data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6ad88/6ad88334cde833df0453769841ca25154ef7db04" alt="HIMB Logo"
HIMB on the Radio
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6ad88/6ad88334cde833df0453769841ca25154ef7db04" alt="HIMB Logo"
If you follow this blog closely, you know I have a strong opinion on the use of new media platforms for science communication. Well, in the most recent Biological Bulletin, I delve into exactly why I feel scientists need to take charge and embrace these tools. The best part: the full version is FREE, so check it out!
Wilcox, Christie (2012). Guest Editorial: It’s Time To e-Volve: Taking Responsibility for Science Communication in a Digital Age Biological Bulletin, 222, 85-87
More Social Media for Scientists:
One of the most popular hypotheses to explain the rise in inflammatory conditions is known as the Hygiene Hypothesis, which says that our increasingly sterile lifestyle is to blame for our allergic reactions. We now live in a world of antibacterial soaps, instant hand sanitizer, vaccines, and antibiotics, all of which have taken over the job of protecting our children from dirt and germs. Left with nothing to do, kid’s immune systems get a little stir crazy, and start attacking even minor invaders like pollen with increased zeal. But Ilkka Hanski and his colleagues from the University of Helsinki in Finland suggest the Hygiene Hypothesis extends beyond how clean we keep our house. They put forward a Biodiversity Hypothesis, which suggests that less contact with the nature and biodiversity is adversely affecting the microbes on and in our bodies, leading to increased susceptibility to immune disorders.
To test this hypothesis, the research team investigated the relationship between biodiversity, allergen susceptibility, and skin microbial communities in a little over 100 randomly chosen teenagers in Finland. The kids grew up in a variety of settings, from tightly-packed villages to rural farmlands. For each participant, they measured how sensitive their skin was to allergens and what kind of microbes were living on there. Based on their skin’s immune reaction, they classified the students as allergen-sensitive (a condition known as atopy) or not. The researchers also roughly calculated the level of environmental biodiversity where the participants lived by looking at the amount of plant cover of their yards and the major land use types within 3 km of their homes, allowing comparisons between it and the participant’s allergy sensitivity and skin microorganisms.
The team found a strong, significant correlation between the diversity of a particular class of skin bacteria, called gammaproteobacteria, and allergen sensitivity. Though they only represented 3% of the skin bacterial community, gammaproteobacteria were the only class that showed a significant decrease in diversity in the atopic individuals. So, to get a closer look at this phenomenon, directly comparing the presence of different gammaproteobacteria with levels of an anti-inflamatory marker, IL-10, in the subjects’ blood. The presence of one gammaproteobacterial genus, Acinetobacter, was strongly linked to higher levels of IL-10 in healthy individuals but not in the allergen-sensitive ones. As the authors explain, this suggests that these microbes may help teach the immune system to ignore pesky allergens.
“The positive association between the abundance of the gammaproteobacterial genus Acinetobacter and IL-10 expression… in healthy individuals, but not in atopic individuals, is consistent with IL-10’s central role in maintaining immunologic tolerance to harmless substances.” Thus, the authors say, “the lack of association between Acinetobacter and IL-10 expression in atopic individuals in the present study might re?ect a breakdown of the regulatory mechanisms.”
How, exactly, Actinetobacter and other gammaproteobacteria influence our immune system has yet to be determined. What the authors did show is that environment a person grows up in has a strong effect on the presence and diversity of this group of bacteria. Since gammaproteobacteria are are commonly found in soil and on plants (including ?owering plants and their pollen), it may not seem that surprising to the researchers that the environmental diversity around a subject was strongly correlated to increased diversity of their skin gammaproteobacteria. But what is astounding is that this relationship held even when the researchers stepped back and looked at the overall connection between allergen sensitivity and the surrounding environment; the more natural biodiversity where the kid grew up, the less likely he or she was to be sensitive to allergens.
“The present results demonstrate that biodiversity can be surprisingly strongly associated with atopy.”
This suggests that the urban-dwelling nature of developed countries may be to blame for their increasing problem with inflammatory diseases. If so, conservation of natural spaces, including parks and other green initiatives, may be key to protecting the health of future generations. “Interactions with natural environmental features not only may increase general human well being in urban areas, but also may enrich the commensal microbiota and enhance its interaction with the immune system, with far-reaching consequences for public health.”
Since allergies cost us almost $14.5 billion annually including medical expenses, missed school and work, and over the counter drugs, there may be a strong monetary incentive to conserve our natural areas – if only for the sake of our health. That’s not even considering the other economic incentives for conservation, including water filtration and storm protection, which have been estimated at over $4.4 trillion dollars per year.
What all these studies tell us is that the cost of conservation is strongly outweighed by its benefits. Period.
