Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Where the Wild Things Are: Unknown and Invisible Killers


You are quite the busy bee! You are overwhelmed by the paperwork piling up on your desk, your children’s obligations at school and the many meetings today you are preparing for. As your mind cycles through its to-do list, your body is coming into contact with millions of infectious organisms that threaten to derail your productivity at any moment. Fortunately, your immune system has seen them before and can fight (most) of them off.

Despite the impressive repertoire of immune defenses that we have, there are many other microorganisms that are lurking in the wild which our immune systems would be completely unable to recognize. Approximately 75% of all infectious diseases that affect humans originate in animals, and transmission of diseases between animals and humans is facilitated by close contact and disruption of natural habitats. Our genetic similarity to certain animals, such as chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, lends an ideal mixing bowl that can enable easy spread of diseases from one species to another. 

<!--[endif]-->
One study, published in the Journal of Virology by a large team of  scientists from around the world, sought to compare adenovirus strains from wild non-human primates to those isolated in captive primates at zoos and primate facilities. It also sought to clarify whether strains were being passed to and from humans and non-human primates. For healthy individuals, adenovirus itself is typically not very dangerous, causing some annoying but non-life threatening symptoms such as fever, coughing, sore throat and eye and ear infections. It can also cause some yucky gastrointestinal issues. But for those whose immune systems are weakened (say, through HIV infection), adenovirus infection can be fatal.

All adenoviruses specifically infect only closely-related species. 30 different adenoviruses were detected in primate facilities and zoos across North America, and most were found to be very similar to human viruses. In and of itself, the presence of these viruses in these facilities provides a viable scenario in which disease transmission can occur between species. Most of what we know about viruses that affect non-human primates comes from captive animals, but little is known about the strains that are circulating in wild populations.

In this study, one chimpanzee strain was 99.2% identical to a human strain that causes conjunctivitis and upper respiratory symptoms, and another was 99.8% identical to a human strain that causes gastrointestinal issues. The study also reported a recent respiratory illness of a scientist who was infected with an unknown adenovirus while investigating a fatal outbreak of pneumonia and hepatitis in Titi monkeys at a primate research center in California. He wound up being infected with a simian virus, which up to that point, had never been detected in human populations. This all indicates likely transmission between non-human primates and humans and recent divergence of human and simian strains.

This study also illustrates the potential for viruses of all families to spread between species. So what should we, as a population, do? Certainly, we cannot avoid animals altogether. And we love taking our children to the zoo. I must highlight that the risk of disease transmission from that cute chimpanzee or marmoset to your little one is very low and no cause for alarm; however, we do need to be aware of the diseases that could be unleashed if we continue to disrupt these animals’ natural habitats. This adds another dimension to the conservation movement- the immediate human benefit.

Dr. William Karesh, Executive Vice President for Health and Policy at EcoHealth Alliance, noted that “it’s one world, and we only have one health and our lives are inextricably linked to the health of the environment.” Living in an environmentally sustainable manner and informing others of the human toll of habitat disruption can prevent new diseases from springing up in humans.
  
____
Laura Zambrano, MPH is a Ph.D. student in Environmental Health Sciences at the Emory University Rollins School of Public Health. She is particularly interested in studying the impact of how human activities impact the environment, and how environmental change can facilitate disease transmission between animals and humans. That said, she enjoys playing with puppies, watching squirrels and cuddling with kittens... and still thinks monkeys are pretty darn cute.

Wevers, D, S. Metzger, F. Babweteera, M. Bieberbach, C. Boesch, K. Cameron, E. Couacy-Hymann, M. Cranfield, M. Gray, L. Harris, J. Head, K. Jeffrey, S. Knauf, F. Lankester, S. Leendertz, E. Lonsdorf, L. Mugisha, A. Nitsche, P. Reed, M. Robbins, D. Travis, Z Zommers, F. Leendertz & B. Ehlers. 2011. Novel adenoviruses in wild primates: A high level of genetic diversity and evidence of zoonotic transmission. J Virology 85(20): 10774-10784

12 comments:

  1. Nice job, Laura. This is a very interesting issue; though I was aware of germs migrating from one primate species to another, it never occurred to me in the context of a zoo! However, I would advise to consider some revisions that may widen the target audience of the posting. First, you can rephrase to make it more reader-friendly for those without a scientific background. Also it may be worth while revising the opening paragraph, as it alludes specifically to the white-collar folks with children, so other people may decide it is not intended for them (unless the whole point was to target this specific audience - I did it myself in my post).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting post Laura! I agree with Umed, while we know that animals transmit diseases to humans, I hadn't really thought about them in my life until you pointed out the zoo. Nice work!

