Understanding trophic interactions and potential ecological effects of gene drive mosquitoes for environmental risk assessment and decision-making
This version (Version 3) was created on 22 April 2026
Are mosquitoes essential components of food webs?
Mosquitoes are often portrayed as key components of ecosystems, raising concerns about what might happen if they were reduced or removed. Yet when their ecological roles are examined closely, a more nuanced picture emerges.
With roughly 3,500 species described worldwide, mosquitoes occupy a wide range of ecological niches rather than a single, uniform role. Across both aquatic and terrestrial environments, they are eaten at every life stage. Eggs can be consumed by amphibians or aquatic invertebrates, though usually in small amounts. Larvae and pupae are far more exposed. In many freshwater systems, they form part of a crowded menu that includes zooplankton, insect larvae and other small organisms. Predation can be intense at this stage, with predatory invertebrates alone accounting for up to 90% of the mortality of immature mosquitoes in some habitats (Peterson and Rolston, 2022).
Once mosquitoes become adults, things change. They disperse, become harder to catch and offer limited energetic return. As Collins et al. (2019) note, these are small, mobile insects that rarely represent an efficient target for predators unless they are temporarily concentrated, for example during mating swarms. Even then, the interaction is brief. A swarm of around 1,000 mosquitoes represents only about 0.2 g of biomass, illustrating how small and transient this resource can be. Most predators that consume adult mosquitoes, from birds to bats to spiders, do so opportunistically rather than selectively.
This pattern appears consistently across different systems. A broad synthesis of mosquito ecology shows that predators at all life stages tend to be generalists, feeding on mosquitoes alongside many other prey types (Bonds et al. 2022). Even in aquatic environments, where larvae are more accessible, there is no clear evidence that any predator depends on them as a primary resource. An exception is the jumping spider Evarcha culicivora, which shows a strong preference for mosquitoes and may derive up to 70% of its diet from them, although this remains a rare and geographically restricted case (Collins et al. 2019). More broadly, mosquito interactions with predators tend to be diffuse and context-dependent. Abram et al. (2026) illustrate this complexity through a network of potential species interactions with Anopheles gambiae, highlighting multiple direct and indirect links across trophic levels (Figure 1).
Looking more closely at trophic interactions reinforces this view. A metagenomic analysis of aquatic communities found that known mosquito predators, including damselflies, consumed a wide range of prey, with Anopheles larvae representing only a small fraction of their diet, at around 3.5% of total arthropod intake (Karikari et al. 2024). These interactions are part of a broader network shaped by resource sharing and opportunistic feeding rather than tight dependencies (Figure 2).
These observations do not suggest that mosquitoes are ecologically irrelevant. They are clearly embedded in multiple interactions. But those interactions tend to be diffuse, flexible, and shared with many other species. That distinction becomes important when thinking about what might happen if their populations are altered.
How could gene drive mosquitoes affect trophic interactions?
Gene drives would not introduce a single type of ecological change. Their effects would depend on how they are designed and what they aim to achieve. At a basic level, two strategies dominate the discussion: population suppression and population modification. Each would interact with food webs in different ways.
Population suppression reduces or eliminates the target species. This immediately raises questions about resource removal. If mosquito populations decline sharply, predators lose one potential food source, even if only part of their diet. At the same time, ecological space may open for competing species, potentially altering species composition and local interactions.
Population modification, by contrast, keeps the species in place but alters its traits. In this case, trophic interactions are not removed but potentially reshaped. Engineered gene drive (EGD) mosquitoes may differ in behaviour, physiology or life history traits, which could influence how they interact with predators or other organisms.
From a mechanistic perspective, several types of effects can be distinguished. Direct effects include the possibility that gene drive constructs introduce substances that are toxic or allergenic when consumed. Indirect effects are more subtle and often more relevant. These include changes in prey quality, altered predator–prey dynamics and cascading effects across food webs (Devos et al. 2021).
Some potential effects are specific to aquatic environments. Mosquito larvae contribute to nutrient cycling by feeding on microorganisms and organic matter. Their reduction could, in theory, influence microbial communities or contribute to algal growth through reduced grazing pressure. These mechanisms are often raised in early discussions, even when empirical evidence remains limited.