Reference: Hanski, I., von Hertzen, L., Fyhrquist, N., Koskinen, K., Torppa, K., Laatikainen, T., Karisola, P., Auvinen, P., Paulin, L., Makela, M.J. & Environmental biodiversity, human microbiota, and allergy are interrelated, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1205624109
Image of soil and hands © Soil-Net.Com under a Creative Commons License
As a scientist, one of the most important parts of my job is outreach. I consider this blog and other outreach activities as an integral part of my profession. So every year, I wrangle grad students from the Ecology, Evolution and Conservation Biology (EECB) Specialization at the University of Hawaii to help a local elementary school teach their students about the ecology of tide pools. The partnership between EECB and Mililani-Mauka Elementary school is one of those rare gems in outreach where both sides get a tremendous amount out of the relationship. The school gets trained scientific experts that fascinate and amaze the kids with tales of slimy defenses and odd partnerships between crabs and anemones. In turn, the graduate students get to take a day off, get out of the lab, and act like kids playing in tide pools. Sometimes, I think the overworked grad students are more excited to catch critters than the kids!
What can you find in a tide pool on the coast of Oahu? Well, let’s find out…
Hexabranchus saguineus – Spanish Dancer
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Mollusca
Class: Gastropoda
Family: Hexabranchidae
Genus: Hexabranchus
Species: H. sanguineus
One of my favorite finds was a Spanish Dancer nudibranch – a name that aptly fits the beautiful undulating motion of this colorful animal while it swims which looks like the swirling of a flamenco dancer’s skirt. It’s the largest species of nudibranch in Hawaii, and can get over a foot long!
The term “nudibranch” means “nude/naked gills,” and refers to the frilly, external gills found in these species (they look almost like feathers sticking out of the dancer’s back). The scientific name for this species, Hexabranchus sanguineus, refers specifically to the number of gills (six) and to its blood-like red coloring. Nudibranchs are often brilliantly colored and found in many sizes and shapes, which may serve to warn predators as many species are toxic. Unlike other sea critters, toxic nudibranchs don’t make their own defenses – they steal them from species they eat, like sponges and Portuguese man-of-war.
Dardanus gemmatus – Jeweled Anemone Crab
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Malacostraca
Order: Decapoda
Family: Diogenidae
Genus: Dardanus
Species: D. gemmatus
This beautiful little crab is a specialized kind of hermit crab known as an anemone crab. The frilly bits on its shell aren’t just for show – they’re a kind of sea anemone, Calliactis polypus. For the crab, the anemones provide protection. Their painful stinging cells make the crab’s predators think twice about what they snack on. Those pretty pink strands are actually specialized stinging threads called acontia which help protect both the anemone and the crab. In turn, the crab provides the anemones with movement, thus granting them access to better food resources. This kind of you-pat-my-back-I’ll-pat-yours relationship is what is known in as symbiosis or mututalism.
Dolabella auricularia – Wedge or Eared Sea Hare
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Mollusca
Class: Gastropoda
Family: Aplysiidae
Genus: Dolabella
Species: D. auricularia
Ok, so you can’t really see the sea hare in these pictures. But you can see what it produces when it’s scared – a thick batch of bright purple slime! Sea hares – also known as sea slugs – are relatives of snails and other shelled animals, but like slugs on land, they haven’t had a shell for millions of years, thus making them more vulnerable to predators. But the sea hares aren’t defenseless, as you can see from the goo in the pictures. When they feel threatened, they are able to produce large amounts of a thick slime which confuses their would-be predator, allowing the slug to slither away unharmed. The purple color for the slime from the red algae the hares feed on.
Echidna nebulosa – Snowflake Moray
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Actinopterygii
Order: Anguilliformes
Family: Muraenidae
Genus: Echidna
Species: E. nebulosa
Tide pools are important nursery habitats, even for active predators like this snowflake moray. These scary hunters can grow up to 3 feet long and pack one heck of a bite, but this young eel is as vulnurable to predators as other small fish. The tide pools provide him and other young fish a place free of large predators where they can grow large enough to try and make it on their own on the exposed reefs. Snowflake morays don’t often eat fish, though they will if the opportunity arises. Their teeth are flatter than other species of eel, and are more suited to crushing shelled prey items like as shrimps, crabs, and sea urchins.
Octopus cyanea – Day Octopus
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Mollusca
Class: Cephalopoda
Order: Octopoda
Family: Octopodidae
Genus: Octopus
Species: O. cyanea
By far one of the kid’s favorite finds was this small day octopus. Popular here in Hawaii as a food item (known as tako), day octopus are heavily fished. As daytime hunters, day octupus have incredible camouflage abilities. Let me point out that the two photos above are of the same octopus – those color differences are just a couple of the wide variety of elaborate color patterns and skin textures that the octopus displayed in our short time with it. Octopus have complex brains with a highly developed nervous system capable of changing their skin almost instantly as they move over different substrates. Roger Hanlon, an octopus biologist, once recorded a single day octopus changing patterns 1,000 times over a 7 hour period!