    -Stacey

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Laura,
    Great post. I think you could drop non-human primate for monkey and, while it might not be completely technically faithful, you might reach a wider audience with it. I do like that you reassured those reading the article that realistically this is not something to freak out about in their major contexts. You could add that most zoo animals are kept in very good health and well-cared for so there's not as much to worry about.

    -David

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for your posting, Laura. Here at CDC I have a great respect for those tiny organisms! Certainly, cross-species transmission is important for public health officials to address. Recent history at CDC showed that hantavirus and avian influenza made the press when outbreaks occurred. New discoveries, such as the article you reviewed, are essential for public health programs to monitor. Another feature you could add in your review would be reassuring readers that public health official are indeed mindful of cross-species transmissions and we watch for them. For example, see public health in action at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/ and internationally at http://www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/avian_influenza/en/. Best wishes! Sarah Kuester sak2@cdc.gov

    ReplyDelete
  5. Laura, I really liked your post. Going off of David's comment some, I would just put a little more emphasis on the fact that the risk of new or modified diseases coming from animals is a lot larger from us encroaching on their habitats than from visiting them at the zoo. It was really good that you brought this point up, but I would just make sure no one was confused and got nervous to go to the zoo.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Laura, really interesting post! I thought your tone was great and I especially liked your intro paragraphs. I thought the way you described the article made it sound very interesting and you certainly highlighted the importance and implications of the findings. Your comment about the risks of disrupting natural animal habitats and how this supports the conservation movement really drove the point home.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Laura, the stats are the beginning of your post are eye-opening. I had no idea that so many infectious diseases were cross-species. It looks like this study was about monkeys, but it would also be interesting to bring in animals that are in our everyday lives -- birds, dogs, etc. -- and discuss how this research relates to our interactions with them.

    Adam

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Laura,

    Very interesting post (especially for a mom of a child who seems to love monkeys). I really like how you started and ended your post -- felt very conversational and definitely got my attention. You lost me a little in the middle with some of the details about stuff -- a lot of these are not words in my daily vocabulary, so I had a little bit of a hard time following pieces and remembering exactly which virus or which kind of animal you were talking about. My suggestion would be to just use the words you have in parenthesis and not put the big words in at all. For a lay audience (in this case -- me!), it's just easier to read and remember when the words are more simple. Like David mentioned above, it may be less technically accurate, but is that the point when talking to the general population about what they should do with the result of research?

    Last, I recommend simplifying your last sentence to make it really clear what what you mean. It still sounds a little like the concluding sentence for a manuscript, but not for a blog.

    Great job! Glad to hear you still like monkeys. : )

    Ariela

    ReplyDelete
  9. HI Laura,

    I liked your post! Very cool study to pick. I just didn't get the connection from the intro to the study description very well. But after you described the study I thought it was very well written.

    Krista

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Laura, it is interesting and I love this vivid writing! A picture of chimpanzee is eye-catching, but it could be better if you also include a picture to illustrate the details of the problem you are trying to explain.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Laura,

    This was a great blog post! You caught my attention from the beginning and then led into some of the more hard facts related to the article. It flowed together well, was not too lengthy, and was very relatable. That being said, I agree with previous comments that substituting something a little more relatable when referring to the virus would keep my attention a little better. Each time it was brought up I had to pause to translate it for myself. But, overall it was excellent!

    Sam

    ReplyDelete
  12. I love the monkey!!

    ok, now I will read the post.... brb...
    eek!! now I should fear the monkey!

    In all seriousness, this is a topic I love and you summarize it well!
    The beginning and end were the easiest to read. I wonder if you even need to mention that the virus is an adenovirus. Your writing is pretty clear, but I wanted it to be more like a conversation between the two of us. For instance ending with the bit about the zoo instead of "Mr. Stodgy EcoHealth Man."

    radhika

    ReplyDelete