Peterson and Rolston (2022) highlight a recurring pattern: predators that consume mosquito larvae tend to rely on multiple food sources. This is consistent with broader ecological observations. Syntheses of predator–prey interactions show that both invertebrate and vertebrate predators feed on mosquitoes as part of highly diverse diets, with no clear dependence on Anopheles at either larval or adult stages (Collins et al. 2019). In some aquatic systems, predation can account for a large proportion of mosquito mortality, yet the reverse dependency does not hold. As a result, reductions in mosquito abundance are unlikely to translate into proportional declines in predator populations.
Another frequently discussed mechanism is niche replacement. When a dominant mosquito species such as Anopheles gambiae is reduced, other species that share similar habitats and resources may increase in abundance. This can occur through reduced competition at the larval stage, shifts in predator feeding behaviour or differences in life history traits that favour previously less competitive species. Evidence from conventional vector control suggests that such shifts can occur, although their ecological and epidemiological consequences vary depending on context (Collins et al. 2019).
These considerations are not limited to theoretical ecology. Concerns about potential effects on predators, competing species and ecosystem processes are commonly raised by stakeholders, including regulators, researchers and local communities. They reflect intuitive questions about how altering a species that is embedded in multiple interactions might reverberate through the system.
At this stage, most of these effects remain framed as possibilities rather than observed outcomes. They are grounded in ecological reasoning and past experience with vector control, but their magnitude and relevance depend on local ecological conditions and require empirical evaluation.
What happens when predators consume gene drive mosquitoes?
One of the most direct ways to test trophic effects is to ask a simple question: What happens when predators consume EGD mosquitoes?
Until recently, this question had not been examined experimentally. Egan et al. (2025) provide the first controlled study addressing this gap. Using a population modification system in Anopheles coluzzii, the authors compared the effects of feeding EGD mosquitoes versus wild-type mosquitoes to two predators: an aquatic vertebrate, the mosquitofish Gambusia affinis (Figure 3), and a terrestrial invertebrate, the jumping spider Phidippus audax (Figure 4).
Across all measured parameters, there was no evidence of negative effects. Over a 7-week period, G. affinis showed no significant differences in length, mass, survival or sex ratio when fed EGD versus wild-type mosquitoes. These results are consistent with expectations from molecular assessments indicating that Cas9-based constructs and associated proteins are unlikely to introduce toxicity at ecologically relevant exposure levels.
The spider results add a more nuanced signal. P. audax individuals fed EGD mosquitoes consumed on average 7.3 mosquitoes per week, compared to 6.6 in the wild-type group, an increase of approximately 10.6%. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0162) and translated into measurable changes in growth. From week 3 onwards, spiders in the EGD group showed higher body mass, and by week 11 they were on average 1.37 times heavier than those fed wild-type mosquitoes (Figure 5). Differences in carapace width and developmental progression followed a similar pattern.
These effects were not associated with increased mortality or signs of toxicity. Instead, they point toward differences in predator–prey interaction dynamics. Because spiders were fed live mosquitoes, behavioural or phenotypic differences between EGD and wild-type mosquitoes likely played a role. Observations during the experiment suggested reduced activity and increased ease of capture in EGD mosquitoes, raising the possibility that modified individuals may be more susceptible to predation.
If confirmed under field conditions, this would represent a shift not in nutritional value but in prey accessibility. For predators that rely on rapid, energetically costly hunting strategies, even small reductions in prey escape ability could translate into higher capture success and improved growth.
A similar pattern has been observed in other vector control approaches. In sterile insect technique systems, laboratory-reared or irradiated mosquitoes can exhibit reduced flight performance or altered behaviour, increasing their vulnerability to predators. Bimbile et al. (2022) showed that mantises and geckos readily prey on multiple mosquito species, with predation rates influenced more by prey behaviour and condition than by species identity (Figure 6). High irradiation doses, for example, were associated with increased susceptibility to predation, likely due to impaired flight ability.
At the same time, both lines of evidence share an important limitation. These experiments are conducted under controlled conditions. Predators are confined, prey diversity is absent and environmental complexity is reduced. In natural systems, predators encounter a wide range of alternative prey, and feeding decisions are shaped by competition, habitat structure and temporal variability.
Another piece of the puzzle comes from risk assessment studies focusing on the gene drive constructs themselves. Qureshi and Connolly (2023) found no evidence that proteins expressed in gene drive mosquitoes are toxic or allergenic to non-target organisms, even when ingestion is considered as a primary exposure route. Given that predators consume mosquitoes opportunistically and in relatively small proportions, overall exposure is expected to be low.
