneously [20]. In summary, technologies such as genetically engineered gene drive constructs or genetically engineered sterility systems under the umbrella of genetic biocontrol exist on a continuum and provide opportunities for the control and potential eradication of invasive species based on our knowledge of inheritance [21]. With this background, the current review aims to update the current literature on genetic biocontrol of pests. We searched literature from PubMed, ScienceDirect, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar databases. Few reviews and published research and review papers were also used for literature collation. We did not include any specific criteria, since our aim was to update the current knowledge.

Conclusion

The practical improvements that have headed towards well-organized gene drives have resulted in an alteration of application in the discipline of invasive biology. The extremely effective development of biocontrol over the past century continues with the available spectrum of genetic techniques and several under development. By judiciously designed experiments and field study methods suited for a particular pest will enable long term goals of control and environment sustenance.

The review is limited to few examples of pests to illustrate the methods and the scheme involved. The literature search could have missed several references and omitted other databases.

Agriculture Journal IJOEAR Call for Papers

References
  1. Teem, J. L., et al. (2020). Genetic biocontrol for invasive species. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, *8*, Article 452. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00452
  2. Mazza, G., Tricarico, E., Genovesi, P., & Gherardi, F. (2014). Biological invaders are threats to human health: An overview. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, *26*, 112-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03949370.2013.863225
  3. Bellard, C., Cassey, P., & Blackburn, T. M. (2016). Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions. Biology Letters, *12*(2), Article 20150623. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0623
  4. Ruscoe, W., et al. (2021). Genetic biocontrol technology for vertebrate pests: Decision framework summary. Report to Centre for the Invasive Species Solutions.
  5. Steck, G. J., et al. (2019). Oriental fruit fly eradication in Florida 2015–2016 program implementation, unique aspects, and lessons learned. American Entomologist, *65*, 108-121. https://doi.org/10.1093/ae/tmz023
  6. Bier, E. (2022). Gene drives gaining speed. Nature Reviews Genetics, *23*(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-021-00386-0
  7. Horrocks, K. J., Avila, G. A., & Holwell, G. I. (2021). Irradiation-induced sterility in an egg parasitoid and possible implications for the use of biological control in insect eradication. Scientific Reports, *11*, Article 12326. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91935-4
  8. Ghazali, S. Z., Karim, M., & Esa, Y. (2026). Sex reversal and determination technologies in fish aquaculture: Insights from a decade of global research. Aquaculture Reports, *49*, Article 103707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2026.103707
  9. Jones, M. L., Thresher, R. E., & Bax, N. J. (2025). Biased tertiary sex ratios enhance the efficacy of sex-ratio distorting genetic techniques to control invasive species. Journal of Theoretical Biology, *608*, Article 112137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2025.112137
  10. Sansinenea, E., et al. (2026). Next-generation insect pest management: Genetic innovations and emerging biocontrol strategies. Frontiers in Plant Science, *17*, Article 1868879. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2026.1868879
  11. Moro, D., Byrne, M., Kennedy, M., Campbell, S., & Tizard, M. (2018). Identifying knowledge gaps for gene drive research to control invasive animal species: The next CRISPR step. Global Ecology and Conservation, *13*, Article e00363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.e00363
  12. Martin, E. A., Feit, B., Requier, F., Friberg, H., & Jonsson, M. (2019). Assessing the resilience of biodiversity-driven functions in agroecosystems under environmental change. In D. A. Bohan & A. J. Dumbrell (Eds.), Advances in ecological research (Vol. 60, pp. 59-123). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2019.02.003
  13. Singh, S., Mishra, A., & Kumar, A. (2025). Biological control agents and their applications. In Innovations in insect science and pest management (pp. 160-182). Golden Leaf Publishers.
