Monday, May 23, 2016

Life

   Life caught up with me these last two weeks so I will have to continue the Zika & Wolbachia miniseries in the next post.


Logo credit

   On Saturday I had the pleasure of participating in a BioBlitz at Cabrillo National Monument in San Diego, CA. This event was part of the National Parks BioBlitz series to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the National Parks System. What is a BioBlitz you ask? A BioBlitz is a 24-hour survey of the plants and animals that live in a defined area. Scientists specializing in everything from plants to mammals, birds, and insects convene and document their findings as a series of observations. While the goals of a BioBlitz are to document the biodiversity of a given area, they also serve to introduce the public to the flora and fauna of a specific place. Could a BioBlitz be conducted in your backyard? Definitely.

   During Saturday’s BioBlitz I was a member of the invertebrate team and helped survey for insects, primarily beetles. For entomologists, the BioBlitz can be a time consuming process. Unlike ornithologists that document sightings with photographs and can usually provide species identifications on the spot, entomologists need to collect and curate their specimens before identifications can be made. I collected throughout the day and sorted and pinned my specimens by 9pm. At 9:10pm I was running out of gas at a time when I needed it most, to start identifying. Do I sound like I am complaining here? I may be - just a little. The main reason is that identifying insects can be extremely time consuming. While there are some entomologists that invest huge amounts of time becoming familiar with the insects of a given region, this is often a thankless effort. And thus, people with this level of expertise are few and far between. Would I like to be one of these people? Yes. Do I have the time it takes to accomplish this? No. One of the reasons I don’t is because, unfortunately, these efforts are not often valued by employers and granting agencies. As a youngish scientist I invest my time collecting data for projects that have a chance of getting funded and being published in high profile journals. I do this to keep my scientific career afloat. I am a little torn about this method of prioritization, and have set a goal to invest at least a few hours every week (or two) with the beetles in my backyard.  

   I am not the only one that finds this upsetting, not to mention detrimental to scientific research in general. This was brought to my attention most recently by an article in Scientific American highlighting the loss of natural history courses at colleges and universities. Natural history classes such as botany (plants), entomology (insects), ornithology (birds), ichthyology (fishes), and herpetology (amphibians and reptiles), provide students with the nitty gritty of a specific group of organisms, an overview of their diversity, and how to identify them. The level of identification expertise is usually broad, but provides the foundation for continued refinement. The article highlighted the findings of a recent study published in BioScience that revealed that while over 90% of scientists agreed that natural history was important to their field, young scientists felt under prepared in this area.

   What does a frustrated entomologist do? Tell stories and find a way to communicate the relevance of a name, a species description, and a sound identification.

   I am also a newly minted aunt. Much of my time in the last two weeks has been devoted to my sister and brother-in-law during the birth of my nephew, Matteo Karolos Castañeda. I could not be more proud.

Monday, May 9, 2016

Zika & Wolbachia I: Wolbach

   “‘It was just curiosity-based work, total serendipity’ Dr. O'Neill said.” (Carl Zimmer quoting Dr. Scott O'Neill in his article Bacteria-Infected Mosquitoes Could Slow Spread of Zika Virus published in the New York Times May 4, 2016)

   Can I quote a quote? I did, and hopefully I provided enough citations to make it legit. I know it is not wise to try and out-zimmer Carl Zimmer but there is so much to write about here I am going for it. This quote encompasses the mission of this blog (**although - see my commentary below) and is a great example of the return on our investment in curiosity. In this case, the return is slowing down the spread of Zika and other diseases transmitted by insects using Wolbachia, an insect bacterial parasite. The reason we know about Wolbachia, and its potential to reduce the spread of viruses like Zika, is because of public and institutional support for unbridled curiosity. The Wolbachia-Zika story is part of a decades long history of research on Wolbachia that goes back to 1924.

   A brief introduction. As with last week and Ebola, Wolbachia has been covered extensively. And while there is not as much known about Zika, there are many articles describing what has been discovered thus far. We will establish a basis for the underlying biology and go from there. Wolbachia is a genus of bacteria (unicellular organisms that have all of the machinery necessary to replicate themselves). While not harmful to humans, Wolbachia live within the cells of insect hosts. Zika, on the other hand, is a virus that infects humans and has been linked with microcephaly in infants. Like Ebola, and all other viruses, Zika does not have the cellular machinery to replicate itself and must co-opt the machinery from the cells of an infected host. How are Wolbachia and Zika linked? To understand that we need to take a closer look at decades of work by a long list of scientists, including Scott O'Neill, that began in 1924 when Hertig and Wolbach first discovered (and which Hertig later named) Wolbachia.


Image credit: Seth Bordenstein (from EOL). Image description: Insect testes showing sperm DNA (red) and Wolbachia endoysymbionts (green).