Taken together, the available evidence points in a consistent direction. Direct consumption of gene drive mosquitoes does not appear to negatively affect predator survival or growth. The more informative signal may lie elsewhere, in how modifications influence behaviour, detectability and vulnerability to predation, and how these subtle shifts might scale in more complex ecological settings.
What indirect ecological effects could result from mosquito suppression?
If direct consumption does not appear problematic, attention shifts to indirect effects. These are less visible, harder to test and often more debated because they emerge from changes in interactions rather than from the properties of the organism itself.
One of the most discussed mechanisms is competitive release. When a target mosquito species is reduced, other species sharing the same habitat may increase. A systematic review by Qureshi and Connolly (2021), which screened more than 5,500 studies and analysed 30 in detail, found evidence that insecticide-based suppression of Anopheles mosquitoes can, under some conditions, lead to increases in non-target vector species. In particular, a subset of studies showed patterns consistent with one species declining while another increased, suggesting release from competition. This does not necessarily negate the benefits of control, but it changes the ecological context in which those benefits occur.
Historical examples reinforce this point. In East Africa, reductions in Anopheles gambiae populations have been followed by increases in other mosquito species occupying similar habitats, often with different host preferences and lower vectorial capacity (Collins et al. 2019). In some cases, these shifts have been associated with changes in feeding behaviour, such as a move from animal to human hosts, illustrating how ecological reorganisation can feed back into disease transmission dynamics.
Aquatic systems introduce additional layers of complexity. Mosquito larvae are part of nutrient cycling processes, feeding on microorganisms, detritus and organic matter. Their removal could, in theory, influence microbial communities or contribute to algal growth by reducing grazing pressure. Peterson and Rolston (2022), however, argue that such effects are unlikely to exceed those already observed with existing larval control methods. Importantly, proteins expressed in gene drive systems are expected to be present at concentrations orders of magnitude lower than conventional larvicides, further limiting the likelihood of direct environmental effects.
Figures 7 and 8 illustrate this asymmetry. A wide range of taxa, from invertebrates such as copepods and dragonfly larvae to vertebrates including fish, birds and amphibians, interact with Anopheles gambiae across life stages. However, these interactions are diffuse and overlapping. Most predators consume multiple prey types, and many of the same predators also feed on competing mosquito species. This creates a degree of functional redundancy in the food web, allowing energy flow to be maintained even if one prey type declines.
Recent ecological work adds nuance rather than overturning these patterns. Karikari et al. (2024) show that mosquito larvae share resources with other aquatic organisms, including detritivores and filter feeders, suggesting that food webs are structured around resource partitioning rather than strict competition. In such systems, multiple species exploit overlapping resources without excluding one another. The removal of one species may therefore be buffered by others that occupy similar ecological roles, reducing the likelihood of cascading effects.
Pollination is often raised as a separate concern, sometimes with symbolic weight. Mosquitoes do visit flowers, and a few species have been confirmed as pollinators. Yet for major disease vectors such as Anopheles gambiae and Aedes aegypti, the evidence points in a different direction. Their contribution to pollination appears limited, often incidental and frequently replaceable by other insects (Foster, 2024). In most cases, plant reproduction relies on a diverse assemblage of pollinators, making the system resilient to the loss of any single contributor.
These indirect pathways do not point to a single expected outcome. Instead, they highlight a set of mechanisms, competitive release, resource redistribution and functional redundancy, through which ecological systems may reorganise following mosquito suppression. Their relevance depends on local ecological context, species composition and environmental conditions, rather than on the presence of gene drive technology alone.
How are trophic effects considered in environmental risk assessment?
The mechanisms described so far do not remain at the level of ecological reasoning. They are actively translated into risk assessment frameworks that guide decision-making around gene drive applications.
A central step in this process is problem formulation. Rather than attempting to evaluate every possible ecological interaction, this approach identifies a limited number of key plausible pathways to harm, which are then tested systematically. In the context of genetically modified mosquitoes, this means linking trophic interactions, such as predation or competition, to defined protection goals for biodiversity, ecosystem services, or human and animal health.