Scorpaenopsis diabolus – Devil Scorpionfish
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Actinopterygii
Order: Scorpaeniformes
Family: Scorpaenidae
Genus: Scorpaenopsis
Species: S. diabolus
Last but not least, however, was by far my favorite catch of the week – this small devil scorpionfish, now named Stumpy. You see, this guy is one of the species that I study. I’m investigating the toxins in the entire order to get a better understanding of how toxins evolved in fish, and this little cutie is one of the many fishes whose spines possess a potent and painful sting. It’s easy to see why this particular species might be mistaken for a rock covered in algae. Because of exceptional camouflage, scorpionfish like this one are often unnoticed by tide pool goers, swimmers and divers until it’s too late and they find out the hard way exactly how strong the toxins they produce are. My goal is to better understand why other member of the order – groupers, for example – aren’t as toxic, even though they possess the ability to produce a similar protein toxin. Do they not express it? Or is the toxin itself altered to be less painful? Given that the toxins have strong effects on our bodies, it’s possible they may provide clues to new drugs or insights into how our cells work.
Stumpy here has come back with me so I can study his toxins as a part of my dissertation research. He currently resides in a tank at my house, where he has been eating like a glutton all week. The speed with which these ambush predators gulp a fish right out of the water never ceases to amaze me. Other cool fact: he glows orange in UV light. Yeah. Orange. How neat is that? I study the coolest animals EVER.
Check out more photos from this year’s tide walks on Facebook!
Can you imagine oceans without sharks? We may soon have to, as new research suggests may already be 90% of the way there.
Studying shark populations can be tricky. As David Shiffman explains well, while there are a number of methods that can be used to study shark populations, quantifying just how far their numbers have fallen can be difficult. However, recent research out of the University of Hawaii suggests that the presence of humans has a severe and strong negative impact on sharks, driving down numbers by over 90%.
Sharks play a vital role in coral reef ecosystems. Yet every year, millions are killed for asian delicacies and disproven cancer cures. There is no question our shark fishing habits have devastated their populations; the only questions that remain are how much of an effect are we having, and can the sharks recover.
In an effort to answer the first, the research team crunched data from 1607 surveys from the NOAA Coastal Reef Ecosystem Division (CRED) to calculate the effect of human habitation on shark populations. The CRED team counted sharks throughout the Pacific using towed diver surveys, the most efficient and effective way to study open ocean creatures on a large spatial scale, and compared their counts with local human population numbers. Their results were clear – and sobering.
“Around each of the heavily populated areas we surveyed — in the main Hawaiian Islands, the Mariana Archipelago and American Samoa — reef shark numbers were greatly depressed,” said Marc Nadon, lead author of the study. “We estimate that less than 10% of the baseline numbers remain in these areas.”
The team also looked at other factors that might be affecting shark populations, including temperature and reef productivity. However, while sharks preferred warmer waters full of potential prey, the negative impact of humans dwarfed these effects. “Our results suggest humans now exert a stronger influence on the abundance of reef sharks than either habitat quality or oceanographic factors,” the authors wrote.
The team estimated that less than 100 people is enough to cut shark populations by 20%. Even 1,000 people – which is much less than the population of many small islands in the Pacific – was enough to decrease shark populations by 60%. As Nadon put it, “In short, people and sharks don’t mix.”
The findings are consistent with other research in the field. A 2003 paper, for example, found that shark populations in the Northwestern Atlantic dropped over 65% between 1986 and 2000. Similarly, a 2010 paper estimated that shark populations in the Chagos Archipelago had declined 90% since the 1970s. The more we study sharks, the worse the picture becomes, and the stronger the case becomes for conservation efforts. We simply cannot continue to treat these animals the way we do now, for all scientific evidence suggests the day is fast approaching when there will be no sharks left to exploit.
Reference: Nolan et al. Re-Creating Missing Population Baselines for Pacific Reef Sharks. Conservation Biology; DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01835.x
Oil supplies the United States with approximately 40% of its energy needs. Billions upon billions of gallons are pumped out of our wells, brought in from other countries, and shipped around to refineries all over the states. 1.3 million gallons of petroleum are spilled into U.S. waters from vessels and pipelines in a typical year. Yes, it would be great if we never spilled a drop of oil. No matter how hard we may try, though, the fact is that nobody is perfect, and oil spills are an inevitable consequence of our widespread use of oil. The question is, once the oil is out there, how do we clean it up?
Nowehere is this issue more glaring than in the Gulf of Mexico right now, where 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil are spewing out of the remains of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig every day. The spill has enraged an entire nation. But perhaps my grandfather put it best, when I asked him what he thought about how BP and the US is responding to the spill.
“They’re friggin’ idiots.”
