Invasive species inflict major ecological, economic, and cultural harm worldwide, highlighting the urgent need for innovative control strategies. Genome editing offers exciting possibilities for targeted control methods for invasive species. Here, we demonstrate CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing in the cane toad (Rhinella marina), one of Australia’s most notorious invasive species, by targeting the tyrosinase gene to produce albino phenotypes as visual markers for assessing editing efficiency. Microinjection of Cas9 protein and guide RNAs into one-cell zygotes resulted in 87.6% of mosaic larvae displaying nearly complete albinism, with 2.3% exhibiting complete albinism. For completely albino individuals, genomic analysis confirmed predominantly frameshift mutations or large deletions at the target site, with no wild-type alleles detected. Germline transmission rates reflected the extent of albinism in the mosaic adult, with maternal transmission approaching 100%. This first application of CRISPR-Cas9 in the Bufonidae family opens possibilities for exploring basic research questions and population control strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BellardC, CasseyP, BlackburnTM. Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions. Biol Lett, 2016; 12(2):20150623; doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0623
2.
ClaveroM, García-BerthouE. Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends Ecol Evol, 2005; 20(3):110; doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.01.003
3.
DiagneC, LeroyB, VaissièreA-C, et al.High and rising economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Nature, 2021; 592(7855):571–576; doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03405-6
4.
AllenWL, StreetSE, CapelliniI. Fast life history traits promote invasion success in amphibians and reptiles. Ecol Lett, 2017; 20(2):222–230; doi: 10.1111/ele.12728
5.
CapelliniI, BakerJ, AllenWL, et al.The role of life history traits in mammalian invasion success. Ecol Lett, 2015; 18(10):1099–1107; doi: 10.1111/ele.12493
6.
SolD, MasponsJ, Vall-LloseraM, et al.Unraveling the life history of successful invaders. Science, 2012; 337(6094):580–583; doi: 10.1126/science.1221523
7.
GallagherRV, RandallRP, LeishmanMR. Trait differences between naturalized and invasive plant species independent of residence time and phylogeny. Conserv Biol, 2015; 29(2):360–369; doi: 10.1111/cobi.12399
8.
MarchettiMP, MoylePB, LevineR. Invasive species profiling? Exploring the characteristics of non-native fishes across invasion stages in California. Freshw Biol, 2004; 49(5):646–661; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2004.01202.x
9.
ChappleDG, SimmondsSM, WongBBM. Can behavioral and personality traits influence the success of unintentional species introductions? Trends Ecol Evol, 2012; 27(1):57–64; doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.09.010
10.
SolD, TimmermansS, LefebvreL. Behavioural flexibility and invasion success in birds. Anim Behav, 2002; 63(3):495–502; doi: 10.1006/anbe.2001.1953
ThuillerW, RichardsonDM, PyšekP, et al.Niche-based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global scale. Glob Chang Biol, 2005; 11(12):2234–2250; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001018.x
13.
MackRN, SimberloffD, Mark LonsdaleW, et al.Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications, 2000; 10(3):689–710; doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0689:BICEGC]2.0.CO;2
14.
SimberloffD, MartinJ-L, GenovesiP, et al.Impacts of biological invasions: What’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol, 2013; 28(1):58–66; doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.07.013
15.
TingleyR, Ward-FearG, SchwarzkopfL, et al.New weapons in the toad toolkit: A review of methods to control and mitigate the biodiversity impacts of invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina). Q Rev Biol, 2017; 92(2):123–149; doi: 10.1086/692167
16.
ChamperJ, BuchmanA, AkbariOS. Cheating evolution: Engineering gene drives to manipulate the fate of wild populations. Nat Rev Genet, 2016; 17(3):146–159; doi: 10.1038/nrg.2015.34
17.
ChamperJ, LeeE, YangE, et al.A toxin-antidote CRISPR gene drive system for regional population modification. Nat Commun, 2020; 11(1):1082; doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-14960-3
18.
JohnsonML, HayBA, MaselkoM. Allele sails: Launching traits and fates into wild populations with Mendelian DNA sequence modifiers. Nat Commun, 2024; 15(1):6665; doi: 10.1101/2024.03.18.585647
19.
TeemJL, AlpheyL, DescampsS, et al.Genetic biocontrol for invasive species. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2020; 8:452; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00452
20.
KandulNP, LiuJ, Sanchez CHM, et al.Transforming insect population control with precision guided sterile males with demonstration in flies. Nat Commun, 2019; 10(1):84; doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07964-7
ThomasDD, DonnellyCA, WoodRJ, et al.Insect population control using a dominant, repressible, lethal genetic system. Science, 2000; 287(5462):2474–2476; doi: 10.1126/science.287.5462.2474
23.
PhilipsJG, Martin-AvilaE, RoboldAV. Horizontal gene transfer from genetically modified plants - Regulatory considerations. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2022; 10:971402; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.971402
24.
