Letter | Published:

Field performance of engineered male mosquitoes

Nature Biotechnology volume 29, pages 10341037 (2011) | Download Citation


Dengue is the most medically important arthropod-borne viral disease, with 50–100 million cases reported annually worldwide1. As no licensed vaccine or dedicated therapy exists for dengue, the most promising strategies to control the disease involve targeting the predominant mosquito vector, Aedes aegypti. However, the current methods to do this are inadequate. Various approaches involving genetically engineered mosquitoes have been proposed2,3,4, including the release of transgenic sterile males5,6,7,8,9,10. However, the ability of laboratory-reared, engineered male mosquitoes to effectively compete with wild males in terms of finding and mating with wild females, which is critical to the success of these strategies, has remained untested. We report data from the first open-field trial involving a strain of engineered mosquito. We demonstrated that genetically modified male mosquitoes, released across 10 hectares for a 4-week period, mated successfully with wild females and fertilized their eggs. These findings suggest the feasibility of this technology to control dengue by suppressing field populations of A. aegypti.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from $8.99

All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    WHO-TDR. Scientific Working Group Report on Dengue 162 (World Health Organization, Geneva, 2006).

  2. 2.

    et al. Malaria control with genetically modified vectors. Science 298, 119–121 (2002).

  3. 3.

    & Gene drive systems for insect disease vectors. Nat. Rev. Genet. 7, 427–435 (2006).

  4. 4.

    Natural and engineered mosquito immunity. J. Biol. 8, 40 (2009).

  5. 5.

    et al. Sterile-insect methods for control of mosquito-borne diseases–an analysis. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 10, 295–311 (2009).

  6. 6.

    et al. Female-specific flightless phenotype for mosquito control. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 4550–4554 (2010).

  7. 7.

    et al. Late-acting dominant lethal genetic systems and mosquito control. BMC Biol. 5, 11 (2007).

  8. 8.

    , , & Insect population suppression using engineered insects. in Transgenesis and the Management of Vector-Borne Disease Vol. 627 (ed. Aksoy, S.) 93–103 (Landes Bioscience, Austin, Texas, 2008).

  9. 9.

    et al. Analyzing the control of mosquito-borne diseases by a dominant lethal genetic system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 9540–9545 (2007).

  10. 10.

    , & Aedes aegypti control: the concomitant role of competition, space and transgenic technologies. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 1258–1265 (2008).

  11. 11.

    , & Sterile Insect Technique: Principles and Practice in Area-Wide Integrated Pest Management (Springer Netherlands, 2005).

  12. 12.

    & The first releases of transgenic mosquitoes: an argument for the sterile insect technique. Trends Parasitol. 19, 349–355 (2003).

  13. 13.

    , & Radiation-induced sterility for pupal and adult stages of the malaria mosquito Anopheles arabiensis. Malar. J. 5, 41 (2006).

  14. 14.

    , , & Insect population control using a dominant, repressible, lethal genetic system. Science 287, 2474–2476 (2000).

  15. 15.

    & Dominant lethality and insect population control. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 121, 173–178 (2002).

  16. 16.

    et al. Field performance of a genetically engineered strain of pink bollworm. PLoS ONE 6, e24110 (2011).

  17. 17.

    , & Impact of genetic manipulation on the fitness of Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes. Science 299, 1225–1227 (2003).

  18. 18.

    , , , & Assessing fitness costs for transgenic Aedes aegypti expressing the GFP marker and transposase genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 891–896 (2004).

  19. 19.

    , , & Transgenic malaria-resistant mosquitoes have a fitness advantage when feeding on Plasmodium-infected blood. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 5580–5583 (2007).

  20. 20.

    , , , & Mosquito transgenesis: what is the fitness cost? Trends Parasitol. 22, 197–202 (2006).

  21. 21.

    , , & Scientific Report on the Innovative Application of Aedes aegypti RIDL-Sterile Insect Technique to Combat Dengue and Chikungunya in Malaysia (Institute of Medical Research, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2008).

  22. 22.

    , , & Comparative life parameters of transgenic and wild strain of Aedes aegypti in the laboratory. Dengue Bull. 33, 103–114 (2009).

  23. 23.

    et al. Susceptibility status of transgenic Aedes aegypti (L.) against insecticides. Dengue Bull. 33, 124–129 (2009).

  24. 24.

    , & Pyrethroid resistance in Aedes aegypti from Grand Cayman. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 83, 277–284 (2010).

  25. 25.

    et al. Sex separation strategies: past experience and new approaches. Malar. J. 8, S5 (2009).

  26. 26.