My grandfather, Ralph Bianchi, knows a thing or two about oil spills. He spent thirty years in the oil spill cleanup business. His company, JBF Scientific (now a part of Slickbar), developed new technologies for cleaning up spills, including a skimming method called the Dynamic Inclined Plane (DIP). In 1970, they sold their first skimmer to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The next year, the U.S. Navy purchased forty $250,000 DIP skimmers and stationed them at major naval installations throughout the world. When word of how well his designs worked for the government, private oil companies started buying DIP skimmers, too.
In 1987, my grandfather’s company, JBF Scientific, received a call from the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. The company, based in Alaska, was formed in 1970 and charged with the duty of designing, constructing, operating and maintaining the pipeline which transports oil from the fields in Alaska. It is owned by the major oil companies that operate the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, including a couple you may have heard of: BP and Exxon Mobil.
Part of Alyeska’s job is to clean up any spills which occur in the process of the movement of oil to, from and through the pipeline. What they wanted from my grandfather was a DIP skimmer larger than he’d ever constructed – a boat over 120 feet long. JBF drew up plans for a massive DIP skimmer capable of removing 2,500 barrels of oil per hour. But when my grandfather told them how much it would cost – an estimated $4 to $5 million at the time – Alyeska instead decided to try another company’s cheaper model, which turned out to be close to useless in the kelp-filled waters of the Northwest.
Of course, everyone knows what happened next. In 1989, the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Prince William Sound’s Bligh Reef and spilled an estimated 250,000 barrels of crude oil, creating one of the worst environmental disasters in history. The spill itself was bad enough, but Alyeska, Exxon and the country were entirely unprepared to deal with a cleanup of that nature. Despite months of cleanup efforts, less than 10% of the spilled oil was recovered, and 20 years later, the ecosystems in the area had still yet to recover.
After the spill, Alyeska bought my grandfather’s skimmer. The boat, called the Valdez Star, still operates in that area today. If another spill the size of the Exxon Valdez occurred now, picking up that volume of oil would only be a few days’ work for the Valdez Star and two aluminum oil recovery boats the company also bought. Only a few days work.
If only the cooperative in Alaska had been willing to spend a little more on their cleanup equipment! Other areas, however, were and are much better about their cleanup planning. One of the first privately owned groups to embrace the DIP skimmers was the oil cooperative in Puget Sound. Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits are among the busiest shipping lanes in the world, with billions of gallons of oil moving across the waters of Puget Sound every year. The Sound may have many environmental issues, including stormwater runoff and pollution, but it kicks butt at cleaning up oil spills.
Despite the fact that oil spills occur there fairly frequently, you don’t hear about them much. That’s because in Puget Sound, they have what my grandfather calls a “firehouse mentality.” The cooperative bought the first privately owned DIP skimmer, The North Sounder, from JBF in the late 1980s. After the Exxon spill, they purchased three more similar skimmers, and a 600 ton skimmer like the Valdez Star called The Shearwater. These skimmers are among a fleet of equipment and trained personnel ready at a moment’s notice to deal with any spill. They run drills to practice different methods of cleanup. They know the currents and wind data and predict where and when the oil will hit. They’ve identified sensitive shore areas like shell fish beds, bird feeding and nesting ground and yachting harbors, and have stationed containment and deflecting booms, storage barges, and skimmers at those areas. And all of it is funded by the state and the oil companies and other shippers whose oil could be spilled. In Washington, the state Ecology Department has a budget of $16 million, while companies spend roughly $41 million a year there preparing for spills.
Oil spill cleanup using my grandpa’s technology in 1972; my uncle Robert Bianchi on the left, a family friend Mark Mendano in the center, and my uncle Raimond Bianchi on the right.
In Puget Sound, when a spill happens, they jump into action. Just like firefighters responding to an alarm, trained teams of workers immediately assess the situation and combat the spreading problem. They contain the oil if they can, and if they can’t, they protect the areas that are most vulnerable to oil’s damaging effects. Similar oil cleanup crews are now in place in a number of harbors around the country.
So I asked my grandfather how many skimmers he sold to companies in the Gulf.
“None.”
BP now claims that 400 or so skimmers are now working to clean up the oil spilling in the gulf. One of their spokesmen, Mark Proegler, says skimmers are only able to collect about 10-15 percent of the oil. “They essentially scoop up the oil and water mix in the water for later separation,” he explained, “and that mix is about 10 percent oil and 90 percent water.”
But that’s because they aren’t using DIP skimmers, or other, better skimming technologies that have been developed over the past few decades. The resultant oil percentage of the fluids that are picked up by these skimmers is more than five times higher. When deciding how well prepared an area is for an oil spill, the government tends to operate on a 20% rule of thumb (33 CFR 155, Appendix B, Section 6) – that is, they assume that any skimmer will operate at only 20% the efficiency that the manufacturer claims. For JBF DIP models, however, they assume 74% to 94% efficiency.
What my grandfather wants to know is why the Valdez Star and the Shearwater, as well as the other large, high-quality skimmers, aren’t in the Gulf right now. Better boats are out there, which could clean up more oil and faster.