  14. Harvey-Samuel, T., et al. (2023). CRISPR-based gene drives generate super-Mendelian inheritance in the disease vector Culex quinquefasciatus. Nature Communications, *14*(1), Article 7561. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41834-1
  15. Elizárraga, V. H. H., et al. (2023). Toward invasive mussel genetic biocontrol: Approaches, challenges, and perspectives. iScience, *26*(10), Article 108027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.108027
  16. McCartney, M. A., et al. (2022). The genome of the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha: A resource for comparative genomics, invasion genetics, and biocontrol. G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics, *12*(2), Article jkab423. https://doi.org/10.1093/g3journal/jkab423
  17. Prowse, T. A. A., Cassey, P., Ross, J. V., Pfitzner, C., Wittmann, T. A., & Thomas, P. (2017). Dodging silver bullets: Good CRISPR gene-drive design is critical for eradicating exotic vertebrates. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, *284*, Article 20170799. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0799
  18. Zhao, Y., Li, L., Wei, L., Wang, Y., & Han, Z. (2024). Advancements and future prospects of CRISPR-Cas-based population replacement strategies in insect pest management. Insects, *15*(9), Article 653. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15090653
  19. Kyrou, K., et al. (2018). A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive targeting doublesex causes complete population suppression in caged Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes. Nature Biotechnology, *36*, 1062-1066. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4245
  20. Holmlund, H., et al. (2025). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knock-in of the murine Y chromosomal genes Zfy1 and Zfy2. BMC Genomics, *27*(1), Article 88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-025-12462-4
  21. Mitchell, H. J., & Bartsch, D. (2020). Regulation of GM organisms for invasive species control. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, *7*, Article 454. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00454
  22. Alphey, N., & Bonsall, M. B. (2018). Genetics-based methods for agricultural insect pest management. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, *20*(2), 131-140. https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12241
  23. Burt, A., & Deredec, A. (2018). Self-limiting population genetic control with sex-linked genome editors. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, *285*(1883), Article 20180776. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0776
  24. Raban, R., Marshall, J. M., Hay, B. A., & Akbari, O. S. (2023). Manipulating the destiny of wild populations using CRISPR. Annual Review of Genetics, *57*, 361-390. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-031623-105059
  25. Godfray, H. C. J., North, A., & Burt, A. (2017). How driving endonuclease genes can be used to combat pests and disease vectors. BMC Biology, *15*, Article 81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-017-0420-4
  26. Tolosana, I., et al. (2025). A Y chromosome-linked genome editor for efficient population suppression in the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae. Nature Communications, *16*, Article 206. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-55391-8
  27. Clark, A. C., et al. (2024). A framework for identifying fertility gene targets for mammalian pest control. Molecular Ecology Resources, *24*(3), Article e13901. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13901
  28. Hammond, A., et al. (2016). A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system-targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Nature Biotechnology, *34*, 78-83. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3439
  29. Strampelli, A., et al. (2025). A male-drive female-sterile system for the self-limited control of the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Nature Communications, *16*(1), Article 9446. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-64489-6
  30. Hempel, M., Warren, J., Liang, J., & Tu, C. (2025). Mosquito sex determination: Recent advances and applications. Current Opinion in Insect Science, *71*, Article 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2025.101385
  31. Simoni, A., Tolosana, I., & Bernardini, F. (2025). Genetic control strategies for population suppression in the Anopheles gambiae complex: A review of current technologies. Current Opinion in Insect Science, *72*, Article 101430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2025.101430
  32. Hoermann, A., et al. (2022). Gene drive mosquitoes can aid malaria elimination by retarding Plasmodium sporogonic development. Science Advances, *8*, Article eabo1733. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo1733
  33. Bouyer, J. (2024). Current status of the sterile insect technique for the suppression of mosquito populations on a global scale. Infectious Diseases of Poverty, *13*(1), Article 68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-024-01242-z
  34. Han, Y., & Champer, J. (2025). A comparative assessment of self-limiting genetic control strategies for population suppression. Molecular Biology and Evolution, *42*(3), Article msaf048. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msaf048