One of the clearest examples comes from the work of Connolly et al. 2021. In this study, the authors developed a structured environmental risk assessment for a population suppression gene drive targeting Anopheles gambiae. The system analysed, known as dsxFCRISPRh, is based on a CRISPR-Cas9 construct that disrupts the doublesex gene, leading to female sterility and, over time, collapse of the target population.
Within this framework, a series of pathways to harm were identified. Among them, one is directly linked to trophic interactions: a reduction in mosquito populations could alter food web dynamics in ways that affect non-target species (Figure 9). For instance, decreases in larval abundance could influence organisms that feed on aquatic stages, or shift predator–prey dynamics in those environments. This pathway was considered particularly relevant for aquatic systems, where larvae represent a more concentrated and accessible resource than adult mosquitoes.
Importantly, these pathways are not predictions. They are structured hypotheses. As Connolly et al. (2021) emphasise, the goal is to make assumptions explicit and testable, rather than leaving them as vague concerns. In this case, the pathway connects a clear initiating event (population suppression) to a potential outcome (changes in non-target organism abundance), through a chain of ecological interactions that can be examined empirically.
A similar logic is followed in other problem formulation exercises. Hayes and Hosack (2025), working on a different genetic system in Anopheles coluzzii, identified pathways in which reductions in mosquito populations could affect predators, pollination services or competing species. These pathways are evaluated using combinations of literature review, laboratory assays and targeted field observations.
Many of these pathways mirror the mechanisms outlined earlier. Reduced prey availability could, in theory, affect predator populations. Competitive release could favour other mosquito species occupying similar ecological niches. Toxic effects, although generally considered unlikely, are assessed through bioinformatic comparisons and feeding studies, particularly where novel proteins are expressed (Devos et al. 2021).
What matters here is not only the identification of potential risks, but how they are framed and prioritised. As Devos et al. (2021) mention, risk assessment for gene drive organisms must be conducted case by case, taking into account the design of the construct, the ecological context and the intended use. A population suppression system targeting a dominant vector species raises different questions from a population modification system that leaves population density unchanged.
Monitoring extends this logic beyond the pre-release phase. According to Ogoyi et al. (2024), stakeholders consistently prioritise indicators such as changes in predator abundance, shifts in species composition and broader ecosystem interactions. Abram et al. (2026) further argue that monitoring strategies should remain proportionate, focusing on interactions that are both plausible and measurable, rather than attempting to capture all possible ecological changes.
Experience from related technologies provides additional context. Biological control programmes, sterile insect techniques and releases of non-driving genetically modified mosquitoes have generally shown limited evidence of ecosystem disruption. These precedents do not remove uncertainty, but they help define what types of effects are considered plausible and worth testing.
For this reason, current frameworks tend to prioritise targeted, hypothesis-driven monitoring over broad, non-specific surveillance. The aim is not to track every ecological interaction, but to focus on those that are both scientifically grounded and relevant for decision-making.
What does current evidence suggest about ecological risks?
Across the literature, a few patterns appear with surprising consistency. Mosquitoes are embedded in food webs, but rarely as essential components. Their role as prey is most visible in aquatic stages, where larvae can experience high predation pressure, sometimes accounting for a large share of mortality in specific habitats. Yet even in those settings, this role is diffuse. Predators tend to be generalists, and no clear dependence on mosquito populations has been demonstrated (Bonds et al. 2022; Collins et al. 2019).
Experimental evidence, although still limited in scope and scale, provides some reassurance at the level of direct interactions. In controlled feeding studies, predators consuming gene drive mosquitoes showed no adverse effects on survival, growth or development. In one case, spiders fed EGD mosquitoes even exhibited faster growth, likely linked to differences in prey behaviour rather than nutritional value (Egan et al. 2025). Complementary assessments of gene drive constructs, including Cas9-based systems, have not identified signals of toxicity or allergenicity for non-target organisms, even when ingestion is considered a primary exposure route (Qureshi and Connolly, 2023).
Indirect effects remain more difficult to resolve. Mechanisms such as competitive release, niche shifts or changes in nutrient cycling are well grounded in ecological theory and supported by observations from conventional vector control. Historical and contemporary interventions show that reducing one mosquito species can, under some conditions, allow others to increase. In some cases, these shifts involve species that are less efficient disease vectors, which complicates the interpretation of ecological change in public health terms. What remains uncertain is how often these effects occur, how large they are, and how persistent they become once a system stabilises.