It’s not just that BP and other Gulf companies hadn’t embraced the newer, better cleanup technologies before this disaster occurred. It’s that they aren’t prepared at all for any kind of large spill. That’s what the US government discovered when they performed exercises in the early 2000s to see how companies would respond to a major spill. The After Action report of the 2004 Spill of National Significance (SONS) exercise concluded that, in the Gulf of Mexico:
Oil spill response personnel did not appear to have even a basic knowledge of the equipment required to support salvage or spill cleanup operations…. There was a shortage of personnel with experience to fill key positions. Many middle-level spill management staff had never worked a large spill and some had never been involved in an exercise.
What’s even more sobering is that of the oil spills within the Coast Guard’s jurisdiction (i.e., marine and coastal areas), approximately 50% of the incidents, both in number and the volume of oil spilled, occur in the Gulf of Mexico and its shoreline states.
Why doesn’t the Gulf have the “firehouse mentality” of areas like Puget Sound? Why haven’t they identified the most vulnerable areas and stationed cleanup equipment there, provided up to date training for cleanup personnel, and generally prepared for this kind of disaster?
The answer is simple. As my grandpa phrased it, “they’re cheap bastards.”
The lack of foresight and constant corner cutting by BP led to this disaster. But what’s worse is that they continue to botch the containment and cleanup of the billions of gallons of oil that their mistakes have spilled.
“The real issue,” my grandfather explained to me, “is that they don’t care about solving the problem.” By they, he wasn’t just referring to BP. He was referring to all of the oil companies in the Gulf and the government regulators that are supposed to be ensuring that oil drilling and transport occurs safely. “They throw dispersants on the oil. Do you know what dispersants do? They make the oil neutrally buoyant. Dispersed oil winds up in the water column and, therefore, cannot be deflected by floating booms or harvested with oil skimmers. They make the surface look cleaner, but they don’t do a damned thing to actually clean up the oil.”
Essentially, dispersants are soaps. They emulsify oil, breaking up up and allowing it to mix into water. The idea behind dispersants is that by breaking up the oil and putting it in the water column, it will be degraded faster by the microorganisms that naturally degrade oils and keeping the oil from coating the shoreline.
Starting in May, the US has been spraying oil dispersants at the spill like mad, despite concerns raised by many related to potential dispersant impact on wildlife and fisheries, environment, aquatic life, and public health. The EPA further approved injection of these dispersants directly at the the leak site to break up the oil before it reaches the surface. By the end of may, over 600,000 gallons of dispersants have been applied on the surface, with another 55,000 gallons applied underwater. The two main dispersants being used, Corexit EC9500A and EC9527A are neither the least toxic, nor the most effective, among the dispersants approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, the UK has banned their use entirely. When BP was asked why they aren’t using better dispersants, they said that Corexit was ‘what they had available.’
The bigger question, though, is why are they using dispersants at all. Multiple studies after the Exxon Valdez spill found that dispersants, detergents, and hot water cleaning of shoreline cause substantially more mortality than oil itself. Even before the Exxon spill, scientists knew that “dispersant-oil mixtures are more toxic than the dispersant alone, and many-fold more toxic than the crude oil.” While better and safer detergents are being developed, their long-term toxicity and effectiveness is still completely unknown, making them risky to use in such high quantities as BP is.
The way my grandpa sees it, the so-called cleanup of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill isn’t about being effective or safe, it’s about looking like they’re doing something. The goal is to make it less visible so the public forgets that it’s happening. It’s all about PR.
I think he’s right.
What needs to happen, in the Gulf of Mexico and throughout the United States, is a change of mindset. We’ve already started moving away from oil to other, more responsible and sustainable energy technologies, but that is only a small part of the solution. The truth is, we’re likely never going to have a zero demand for oil. We certainly won’t do it in the next fifty or a hundred years – it’s just not feasible. While we need to continue to research alternatives, we need to deal with how we handle and regulate oil now, too.
Oil companies have been taking advantage of loose regulations for too long. They need to be forced to prepare for the damage their products can cause. You would think that after the disaster in Alaska that we would have learned our lesson – that anywhere where oil is drilled, pumped or transported would have put in place well trained emergency response teams and extensive equipment ready to react to large spills. But apparently, we haven’t learned from our mistakes. This time, I hope that we do.
This post has been chosen as a Research Blogging Editor’s Selection, featured in the 33rd edition of Scientia Pro Publica, and now won the Post with the Most!
PS: For amazing coverage of the oil spill in general, check out my blog-buddies over at Deep Sea News and the growing list of fantastic posts/feeds/etc from Southern Fried Science
Citations:
Just this week, Gladstone researchers announced a major breakthrough in heart disease research: they successfully reprogrammed scar tissue in live mice back into functional heart muscle.