  35. Bull, L. (2013). Genetics, mutations, and polymorphisms. In Madame Curie Bioscience Database. Landes Bioscience.
  36. Douglas, C., et al. (2021). CRISPR-Cas9 effectors facilitate generation of single-sex litters and sex-specific phenotypes. Nature Communications, *12*, Article 6926. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27227-2
  37. Galizi, R., et al. (2014). A synthetic sex ratio distortion system for the control of the human malaria mosquito. Nature Communications, *5*, Article 3977. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4977
  38. Geci, R., Willis, K., & Burt, A. (2022). Gene drive designs for efficient and localisable population suppression using Y-linked editors. PLOS Genetics, *18*(12), Article e1010550. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1010550
  39. Grilli, S., et al. (2026). Sex distorter male drive for resistance-resilient population control of the human malaria vector Anopheles gambiae. Nature Communications, *17*, Article 5109. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-71627-1
  40. Alcalay, Y., et al. (2021). The potential for a released autosomal X-shredder becoming a driving-Y chromosome and invasively suppressing wild populations of malaria mosquitoes. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, *9*, Article 752253. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.752253
  41. Verma, P., Akbari, O. S., & Marshall, J. M. (2026). Y-linked editors for invasive rodent control. Molecular Biology and Evolution, *43*(7), Article msag165. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msag165
  42. Maxwell, M., & Zhijian, T. (2025). Leveraging sex determination systems for genetic biocontrol of dipteran pests. Current Opinion in Insect Science, *73*, Article 101439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2025.101439
  43. Yadav, A. K., et al. (2023). CRISPR/Cas9-based split homing gene drive targeting doublesex for population suppression of the global fruit pest Drosophila suzukii. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, *120*, Article e2301525120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301525120
  44. Smidler, A. L., & Akbari, O. S. (2025). CRISPR technologies for the control and study of malaria-transmitting anopheline mosquitoes. Parasites & Vectors, *18*, Article 252. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-025-06905-w
  45. Matteo, V., et al. (2026). Sex-ratio distorters enable pre-zygotic sexing for sex-specific transcriptomics in Anopheles gambiae embryos. Cell Reports, *45*, Article 117811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2026.117811
  46. Childs, L. M., Shabani, S., Tauber, U., & Tu, Z. (2026). Modelling population control via tunable sex ratio distorter gene drives in Aedes aegypti, an arboviral vector with homomorphic sex chromosomes. bioRxiv, Article 2026.07.05.736587. https://doi.org/10.1101/2026.07.05.736587
  47. Liu, T., Shen, J. K., Li, Z., Choy, E., Hornicek, F. J., & Duan, Z. (2016). Development and potential applications of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology in sarcoma. Cancer Letters, *373*(1), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2016.01.030
  48. Peng, D., Tembrock, L. R., & Tang, L. (2025). From homomorphy to heteromorphy: Stratified trajectories of sex chromosome expansion in Silene latifolia. Genomics Communications, *2*, Article e021. https://doi.org/10.48130/gcomm-0025-0021
  49. Xu, X., et al. (2025). Gene drive-based population suppression in the malaria vector Anopheles stephensi. Nature Communications, *16*(1), Article 1007. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-56290-2
  50. D'Amato, R., et al. (2026). The Y chromosome gene draupnir reveals constraints on engineering Y-linked sex-ratio distorters in malaria mosquitoes. bioRxiv, Article 03.716343. https://doi.org/10.1101/2026.04.03.716343
  51. Cisnetto, V., & Barlow, J. (2020). The development of complex and controversial innovations: Genetically modified mosquitoes for malaria eradication. Research Policy, *49*(3), Article 103917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103917