Some frequently cited concerns appear less supported when examined closely. The idea that mosquitoes play a major role in pollination is often repeated, yet evidence suggests that, for key vector species such as Anopheles gambiae or Aedes aegypti, their contribution is limited and often redundant within broader pollinator communities (Foster, 2024). Similarly, assessments of aquatic systems indicate that gene drive approaches are unlikely to introduce risks beyond those already associated with existing larval control methods and may, in some cases, represent a lower-intensity intervention (Peterson and Rolston, 2022).
What becomes apparent is not a lack of conceptual frameworks, but a gap in field-based, system-level evidence. Most available data come from laboratory studies or indirect inference from other control strategies. Translating these findings into open, heterogeneous environments remains a key step. As Boete (2025) notes, understanding ecological consequences requires following interactions across multiple species and trophic levels, rather than focusing on isolated mechanisms.
Gene drives are often framed as a step into entirely new territory. In practice, many of the underlying questions are familiar. How do species interact? What happens when one is reduced or altered? How do ecosystems respond to sustained pressure? What changes is the scale at which these questions must be asked, and the expectation that answers should be robust enough to inform decisions before large-scale deployment.
For this reason, a measured approach emerges from the literature. Continue building empirical evidence under progressively realistic conditions. Focus monitoring on interactions that are both plausible and detectable. And remain attentive to context, since the same intervention may play out differently across ecological settings.
Key takeaways
- Mosquitoes are widely consumed, but they are not an essential food source for most predators.
- Most predators that eat mosquitoes are generalists. They rely on many other prey species.
- Studies show that gene drive mosquitoes do not harm predators. No negative effects on survival or growth have been observed.
- Some differences in predator performance may occur. These are likely due to changes in prey behaviour or accessibility, not toxicity.
- The most likely ecological effects are indirect. These include changes in competition and species composition.
- Evidence from mosquito control suggests ecosystems can adjust without major disruption. Outcomes depend on local conditions.
- Uncertainty remains at the ecosystem level. Long-term and field-scale effects still need to be studied.
Frequently asked questions (FAQs)
Do mosquitoes play an essential role in ecosystems?
Mosquitoes are part of many food webs, but current evidence suggests they are rarely essential. Most predators that consume mosquitoes are generalists and rely on a wide range of alternative prey. As a result, mosquito populations are not considered a critical or irreplaceable food source in most ecosystems.
What happens if mosquito populations are reduced or removed?
Reducing mosquito populations can alter ecological interactions, but effects are typically indirect. Other species may increase through reduced competition (a process known as competitive release), and predators may shift to alternative prey. Evidence from existing vector control programmes suggests that ecosystems often adjust without major disruption.
Are gene drive mosquitoes harmful to predators?
Experimental studies to date show no evidence that consuming gene drive mosquitoes harms predators. Feeding trials with fish and spiders found no negative effects on survival, growth, or development. Some studies even suggest increased prey capture due to behavioural differences in modified mosquitoes.
Could gene drive mosquitoes disrupt food webs?
Current evidence suggests that large-scale disruption of food webs is unlikely. Mosquitoes contribute to ecological interactions, but these interactions are typically diffuse and shared among many species. Potential effects are more likely to involve subtle shifts in species composition rather than ecosystem collapse.
Can other species replace mosquitoes in ecosystems?
In many cases, yes. Ecological roles such as serving as prey or contributing to nutrient cycling are shared across multiple species. When mosquito populations decline, other organisms with similar ecological functions may partially fill these roles, helping maintain ecosystem processes.
Do mosquitoes contribute significantly to pollination?
Mosquitoes can visit flowers and occasionally contribute to pollination, but their role is generally limited. For major disease vector species such as Anopheles gambiae and Aedes aegypti, pollination contributions are considered minor and are typically replaced by other insects.
What are the main ecological uncertainties around gene drive mosquitoes?
The main uncertainties relate to indirect effects, such as changes in competition between species, shifts in predator–prey interactions, and ecosystem responses over time. These effects are context-dependent and require field-based evidence to fully understand their magnitude and persistence.
References
The literature map below reflects the set of recent studies included in this review, selected based on relevance to trophic interactions, ecological effects, and environmental risk assessment.