ThygesenP. Regulation of genome edited organisms in Australia. Transgenic Res, 2024; 33(6):545–550; doi: 10.1007/s11248-024-00411-y
25.
ShineR. The ecological impact of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) in Australia. Q Rev Biol, 2010; 85(3):253–291.
26.
PhillipsBL, BrownGP, WebbJK, et al.Invasion and the evolution of speed in toads. Nature, 2006; 439(7078):803; doi: 10.1038/439803a
ShineR. Invasive species as drivers of evolutionary change: Cane toads in tropical Australia. Evol Appl, 2012; 5(2):107–116; doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00201.x
29.
LeverC. The Cane Toad: The History and Ecology of a Successful Colonist. Westbury Academic and Scientific Publishing: Otley, UK; 2001.
30.
ShineR, Ward-FearG, BrownGP. A famous failure: Why were cane toads an ineffective biocontrol in Australia? Conservat Sci and Prac, 2020; 2(12):e296; doi: 10.1111/csp2.296
31.
UrbanMC, PhillipsBL, SkellyDK, et al.A toad more traveled: The heterogeneous invasion dynamics of cane toads in Australia. Am Nat, 2008; 171(3):E134–E148; doi: 10.1086/527494
32.
JollyCJ, KellyE, GillespieGR, et al.Out of the frying pan: Reintroduction of toad-smart northern quolls to southern Kakadu National Park. Austral Ecol, 2018; 43(2):139–149; doi: 10.1111/aec.12551
33.
FukudaY, TingleyR, CraseB, et al.Long-term monitoring reveals declines in an endemic predator following invasion by an exotic prey species. Anim Conserv, 2016; 19(1):75–87; doi: 10.1111/acv.12218
34.
PhillipsBL, GreenleesMJ, BrownGP, et al.Predator behaviour and morphology mediates the impact of an invasive species: Cane toads and death adders in Australia. Anim Conserv, 2010; 13(1):53–59; doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00295.x
35.
PhillipsBL, ShineR. An invasive species induces rapid adaptive change in a native predator: Cane toads and black snakes in Australia. Proc Biol Sci, 2006; 273(1593):1545–1550; doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3479
36.
PettitL, SomaweeraR, KaiserS, et al.The impact of invasive toads (Bufonidae) on monitor lizards (Varanidae): An overview and prospectus. Q Rev Biol, 2021; 96(2):105–125; doi: 10.1086/714483
37.
Price-ReesSJ, BrownGP, ShineR. Predation on toxic cane toads (Bufo marinus) may imperil bluetongue lizards (Tiliqua scincoides intermedia, Scincidae) in tropical Australia. Wildl Res, 2010; 37(2):166; doi: 10.1071/WR09170
38.
GreenleesMJ, HarrisS, WhiteAW, et al.The establishment and eradication of an extra-limital population of invasive cane toads. Biol Invasions, 2018; 20(8):2077–2089; doi: 10.1007/s10530-018-1681-8
39.
SomaweeraR, SomaweeraN, ShineR. Frogs under friendly fire: How accurately can the general public recognize invasive species? Biol Conserv, 2010; 143(6):1477–1484; doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.027
40.
Ward-FearG, RangersB, BrunyM, et al.Teacher toads: Buffering apex predators from toxic invaders in a remote tropical landscape. Conservation Letters, 2024; 17(3):e13012; doi: 10.1111/conl.13012
41.
ShineR, BaeckensS. Rapidly evolved traits enable new conservation tools: Perspectives from the cane toad invasion of Australia. Evolution, 2023; 77(8):1744–1755; doi: 10.1093/evolut/qpad102
42.
CrosslandMR, ShineR. Cues for cannibalism: Cane toad tadpoles use chemical signals to locate and consume conspecific eggs. Oikos, 2011; 120(3):327–332; doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18911.x
43.
DeVoreJL, CrosslandMR, ShineR, et al.The evolution of targeted cannibalism and cannibal-induced defenses in invasive populations of cane toads. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2021; 118(35):e2100765118; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2100765118
44.
DoudnaJA, CharpentierE. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science, 2014; 346(6213):1258096; doi: 10.1126/science.1258096
45.
JinekM, ChylinskiK, FonfaraI, et al.A Programmable Dual-RNA–Guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science, 2012; 337(6096):816–821; doi: 10.1126/science.1225829
46.
AndersC, NiewoehnerO, DuerstA, et al.Structural basis of PAM-dependent target DNA recognition by the Cas9 endonuclease. Nature, 2014; 513(7519):569–573; doi: 10.1038/nature13579
47.