  52. Haber, D. A., et al. (2024). Targeting mosquito X-chromosomes reveals complex transmission dynamics of sex ratio distorting gene drives. Nature Communications, *15*(1), Article 4983. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49387-7
  53. Tyagi, S., et al. (2020). Genome editing for resistance to insect pests: An emerging tool for crop improvement. ACS Omega, *5*(3), 20674-20683. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c01435
  54. Zalucki, M. P., et al. (2012). Estimating the economic cost of one of the world's major insect pests, Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae): Just how long is a piece of string? Journal of Economic Entomology, *105*(4), 1115-1129. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC12107
  55. Macer, D. (2005). Ethical, legal and social issues of genetically modifying insect vectors for public health. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, *35*(7), 649-660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibmb.2005.02.010
  56. Brown, D. M., Alphey, L. S., McKemey, A., Beech, C., & James, A. A. (2014). Criteria for identifying and evaluating candidate sites for open-field trials of genetically engineered mosquitoes. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases, *14*(4), 291-299. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2013.1432
  57. Salsman, J., & Dellaire, G. (2017). Precision genome editing in the CRISPR era. Biochemistry and Cell Biology, *95*(2), 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1139/bcb-2016-0137
  58. Wassef, M., et al. (2017). Versatile and precise gene-targeting strategies for functional studies in mammalian cell lines. Methods, *121-122*, 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2017.05.003
  59. Alonso, S., & Dow, L. E. (2021). Engineering chromosome rearrangements in cancer. Disease Models & Mechanisms, *14*(9), Article dmm049078. https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.049078
  60. Soriano, V. (2017). Gene therapy with CRISPR/Cas9 coming to age for HIV cure. AIDS Reviews, *19*(3), 167-172.
  61. Asmamaw, M., & Zawdie, B. (2021). Mechanism and applications of CRISPR/Cas-9-mediated genome editing. Biologics: Targets and Therapy, *15*, 353-361. https://doi.org/10.2147/BTT.S326422
  62. Li, Y., et al. (2023). Applications and prospects of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated base editing in plant breeding. Current Issues in Molecular Biology, *45*(2), 918-935. https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb45020059
  63. Kumari, P., Verma, T., Yadav, M., Pawar, P., Mounika, J., & Singh, B. (2024). Advancements in genome editing for insect control: A comprehensive review. Environment and Ecology, *42*(1A), 307-315. https://doi.org/10.60151/envec/DPBB8704
  64. Dolan, A. E., et al. (2019). Introducing a spectrum of long-range genomic deletions in human embryonic stem cells using type I CRISPR-Cas. Molecular Cell, *74*(5), 936-950.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2019.03.014
  65. Csörgő, B., et al. (2020). A compact Cascade-Cas3 system for targeted genome engineering. Nature Methods, *17*(12), 1183-1190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-020-00980-w
  66. Zuccaro, M. V., et al. (2020). Allele-specific chromosome removal after Cas9 cleavage in human embryos. Cell, *183*(6), 1650-1664.e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.025
  67. Jiang, T., Zhang, X. O., Weng, H., & Xue, W. (2022). Deletion and replacement of long genomic sequences using prime editing. Nature Biotechnology, *40*(2), 227-234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01026-y
  68. Chen, P. J., et al. (2023). Prime editing for precise and highly versatile genome manipulation. Nature Reviews Genetics, *24*(3), 161-177. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-022-00541-1
  69. Muhammad, R., et al. (2026). Twin prime configurations for continuous multi-kilobase sequence operations in human chromosomes. Journal of Biotechnology Innovations, *88*, 122-139.
  70. Gwon, G., et al. (2025). Recombinase-mediated genomic rearrangements coupled with site-directed prime transitions in plant and animal systems. Genome Biology, *26*, Article 84.