    , , & Building a better ovitrap for detecting Aedes aegypti oviposition. Acta Trop. 96, 56–59 (2005).

  27. 27.

    et al. The use of ovitraps baited with hay infusion as a surveillance tool for Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in Cambodia. Dengue Bull. 26, 178–184 (2002).

  28. 28.

    , & Field evaluation of effectiveness of the BG-Sentinel, a new trap for capturing adult Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 101, 321–325 (2006).

  29. 29.

    , , , & Mating competitiveness of irradiated flies for screwworm fly eradication campaigns. Prev. Vet. Med. 36, 1–9 (1998).

  30. 30.

    Monitoring sterile and wild insects in area-wide integrated pest management programmes. in Sterile Insect Technique. Principles and Practice in Area-Wide Integrated Pest Management (eds. Dyck, V.A., Hendrichs, J. & Robinson, A.S.) 325–361 (Springer, the Netherlands, 2005).

  31. 31.

    , , , & Sterile insect technique and Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae): assessing the utility of aromatherapy in a hawaiian coffee field. J. Econ. Entomol. 100, 273–282 (2007).

  32. 32.

    , , & Medfly (Diptera:Tephritidae) genetic sexing: large-scale field comparison of males-only and bisexual sterile fly releases in Guatemala. J. Econ. Entomol. 97, 1547–1553 (2004).

  33. 33.

    , & Principles of field studies on Aedes mosquitoes. in Proceedings of the 2nd Intensive Workshop on Wild Type and Genetically Sterile Aedes Mosquitoes (eds. Vasan, S.S. & Lee, H.L.) (World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Ecology, Taxonomy and Control of Vectors of Malaria, Filariasis and Dengue, Kuala Lumpur, 2008).

  34. 34.

    Anonymous. Risk analysis—OX513A Aedes aegypti mosquito for potential release on the Cayman Islands (Grand Cayman). (UK Parliament, deposited October 2009) 〈.

  35. 35.

    , , , & The development of procedures and techniques for mass rearing of Aedes aegypti. Indian J. Med. Res. 65 (Suppl.), 91–99 (1977).

  36. 36.

    An improved separator for the developmental stages, sexes, and species of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 17, 567–568 (1980).

  37. 37.

    et al. Natural animal coloration can be determined by a nonfluorescent green fluorescent protein homolog. J. Biol. Chem. 275, 25879–25882 (2000).

  38. 38.

    et al. Fluorescent proteins from nonbioluminescent Anthozoa species. Nat. Biotechnol. 17, 969–973 (1999).

Download references


We thank Z. Ebanks, I. Black, Z. Curtis, C. Phillips, A. Miles and T. Matthews for technical and logistical assistance, G. Labbé and P. Gray for strain development, and G. Labbé and N. Morrison for manuscript review. We are grateful to the Lands & Survey Department of the Cayman Islands Government for permission to use imagery and data. A.F.H. thanks Adapco, Bayer and Central Life Sciences for supporting her PhD studentship. C.A.D. thanks the UK Medical Research Council for Centre funding.

Author information


  1. Mosquito Research and Control Unit (MRCU), Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands.

    • Angela F Harris
    • , Nick Kelly
    •  & William D Petrie
  2. Vector Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, UK.

    • Angela F Harris
  3. Oxitec Limited, Oxford, UK.

    • Derric Nimmo
    • , Andrew R McKemey
    • , Sarah Scaife
    • , Camilla Beech
    •  & Luke Alphey
  4. MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, St Mary's Campus, London, UK.

    • Christl A Donnelly
  5. Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, UK.

    • Luke Alphey


  1. Search for Angela F Harris in:

  2. Search for Derric Nimmo in:

  3. Search for Andrew R McKemey in:

  4. Search for Nick Kelly in:

  5. Search for Sarah Scaife in:

  6. Search for Christl A Donnelly in:

  7. Search for Camilla Beech in:

  8. Search for William D Petrie in:

  9. Search for Luke Alphey in:


L.A., A.R.M., C.B., A.F.H., D.N. and W.D.P. conceived and supervised the project. A.F.H., D.N., N.K. and S.S. conducted the experiments. A.R.M., C.A.D. and L.A. analyzed the data and wrote the paper. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Competing interests

D.N., A.R.M. S.S., C.B. and L.A. are employees of Oxitec Ltd. and have employment and/or equity interest in Oxitec. All other authors declare no competing financial interests. Oxitec and Oxford University hold patents and/or other intellectual property rights in areas related to the subject matter of this paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luke Alphey.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Text and Figures

    Supplementary Figure 1

About this article

Publication history