The researchers were able to use a virus-based system to deliver three key genes that guide embryonic heart development—Gata4, Mef2c and Tbx5 (GMT)—to areas of mouse hearts that were damaged in a heart attack. Within a month, cells that normally became scar tissue were beating away again as if they were not knocking on death’s door just 30 days before. By the three month mark, treated mice showed marked improvements in cardiac functioning.
“The damage from a heart attack is typically permanent because heart-muscle cells—deprived of oxygen during the attack—die and scar tissue forms,” said Dr. Deepak Srivastava, director of cardiovascular and stem cell research at Gladstone. “But our experiments in mice are a proof of concept that we can reprogram non-beating cells directly into fully functional, beating heart cells—offering an innovative and less invasive way to restore heart function after a heart attack.”
“This research may result in a much-needed alternative to heart transplants—for which donors are extremely limited,” said lead author Dr. Li Qian, a post doc at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. But the best part is that this method would use the person’s own cells, removing the need for stem cells or donor hearts. “Because we are reprogramming cells directly in the heart, we eliminate the need to surgically implant cells that were created in a petri dish.”
“We hope that our research will lay the foundation for initiating cardiac repair soon after a heart attack—perhaps even when the patient arrives in the emergency room,” said Srivastava. The ability to regenerate adult heart tissue from its own cells is a promising approach to treating cardiac disease because it may face fewer obstacles to clinical approval than other approaches. However, there is much to be done before this breakthrough becomes a treatment. “Our next goal is to replicate these experiments and test their safety in larger mammals, such as pigs, before considering clinical trials in humans.”
Previous work has been able to do this kind of cellular reprogramming in cultured cells, but clinically it is much more efficient if a treatment can work directly on live hearts. In 2010, coronary heart disease was projected to cost the United States $108.9 billion, including the cost of health care services, medications, and lost productivity. If research such as this can lead to improved functioning after a heart attack, it could save millions in health care costs, not to mention potentially save lives by preventing heart failure down the line. While this research’s implications for heart disease treatment is clear, this kind of in vivo reprogramming may be also useful in a variety of other diseases where tissue damage is a major cause of symptoms, including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.
A normal and reprogrammed heart cell beating eight weeks after a heart attackReference: Qian, L. et al. 2012. In vivo reprogramming of murine cardiac fibroblasts into induced cardiomyocytesNature DOI:10.1038/nature11044
For as long as there have been mammals, there have been lice. Though it’s hard to find lice in the fossil record, scientists have estimated that the group originated at least 130 million years ago, feeding off feathered dinosaurs, though they now live on just about all species of birds and mammals. Lice tend to be very host-specific, meaning they only live and feed on one species or a set of closely related species. Furthermore, lice can only survive a limited time without their hosts, and must quickly find a new one if they leave or are forcibly removed. This means that for lice to reproduce and spread, their hosts have to be in fairly close contact (like, as many parents know, kids in a kindergarden classroom). In wild species, lice rarely switch hosts unless the animals interact physically, whether through wrestling, nesting together or mating.
It was that requirement for close contact that made Zohdy and her colleagues think they might be an ideal proxy for investigating social interactions that can’t be viewed directly. They had already been collecting data on the mouse lemur populations in Madagascar using traps to monitor their movement. But while the researchers knew certain lemurs spent a lot of time together if they were caught together in traps, the researchers figured they were probably missing a good amount of social interaction. So, they decided to follow the lemur’s lice as well.
Mouse lemurs are parasitized by a particular species of louse, Lemurpediculus verruculosus, which feed off the lemurs’ blood. The researchers were able to track the transfer of these lice between lemurs by tagging lice with a unique color code using nail polish, so they could tell what lemur each louse started on. Over time, they continued to trap lemurs and look at their lice to see if any of the tagged ones had switched hosts.
In total, they tracked 76 transfers between 14 animals — all males — over the course of a month, which happened to be during the breeding season. The researchers hypothesized that the male-only transfers likely occurred during fights over females. But perhaps more interestingly, the lice data only supported 8 of the 28 expected social interactions predicted by trapping data, and found 13 new ones, suggesting the louse marking technique was able to uncover lemur social activity that the researchers have never observed. They also found that some animals shared more lice than others. Sarah Zohdy explained, “The youngest male in the study had the worst louse infestation, but only donated one louse, indicating a low number of interactions, while the eldest male, who also had a heavy infestation, appeared to be more sociable, collecting lice from many donors. Other males appeared to be ‘superspreaders’ donating but not collecting lice.”
The lice also revealed that lemurs travel more than the researchers had thought. “Most of the louse transfers occurred between lemurs over 100 m from each other, and one transfer spanned over 600 m,” the authors write. “The transfers therefore demonstrate a degree of lemur ranging far greater than anticipated.”