  71. Anzalone, A. V., Gao, X. D., Podracky, C. J., Nelson, A. T., Koblan, L. W., Raguram, A., & Liu, D. R. (2022). Programmable deletion, replacement, integration and inversion of large DNA sequences with twin prime editing. Nature Biotechnology, *40*(5), 731-740. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01133-w
  72. Yarnall, M. T., Ioannidi, E. I., Schmitt-Ulms, C., Krajeski, R. N., Lim, J., Villiger, L., & Gootenberg, J. S. (2023). Drag-and-drop genome insertion of large sequences without double-strand DNA cleavage using CRISPR-directed integrases. Nature Biotechnology, *41*(4), 500-512. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-022-01527-4
  73. Ioannidi, E. I., et al. (2021). Serine integrases combined with CRISPR-nickase architectures for sequence-specific large DNA insertions. Nucleic Acids Research, *49*(18), 10211-10224.
  74. Shin, J. A., Hoffman, M., & Gao, X. D. (2026). Programmable large-DNA writing in the human genome. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, *95*, Article 102771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2026.102771
  75. Gao, R., et al. (2026). Engineering RNA-guided bridge recombinases for precise large-scale genome editing. Trends in Biotechnology, *44*(8), Article S0167-7799(26)00321-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2026.07.025
  76. Marchal, I. (2026). A bridge recombinase for human genome editing. Nature Biotechnology, *44*, Article 369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-026-03071-x
  77. Pelea, O., et al. (2026). Programmable genome editing in human cells using RNA-guided bridge recombinases. Science, *391*(6790), Article eadz1884. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adz1884
  78. Ponomartsev, S. V., Sinenko, S. A., & Tomilin, A. N. (2022). Human artificial chromosomes and their transfer to target cells. Acta Naturae, *14*(3), 35-45. https://doi.org/10.32607/actanaturae.11670
  79. Julin, D. A. (2018). Artificial chromosomes. In R. D. Wells, J. S. Bond, J. Klinman, & B. S. S. Masters (Eds.), Molecular life sciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1531-2_91
  80. Dance, A. (2017). Human artificial chromosomes offer insights, therapeutic possibilities, and challenges. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, *114*(37), 9752-9754. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713319114
  81. Lazar, N. H., et al. (2024). High-resolution genome-wide mapping of chromosome-arm-scale truncations induced by CRISPR–Cas9 editing. Nature Genetics, *56*(7), 1482-1493. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01758-y
  82. Kosicki, M., Tomberg, K., & Bradley, A. (2018). Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR-Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nature Biotechnology, *36*(8), 765-771. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4192
  83. Aussel, L., et al. (2025). Delivery challenges and processing strategies for multiplexed genome engineering elements. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, *215*, Article 116240.
  84. Wang, M., et al. (2021). Efficient TALEN-mediated gene knockin at the bovine Y chromosome and generation of a sex-reversal bovine. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, *78*(13), 5415-5425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-021-03855-1
  85. Redman, M., King, A., Watson, C., & King, D. (2016). What is CRISPR/Cas9? Archives of Disease in Childhood - Education and Practice Edition, *101*(4), 213-215. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2016-310459
  86. Celli, L., Gasparini, P., Biino, G., Zannini, L., & Cardano, M. (2024). CRISPR/Cas9 mediated Y-chromosome elimination affects human cells transcriptome. Cell & Bioscience, *14*(1), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13578-024-01198-5
  87. Willis, K., & Burt, A. (2025). Engineering drive-selection balance for localized population suppression with neutral dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, *122*(6), Article e2414207122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414207122
  88. Xie, X., et al. (2024). Endonuclease G is dispensable for sperm mitochondrial DNA elimination during spermatogenesis in mice. Biology Open, *13*(10), Article bio061730. https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.061730
  89. Prowse, T. A. A., Adikusuma, F., Cassey, P., Thomas, P., & Ross, J. V. (2019). A Y-chromosome shredding gene drive for controlling pest vertebrate populations. eLife, *8*, Article e41873. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.41873
  90. Adikusuma, F., Williams, N., Grutzner, G., Hughes, J., & Thomas, P. (2017). Targeted deletion of an entire chromosome using CRISPR/Cas9. Molecular Therapy, *25*(8), 1736-1738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2017.05.021