Abram, P; Bouyer, J; Dass, B; Ogoyi, D; Okumu, F; Overcash, J; James, S (2026) Considerations for post-release environmental safety monitoring of gene drive-modified mosquitoes as a tool for malaria control in Sub-Saharan Africa. https://doi.org/10.12688/verixiv.2592.1
Bimbilé Somda, N S; Maïga, H; Mamai, W; Bakhoum, T; Wallner, T; Poda, S B; Yamada, H; Bouyer, J (2022) Adult mosquito predation and potential impact on the sterile insect technique. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06565-1
Boëte, C (2025) Gene drives, species complexes, and the risks of collateral damage. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2512489122
Bonds, J A S; Collins, C M; Gouagna, L C (2022) Could species-focused suppression of Aedes aegypti, the yellow fever mosquito, and Aedes albopictus, the tiger mosquito, affect interacting predators? an evidence synthesis from the literature. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6870
Collins, C M; Bonds, J A S; Quinlan, M M; Mumford, J D (2019) Effects of the removal or reduction in density of the malaria mosquito, Anopheles gambiae s.l., on interacting predators and competitors in local ecosystems. https://doi.org/10.1111/mve.12327
Connolly, J B; Mumford, J D; Fuchs, S; Turner, G; Beech, C; North, A R; Burt, A (2021) Systematic identification of plausible pathways to potential harm via problem formulation for investigational releases of a population suppression gene drive to control the human malaria vector Anopheles gambiae in West Africa. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-021-03674-6
Connolly, J B; Burt, A; Christophides, G; Diabate, A; Habtewold, T; Hancock, P A; James, A A; Kayondo, J K; Lwetoijera, D W; Manjurano, A; McKemey, A R; Santos, M R; Windbichler, N; Randazzo, F (2024) Considerations for first field trials of low-threshold gene drive for malaria vector control. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-024-04952-9
Devos, Y; Mumford, J D; Bonsall, M B; Camargo, A M; Firbank, L G; Glandorf, D C M; Nogue, F; Paraskevopoulos, K; Wimmer, E A (2021) Potential use of gene drive modified insects against disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species poses new challenges for risk assessment. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2021.1933891
Egan, C M; Chamberland, L; Ditter, R E; Campos, M; Batchelor, F; Bosky, A; Coleman, C H; Goffinet, A J; Hosseini, A; Kammersgard, M; Leetakubuulidde, B; Mabuka, D P; Mugeni, I M; Lanzaro, G C (2025) Growth and development of two predator species fed a diet of genetically engineered mosquitoes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-025-06987-6
Foster, W A (2024) Mosquito pollination of plants: an overview of their role and an assessment of the possible contribution of disease vectors. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-024-00394-w
Hayes, K R; Hosack, G R (2025) Problem formulation for a small-scale field study of non-gene drive, genetically modified, male bias mosquitoes in Burkina Faso. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2025.2484229
Karikari, A S; Akorli, J; Gbogbo, F; Ndong, I C; Karikari, A B; Karikari, A A; Kyerematen, R; Mawuli, A A; Gyimah, T; Aboagye-Antwi, F (2024) Trophic interactions of Anopheles gambiae mosquito larvae in aquatic ecosystem: a metagenomics approach. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.01.621049
Kormos, A; Dimopoulos, G; Bier, E; Lanzaro, G C; Marshall, J M; James, A A (2023) Conceptual risk assessment of mosquito population modification gene-drive systems to control malaria transmission: preliminary hazards list workshops. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1261123
Ogoyi, D O; Njagi, J; Tonui, W; Dass, B; Quemada, H; James, S (2024) Post-release monitoring pathway for the deployment of gene drive-modified mosquitoes for malaria control in Africa. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-024-05179-4
Peterson, R K D; Rolston, M G (2022) Larval mosquito management and risk to aquatic ecosystems: a comparative approach including current tactics and gene-drive Anopheles techniques. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-022-00315-9
Qureshi, A; Connolly, J B (2021) A systematic review assessing the potential for release of vector species from competition following insecticide-based population suppression of Anopheles species in Africa. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-021-04975-0
Qureshi, A; Connolly, J B (2023) Bioinformatic and literature assessment of toxicity and allergenicity of a CRISPR-Cas9 engineered gene drive to control Anopheles gambiae, the mosquito vector of human malaria. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-023-04665-5