Overall, these data provide new insights into the social interaction of mouse lemurs as well as the relationship between the lice and their hosts. This isn’t the first study that used lice to look at a bigger scientific picture. Because of their host-specific nature, scientists have used them to map ancient speciation events, and even determine when humans first wore clothes. But never before have lice been used to study behavior in a living wild species, though the team hopes their study shows the usefulness of this technique. “The approach developed here has potential for application in any species parasitized by sucking lice, including the many trappable species of cryptic, nocturnal, subterraneous or otherwise elusive mammals in which host social contact and parasite exchange data are difficult to obtain.”
Reference: Zohdy S., Kemp A.D., Durden L.A., Wright P.C. & Jernvall J. (2012). Mapping the social network: tracking lice in a wild primate (Microcebus rufus) population to infer social contacts and vector potential., BMC ecology, PMID: 22449178
Today, 85 percent of the world’s fisheries are either fully exploited, overexploited or have already collapsed. Combined, the world’s fishermen catch 2.5 times the sustainable number of fish every year. Scientists predict that if current trends continue, world food fisheries may collapse entirely by 2050. “We are in the situation where 40 years down the line we, effectively, are out of fish,” explains Pavan Sukhdev, special advisor to the UN Environment Programme.
What we need are better management strategies. Now, researchers from the Center for Ocean Solutions at Stanford University are turning to the past for advice. Loren McClenachan and Jack Kittinger used historical records to reconstruct fish catches for the past seven hundred years to see if earlier civilizations did a better job than we are at managing their fisheries. The authors were able to characterize historical catch rates in the Florida Keys and Hawaii by reviewing a variety of historical sources, including species-specific catch records from the 1800s and archaeological reconstructions of population densities and per-capita fish consumption.
“Seven hundred years of history clearly demonstrate that management matters,” said Loren McClenachan, co-author of the study and assistant professor of environmental studies at Colby College. In Florida, fisheries were characterized by years of boom and bust through sequential collapse of high-value species, many which are still endangered or extinct today. The Keys fisheries were set up for failure – unlike other historical island communities, the Keys were highly connected to other markets, increasing fisheries demand. Furthermore, they have historically lacked a centralized management system. But, while fisheries in the Florida Keys have always been poorly supervised, fisheries in Hawaii were once far better than they are today.
“Before European contact, Native Hawaiians were catching fish at rates that far exceed what reefs currently provide society,” said Kittinger, co-author and early career fellow at the Center for Ocean Solutions. Native Hawaiians pulled in over 15,000 metric tons of fish per year, and these high yields were sustained over several hundred years, despite a dense Hawaiian population. “These results show us that fisheries can be both highly productive and sustainable, if they’re managed effectively.”
Much of the management system in Hawaii was tied to class and gender. For example, most offshore fishing was done by a professional fishing class who were familiar with their local environment. If they wanted to fish, they had to ask their chiefs, who regulated the fishing gear and canoes. The most valuable (and vulnerable) species like turtles and sharks were reserved for high chiefs and priests, reducing fishing pressure.
The key to the Hawaiian’s success lay in using a diverse suite of management measures. Many of the methods they used are similar to strategies employed in fisheries management today, including protected areas, community-based management, regulation of gear and effort, aquaculture, and restrictions on vulnerable species.
Perhaps the greatest difference between management then and now, however is that in native Hawaiian society, rules were strictly enforced. “Rules were accompanied by robust sociocultural institutions,” the authors write. The ancient Hawaiians did not hesitate, and punished transgressors with corporal punishment. “Clearly, we don’t recommend this,” said Kittinger, “but it’s easy to see there’s room to tighten up today’s enforcement efforts.”
He’eia Fishpond in Kane’ohe Bay, Hawaii. Image c/o Paepae O He’eia
Other differences exist as well. For example, while aquaculture was used by the native Hawaiians, these fishponds were maintained for different reasons than we farm fish today. Fishponds did not contribute substantially to total fish production, but instead served as food security during tough times. As such, Hawaiians stocked fishponds with very different species than modern farms. Fishponds contained small, algae-eating species, requiring little from the sea to support them. Modern aquaculture, in contrast, relies heavily on wild-caught feeder species to support lucrative, luxury species like salmon. Five pounds of wild-caught fish are needed to produce one pound of farmed salmon, and instead of acting as a backup for when wild fish are scarce, fish farms make up a whopping 50% of our consumed fish production.
Kittinger and McClenachan hope that understanding successful management strategies by historical societies will lead to better management of our current resources. “The evidence we present from historical reconstructions shows that reef fishery sustainability has been achieved in the past,” they write, “which can guide actions for a more sustainable future for reefs and the communities that depend on them.”
Reference: McClenachan, L & JN Kittinger (2012). Multicentury trends and the sustainability of coral reef fisheries in Hawai‘i and Florida. Fish and Fisheries, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2012.00465.x
Image of fishing c/o Flickr user dennistanay
– Ani DiFranco
Rejection stinks. It literally hurts. But worse, it has an immediate and negative impact on our brains, producing withdrawal symptoms as if we’re quitting a serious addiction cold turkey. It’s no wonder, then, that we are tempted to turn to drugs to make ourselves feel better. But we’re not the only species that drowns our sorrows when we’re lonely – as a new study in Science reveals, rejected Drosophila do, too. Scientists have found not only will these sexually frustrated flies choose to consume more alcohol than their happily mated peers, sex and alcohol consumption activate the same neurological pathway in their brains.