  91. Ma, E., et al. (2022). Improved genome editing by an engineered CRISPR-Cas12a. Nucleic Acids Research, *50*(22), 12689-12701. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac1192
  92. Meccariello, A., et al. (2021). Engineered sex ratio distortion by X-shredding in the global agricultural pest Ceratitis capitata. BMC Biology, *19*, Article 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-021-01011-y
  93. Douglas, C., & Turner, J. M. A. (2020). Advances and challenges in genetic technologies to produce single-sex litters. PLOS Genetics, *16*(7), Article e1008898. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008898
  94. Zuo, E., et al. (2017). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated generation of XO mice from XY embryonic stem cells using a single guide RNA. Genome Biology, *18*(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1246-x
  95. Adikusuma, F., Williams, B. P., Eid, M., Concepcion, G. P., Piltz, S. G., & Thomas, P. Q. (2018). Targeted deletion of the Y chromosome using CRISPR/Cas9. Scientific Reports, *8*(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19487-1
  96. Birand, A., et al. (2026). The LAST Mile: Evaluating genetic biocontrol as a supplemental tool for eradicating invasive rodents on islands. Evolutionary Applications, *19*(4), Article e70238. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.70238
  97. Verkuijl, S. A. N., et al. (2022). A CRISPR endonuclease gene drive reveals distinct mechanisms of inheritance bias. Nature Communications, *13*, Article 7145. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34739-y
  98. Lu, Y., et al. (2019). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing reveals 30 testis-enriched genes dispensable for male fertility in mice. Biology of Reproduction, *101*(2), 501-511. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolre/ioz103
  99. Birand, A., Cassey, P., Ross, J. V., Thomas, P. Q., & Prowse, T. A. A. (2022). Scalability of genetic biocontrols for eradicating invasive alien mammals. NeoBiota, *74*, 93-103. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.74.82394
  100. North, A. R., Burt, A., & Godfray, H. C. J. (2019). Modelling the potential of genetic control of malaria mosquitoes at national scale. BMC Biology, *17*, Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-019-0645-5
  101. North, A. R., Burt, A., & Godfray, H. C. J. (2020). Modelling the suppression of a malaria vector using a CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive to reduce female fertility. BMC Biology, *18*, Article 98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-020-00834-z
  102. Metchanun, N., et al. (2022). Modeling impact and cost-effectiveness of driving-Y gene drives for malaria elimination in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Evolutionary Applications, *15*(1), 132-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13331
  103. Winkler, L., & Lindholm, A. K. (2022). A meiotic driver alters sperm form and function in house mice: A possible example of spite. Chromosome Research, *30*, 151-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-022-09695-4
  104. Gierus, L., et al. (2022). Leveraging a natural murine meiotic drive to suppress invasive populations. bioRxiv, Article 2022.05.31.494104. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.31.494104
  105. Aasi, A. S., Ashfaq, L., Jaffar, A., Rasheed, M. M. B., Khan, W. A., & Khan, R. S. A. (2025). Gene drive technologies for the control of invasive species. Integrative Plant Biotechnology, *3*, 145-152.
  106. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Gene drives on the horizon: Advancing science, navigating uncertainty, and aligning research with public values. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23405
  107. Grewelle, R. E., et al. (2022). Modeling the efficacy of CRISPR gene drive for snail immunity on schistosomiasis control. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, *16*(10), Article e0010894. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0010894
  108. Bobo, E. D. (2026). CRISPR-Cas9 suppression gene drives for Nile tilapia control: Prospects in sub-Saharan African freshwater ecosystems. All Life, *19*(1), Article 2639259. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895293.2026.2639259
  109. Kanavy, D., & Serr, M. (2017). Sry gene drive for rodent control: Reply to Gemmell and Tompkins. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, *32*(5), 315-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.03.006.
Article Preview
Quick Actions
Download PDF View References
Article Info
Pages
94-108