// Twitter Cards // Prexisting Head The Biologist Is In: mammals
Showing posts with label mammals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mammals. Show all posts

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Future of the Guinea Worm

Guinea worm (Dracunculus medinensis) is one of those parasites that nightmares are made of. Juvenile worms infect freshwater copepods, which invariably end up getting ingested [by humans] when drinking contaminated water. The adult female grows up to a few feet long. It migrates to the skin (usually in the lower leg) and induces an extremely painful blister about a year after infection. The blister is described like being set on fire. The pain is alleviated best by standing in water, which is exactly what the worm wants. When the blister is in water, the female worm releases hundreds or thousands of babies into the water.

Former US President Jimmy Carter has been leading an organization working to make the worm go extinct. As a disease organism, few people are going to lament its extinction. When I first learned about this organism, it was invariably described as infecting humans only. This would make the process of wiping it out so much simpler. Unfortunately, the story isn't quite so simple. The worm has other plans.

Hind leg of a dog with a parasitic worm hanging off the side.
Figure 1 from paper.
Increasingly, dogs in Chad are being found with lower-leg lesions that have worms hanging out of them. Genetic analysis has shown it is the same species as the Guinea worm which infects people. Even if we prevent all human infections for long enough to interrupt the parasite's life cycle, it can still persist in other animals. It looks like it would take continuing diligence to keep it from erupting into an active human disease again.

Figure showing increased incidence of parasite in each of four years.
Adapted from page.
Over the last several years, the number of infections observed in dogs has been going up and up, while human infections have been minimal. This pattern of yearly increases suggests the worms have been adapting to their new hosts.

The researchers did find evidence for human behavior that helped give the parasite the opportunity to make this transition. At the end of the dry season, the locals do a mass harvest of fish. The fish are processed and dried/smoked for later use. The guts and other undesirable bits are discarded for the dogs, chickens, etc. to deal with. The dogs are then getting infected by eating the fish guts. It also appears that uncooked/undercooked fish are responsible for the human cases of infection.

Figure showing life cycle of parasite through copepods to fish/humans/dogs and back to living in the water where they infect new copepods.
Adapted from Figure 9 of paper.
Historically, most human infections by this parasite were due to ingestion of water contaminated by infected copepods (an host to an earlier stage of the worm). With increasing knowledge about this mode of transmission, it became dramatically less useful of a pathway for the parasite. At the same time, any alternate pathway for the parasite to get into its main host would have been positively selected. Essentially, we've just seen a parasite go from a life-cycle with one intermediate host to a life-cycle with two intermediate hosts.

Many parasites are known to have complicated life-cycles passing through several intermediate hosts, but this is the first case I've come across that helps to illustrate how those complex life-cycles could have evolved.



Better control of the fish discards will help minimize the infection pathway through dogs, but it won't necessarily get rid of the problem. While adapting to their new hosts, the worms have had to evolve to better escape notice by the canine immune system. A consequence of this is that they will be better prepared to infect dogs later by other pathways, even if fish discards aren't available. Maybe dogs will start getting infected by ingesting infected copepods like humans used to. Maybe dogs will start getting infected by eating scavenged fish that died in the dry season. I can't predict what will happen exactly, but I understand the power of natural selection and very much believe the worm will find another way to survive even if we completely prevent transmission to humans in the near future.


References:

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

"Invasive" Squirrels

Map of the eastern US, with ranges of grey and red squirrels overlaid. Grey squirrels live in the eastern half of the country. Red squirrels life in the north and north-east part of the country. A star marks Minneapolis, MN.
Range of American Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus).
Range of Eastern Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
There are two native tree squirrel species in Minnesota. The Eastern Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolnensis) would be familiar to almost anyone living in the eastern half of the USA, while the American Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) would be familiar to many people living in the north-east corner of the country (as well as most of Canada).

I happen to live in the native range of both species. I see them routinely in our yard... especially around the bird-feeder. The Greys climb down from above and snack directly from the feeder, while the Reds seem content with grabbing the seed spilled to the ground by avian visitors.

The Reds are about half the size of the Greys, but are much more feisty. We've watched single Reds aggressively attack single Greys, leading to the inevitable retreat of the larger Grey. The reds are generally more feisty, including in the intensity of their scolding calls when we scare them away from the porch.

The Greys make treetop nests out of leaves and branches. The Reds make homes of old woodpecker nests, burrows, or gaps in human establishments. We had to partially deconstruct a rear porch ceiling to discourage investigations by one Red, but most are content to reside in the piles of old wood just inside the edge of our woods.



What got me thinking about squirrels was a discussion with my wife and a third party. The third party referred to the red squirrels as invasive. Both my wife and I responded that they actually were native to the area. Later I realized that the root of the disagreement likely came down to different definitions of the word "invasive". We were interpreting the word in the context of the red squirrels being native. The third party might have been thinking of the word in the context of the red squirrels invading human structures. I don't know that this was their meaning and I don't expect to bring up the subject again with them, but this realization helps reinforce the need to be clear on what are meant even by terms in common use. (I previously posted a more extended conversation about the meanings of "diversity" in biological contexts.)

If you find someone saying something that at first strikes you as absurd, it may be because they're using words differently than you are. Don't simply discount them as being incoherent. Try to determine what they mean, not just what they say. Once you've gotten through the barrier caused by sharing the same language, their experience may help expand yours.


References