   If we start from the beginning, however, I think we will need to break this up into multiple posts, which is okay. There is plenty here to keep us all fascinated. Today we will start with Simeon Burt Wolbach, after whom Wolbachia was named, and based on what I have seen so far he is deserving of his own post. Here is an excerpt from a tribute published in the Harvard Medical School Alumni Bulletin:

“S. Burt Wolbach, one of Harvard Medical School's most beloved as well as one of its most distinguished professors, died on March 19, 1954, in his seventy-fourth year, after a relatively brief illness, of cancer of the prostate. In the minds of many, both his scientific achievements and his personality present a perfect synthesis of the best in the past and in the present. Sound training in morphology, guided by imaginative insight, made it possible for him to place new and fruitful interpretations upon cellular structural mechanisms. In his personality too, one was aware of that blend of conventional and liberal attitudes, an appreciation of the traditions of the past and the freedoms of the present. Thus his stature, [equaled] by few, resulted from that rare integration of the austerity and vision of the scientist with the humanity and warmth of the guide and teacher. His name will be remembered with a lift of the heart and a quickening of the imagination by student, colleague and friend.” (Dr. Charlotte L. Maddock and Dr. Arthur T. Hertig (1954) Harvard Medical School Alumni Bulletin 28: 41-45).  


Figure 1 from Hubbard (1987). Figure caption: "S. Burt Wolbach, circa 1938. Etching, 300 x 251 mm, by Arthur Heintzelman (1891-1965)."

   Simeon B. Wolbach was a polymath (much like my beloved Schrank) growing up riding horses on the plains of Nebraska “…ranging free with the cowboys…..” in the late 1800s, and graduating cum laude from Harvard Medical School in 1903. Wolbach subsequently held a variety of esteemed posts at various institutions on the east coast where he pursued research in two fields of study, infectious disease and vitamin deficiency. The diseases he worked on included both viral (i.e influenza and Rocky Mountain spotted fever) and bacterial (tuberculosis, leprosy, syphilis, and typhus) pathogens. In fact, it was his work on typhus that led to the discovery of Wolbachia. While Wolbach’s work on disease transmission is the most relevant to this blog post, some think “[h]is most brilliant work was done on those disorders associated with vitamin deficiency and excess.” Among other distinctions, the quality and breadth of Wolbach’s research granted him induction to the National Academy of Sciences in 1938.

  The language used to describe Wolbach’s character is cryptic and intriguing. It outlines a person of genuine character that embodied both seriousness and a sound sense of humor. His lecture style was described as non-didactic, but his students clearly revered him as was demonstrated by two separate instances where they paid him tribute by coming to lecture with a red carnation in their lapel, something Wolbach did on a regular basis. While perhaps a tough nut to crack, it seems that upon cracking a plethora of goodness was exposed. He remained an avid outdoors-man through his academic pursuits and continued riding horses throughout his life. “It was there, along the banks of the Jeannotte River and Lac Castor, that his friends knew him best. There he became a boy again and would engage in an impromptu canoe race, or chase a moose in the lake until he could smack its rump with a paddle.” (All quotes from the previous two paragraphs are from the Maddock and Hertig tribute referenced above.)

   I could go on, and am surprised a more detailed biography of Wolbach has not been published. When I started looking for one I actually found that in addition to all of the accomplishments listed in the Harvard Medical School tribute, Wolbach appears to have written a biography of Hans Zissner, a physician, bacteriologist, and author of Rats, Lice, and History. !!. The more I find the more I am intrigued by these scientists, what amazing stories. I literally have about 20 tabs open in my web browser right now.

   I found an example of Wolbach’s non-didactic delivery method, combined with the foresight of a complex mind, in this passage from “The Glorious Past, the Doleful Present, and the Uncertain Future of Pathology”, a presentation he gave on Harvard Alumni Day in 1952 (his last public presentation) that was subsequently published in the Harvard Medical School Alumni Bulletin 28: 41-45:

“What do I mean by the Science of Pathology? Years ago, challenged by Theobald Smith, I defined Pathology as that branch of Biology which investigates the reactions of living things — unicellular to man — to injurious agents. Deleterious environments of all sorts are productive of pathological states and a super Darwin become pathologist would, I believe, have a grand time in attacking problems of phylogenesis from the viewpoint of a pathologist. The scientific use of the imagination is legitimate and I get satisfaction in believing that the adaptation of marine creatures to terrestrial conditions was the result of eons of responses in myriads of survivors of non-lethal injuries.”

I will give you, and myself, some time to ponder this and we will pick-up here next time.



PS **My issue with this quote, and this is my opinion only, is that the tone highlights an ongoing problem we all have of downplaying the importance of exploratory research. I do not know Dr. O'Neill and I want to make it clear that I am not slighting him; he and his colleagues have done amazing work, which we will look at next time. In all honesty, I think the quote reflects Dr. O'Neill’s humility while talking about his own research. But I am going to go all Sheryl Sandburg on this right now. I think we need to lean in to the immense impact of exploratory research. I think scientists, myself included, need to be careful about downplaying the importance of exploratory research. When I first read Dr. O'Neill’s quote I thought, bingo, perfect for the blog, and retweeted it. It wasn’t until I was typing it out for this post that I picked up on the tone, and thought about how much language can impact public perception. If we want curiosity driven research to be understood and funded by the public we need to be proud and put it on the pedestal it deserves. The same is true when we talk about taxonomy and natural history museums, which I have written about before. If we want our taxonomists to be rock stars and our museum collections respected, we cannot refer to them as a bunch of dead insects. Which happens, from places we should least expect it.

 
Again, I don't mean to diss anyone here, just highlighting the need to be more aware (and UConn got $500k, not $500).