Drosophila melanogaster males sure know how to woo a lady. When placed in the same container as a potential mate, a male fly will play her a delicate love song by vibrating one wing, caress her rear end, and gently nuzzle her most private of parts with his proboiscis to convince her that he is one heck of a lover. But even the most romantic fly can’t convince an already mated female Drosophila to give up the goods, so scientists were able to use the girls’ steely resolve to see how rejection affects fly drinking behavior.
“Alcohol is one of the most widely used and abused drugs in the world,” explains lead author Galit Shohat-Ophir. “The fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster is an ideal model organism to study how the social environment modulates behavior.” Previous studies have found that Drosophila melanogaster exhibit complex addiction-like behaviors. So in the controlled setting of Ulrike Heberlein’s lab at the University of California San Francisco, researchers paired male fruit flies with three types of females: 1) unmated females, which were willing and happy to mate; 2) mated females, which actively rejected the men; and 3) decapitated females, which didn’t actively reject the guys but, well, weren’t exactly willing partners either. After the flies were satisfied or frustrated, they were offered regular food and food spiked with ethanol, and the researchers measured which type they preferred to see if there was any connection between sex and drinking.
The flies that were rejected drank significantly more than their satisfied peers, but so did the ones paired with incapacitated girls, suggesting that it wasn’t the social aspect of rejection but sexual deprivation that drives male flies to increase their ethanol consumption (see the video at the end!). This alcoholic behavior was very directly related to the guy fly ever getting laid, for even after days of blue balls, if he was allowed to spend some time with a willing woman, he no longer preferred the spiked food.
What the scientists really wanted to understand, though, was why. What drives a frustrated fly to the flask? So to look at the underlying mechanism of this phenomenon, the scientists examined the flies’ brains. A body of scientific literature has connected one particular neurotransmitter, neuropeptide F (NPF), to ethanol-related behaviors in Drosophila, so it was a logical place to start. A very similar neurotransmitter in our brains, called neuropeptide Y (NPY), is linked to alcoholism.
The team found that sexual frustration caused an immediate decrease in the expression of NPF, while sex increased expression. Furthermore, when they used genetics to artificially knock down NPF levels in the satisfied flies, they drank as much as their not-so-satisfied friends. Similarly, when the researchers artificially increased NPF levels, flies stayed sober. This is the first time NPF levels have connected sexual activity to drinking. Clearly, NPF levels controlled the flies’ desire to drink, so the team further explored how NPF works in the fly’s brain.
Many animals, including ourselves, possess a neurological reward system which reinforces good behavior. Through this system, we ascribe pleasure or positive feelings to things we do that are necessary for species survival, including sex, eating, and social interaction. Drugs tap into this system, stimulating pleasure which can lead to addiction. Previous studies have shown that flies find intoxication rewarding, so the researchers hypothesized that NPF may play a role in the reward system.
Preference tests showed that artificially increasing NPF levels in the absence of sex or ethanol was rewarding to the flies, confirming the scientists’ hypothesis. This was further supported by the discovery that constantly activating NPF abolished the flies’ tendency to consider ethanol rewarding.
“NPF is a currency of reward” explains Shohat-Ophir. High NPF levels signal good behavior in Drosophila brains, thus reinforcing any activities which led to that state. This is a truly novel discovery, for while NPF and the mammal version, NPY, have been linked to alcohol consumption, no animal model has ever placed NPF/NPY in the reward system.
Understanding the role of NPF in reward-seeking behaviors may lead to better treatments for addicts. “In mammals, including humans, NPY may have a similar role [as NPF],” says Shohat-Ophir. “If so, one could argue that activating the NPY system in the proper brain regions might reverse the detrimental effects of traumatic and stressful experiences, which often lead to drug abuse.” Already, NPY and drugs that affect the function of its receptors are in clinical trials for anxiety, PTSD, mood disorders and obesity. This study suggests that perhaps they should be tested as treatment for alcoholism, too, as well as other reward-based addictions.
Research: Shohat-Ophir, G, KR Kaun & R Azanchi (2012). Sexual Deprivation Increases Ethanol Intake in Drosophila. Science 335: 1351-1355.
This sequence of three videos shows a male fly courting and successfully mating with a female fly, another male fly being rejected by a female, and a male choosing to consume an alcohol-infused solution over a non-alcohol solution. Video © Science/AAAS
Images:
Fruit fly from Wikimedia Commons, posted by Thomas Wydra, edited in Photoshop.
Immunochemistry reproduced from Shohat-Ophir, G, KR Kaun & R Azanchi. Science 335: 1351-1355 (2012).