ChakrabartiAM, Henser-BrownhillT, MonserratJ, et al.Target-Specific precision of CRISPR-Mediated genome editing. Mol Cell, 2019; 73(4):699–713.e6; doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.11.031
48.
van OverbeekM, CapursoD, CarterMM, et al.DNA repair profiling reveals Nonrandom outcomes at Cas9-Mediated breaks. Mol Cell, 2016; 63(4):633–646; doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.06.037
KrollF, PowellGT, GhoshM, et al.A simple and effective F0 knockout method for rapid screening of behaviour and other complex phenotypes. eLife, 2021; 10:e59683; doi: 10.7554/eLife.59683
51.
ZuoE, CaiY-J, LiK, et al.One-step generation of complete gene knockout mice and monkeys by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing with multiple sgRNAs. Cell Res, 2017; 27(7):933–945; doi: 10.1038/cr.2017.81
52.
WangF, ShiZ, CuiY, et al.Targeted gene disruption in Xenopus laevis using CRISPR/Cas9. Cell Biosci, 2015; 5:15.
53.
GuoX, ZhangT, HuZ, et al.Efficient RNA/Cas9-mediated genome editing in Xenopus tropicalis. Development, 2014; 141(3):707–714; doi: 10.1242/dev.099853
54.
ElewaA, WangH, Talavera-LópezC, et al.Reading and editing the Pleurodeles waltl genome reveals novel features of tetrapod regeneration. Nat Commun, 2017; 8(1):2286; doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01964-9
55.
FlowersGP, TimberlakeAT, McleanKC, et al.Highly efficient targeted mutagenesis in axolotl using Cas9 RNA-guided nuclease. Development, 2014; 141(10):2165–2171; doi: 10.1242/dev.105072
56.
SanorLD, FlowersGP, CrewsCM. Multiplex CRISPR/Cas screen in regenerating haploid limbs of chimeric Axolotls. Elife, 2020; 9:e48511; doi: 10.7554/eLife.48511
57.
NakajimaK, NakajimaT, TakaseM, et al.Generation of albino enopus tropicalis using zinc-finger nucleases. Dev Growth Differ, 2012; 54(9):777–784; doi: 10.1111/dgd.12006
58.
NakayamaT, FishMB, FisherM, et al.Simple and efficient CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis in Xenopus tropicalis. Genesis, 2013; 51(12):835–843; doi: 10.1002/dvg.22720
59.
GosnerKL. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica, 1960; 16(3):183–190.
60.
BruschiDP, SousaDY, SoaresA, et al.Comparative cytogenetics of nine populations of the Rhinella genus (Anura, Bufonidae) with a highlight on their conservative karyotype. Genet Mol Biol, 2019; 42(2):445–451; doi: 10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2018-0139
61.
SillaAJ, RobertsJD, ByrnePG. The effect of injection and topical application of hCG and GnRH agonist to induce sperm-release in the roseate frog, Geocrinia rosea. Conserv Physiol, 2020; 8(1):coaa104; doi: 10.1093/conphys/coaa104
62.
WlizlaM, McNamaraS, HorbME. Generation and care of Xenopus laevis and Xenopus tropicalis embryos. Methods Mol Biol, 2018; 1865:19–32; doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-8784-9_2
63.
MthembuSN, SharmaA, AlbericioF, et al.Breaking a couple: Disulfide reducing agents. Chembiochem, 2020; 21(14):1947–1954; doi: 10.1002/cbic.202000092
64.
KidsonSH, FabianBC. Synthesis and activity of Xenopus laevis oocyte tyrosinase. J Exp Zool, 1989; 249(2):203–212; doi: 10.1002/jez.1402490213
65.
YiH, LiangW, YangS, et al.Melanin deposition and key molecular features in Xenopus tropicalis oocytes. BMC Biol, 2025; 23(1):62; doi: 10.1186/s12915-025-02168-0
66.
WuRS, LamII, ClayH, et al.A rapid method for directed gene knockout for screening in G0 zebrafish. Dev Cell, 2018; 46(1):112–125.e4; doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2018.06.003
67.
LandeR, ArnoldSJ. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution, 1983; 37(6):1210–1226; doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1983.tb00236.x
68.
BarrettRDH, HoekstraHE. Molecular spandrels: Tests of adaptation at the genetic level. Nat Rev Genet, 2011; 12(11):767–780; doi: 10.1038/nrg3015
69.
ClevesPA, TinocoAI, BradfordJ, et al.Reduced thermal tolerance in a coral carrying CRISPR-induced mutations in the gene for a heat-shock transcription factor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2020; 117(46):28899–28905; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1920779117
70.
SelechnikD, RichardsonMF, ShineR, et al.Increased adaptive variation despite reduced overall genetic diversity in a rapidly adapting invader. Front Genet, 2019; 10:1221; doi: 10.3389/fgene.2019.01221
71.
HietpasRT, JensenJD, BolonDNA. Experimental illumination of a fitness landscape. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2011; 108(19):7896–7901; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1016024108
72.
LobkovskyAE, KooninEV. Replaying the tape of life: Quantification of the predictability of evolution. Front Genet, 2012; 3:246; doi: 10.3389/fgene.2012.00246
