Google-Translate-Chinese (Simplified) BETA Google-Translate-English to French Google-Translate-English to German Google-Translate-English to Italian Google-Translate-English to Japanese BETA Google-Translate-English to Korean BETA Google-Translate-English to Russian BETA Google-Translate-English to Spanish

Tuesday 24 March 2009

Outer-Space Illusions 2

Continue from Outer-Space Illusions









NASA/JPL/Malin Space Science Systems

Outer-Space Illusions

The face on Mars, Jesus in a nebula, and more

Pandemic! 2

Continue from Pandemic!1

Pandemic!

10 of the world's deadliest diseases—and why they might wipe us out yet


Compounding that problem, we have the issue of antibiotics being administered as a preventative measure in livestock and poultry. Animals are routinely fed these medicines as part of their diet, whether they are sick or not. This indiscriminate use has undoubtedly led to a reduced efficacy of antibiotics in humans. Dr. Arjun Srinivasan, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC, notes that we don't know whether overuse of antibiotics in humans is ultimately worse than overuse in animals, but that "there are those who say, if you look at the absolute amount of antibiotics that are used in animals, [it] vastly outweighs the amount that's used in humans. So therefore, that may actually be a larger component" of the problem.

trouble finding its way to your dinner plate, heedless of global distances.

Compounding that problem, we have the issue of antibiotics being administered as a preventative measure in livestock and poultry. Animals are routinely fed these medicines as part of their diet, whether they are sick or not. This indiscriminate use has undoubtedly led to a reduced efficacy of antibiotics in humans. Dr. Arjun Srinivasan, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC, notes that we don't know whether overuse of antibiotics in humans is ultimately worse than overuse in animals, but that "there are those who say, if you look at the absolute amount of antibiotics that are used in animals, [it] vastly outweighs the amount that's used in humans. So therefore, that may actually be a larger component" of the problem.



The fever gets its name from the jaundice it can cause after a few days of infection. Later comes internal bleeding (it's a hemorrhagic fever like Ebola and Marburg) followed by bloody vomit with the consistency of coffee grounds. What is most worrying about its return to cities is that it achieves a higher mortality rate among dense, unexposed populations—up to 30 percent. Recent outbreaks in Paraguay and the Ivory Coast have health officials racing to vaccinate as quickly as possible. While an effective vaccine exists, there is no treatment and no cure.



The global public health response was a near-unparalleled success. Within weeks, control efforts led by the World Health Organization had identified a totally novel agent, devised a diagnostic test, and instituted plans for quarantine and isolation. It is undoubtedly a result of those efforts that the outbreak was contained before it could reach pandemic levels.

And while it is no longer topping watch lists, two questions persist: how did it get to humans and where did it come from? As Dr. Scott Dowell, head of the CDC's Global Disease Detection Program explains, "how it is that one of these animal pathogens acquires the ability to spread efficiently among humans is something that we don't do a very good job explaining or predicting."

Coronaviruses are known to mutate rapidly, so there may have been some biological basis to its sudden appearance and virulence, but it was still very much a surprise. Where it currently lies in wait is even more of an unknown. There is evidence the 2003 outbreak originated in a wildlife market in southern China, but the exact species of animal from which it came is still very much in contention.


The first has to do with a trait Ebola shares with the SARS coronavirus—its zoonotic host is a mystery. Although the virus has been known to us since the mid-1970s, we are still largely in the dark about what its reservoir is in nature. Even after a comprehensive study of tens of thousands of animals in outbreak regions, no virus was found. That points to the difficulty public health officials face when unknown threats emerge—we have a very hard time tracking some viruses we've known about for decades, so you can imagine the mounting complications when starting from zero.

The second reason it's on this list is to place it within the context of the rest of the agents. While it is a ravaging disease, it presents little threat outside of where it appears locally. It is not communicable through the air, and only spreads from person to person; often because of poor hospital conditions in the areas in which it appears. In addition, it presents symptoms very quickly—infected persons are likely to be isolated before getting very far. All the rest of the diseases on this list can spread far and wide, which makes them much more threatening.

cuts, because it causes a reaction in the blood that produces microscopic holes in the capillary walls. The patient then bleeds to death internally. Mortality can be as high as 90 percent. It is invariably a headline-grabber when outbreaks strike. But it's not on this list because it's presently a significant threat (it's not). It's here for two reasons.

The first has to do with a trait Ebola shares with the SARS coronavirus—its zoonotic host is a mystery. Although the virus has been known to us since the mid-1970s, we are still largely in the dark about what its reservoir is in nature. Even after a comprehensive study of tens of thousands of animals in outbreak regions, no virus was found. That points to the difficulty public health officials face when unknown threats emerge—we have a very hard time tracking some viruses we've known about for decades, so you can imagine the mounting complications when starting from zero.

The second reason it's on this list is to place it within the context of the rest of the agents. While it is a ravaging disease, it presents little threat outside of where it appears locally. It is not communicable through the air, and only spreads from person to person; often because of poor hospital conditions in the areas in which it appears. In addition, it presents symptoms very quickly—infected persons are likely to be isolated before getting very far. All the rest of the diseases on this list can spread far and wide, which makes them much more threatening.



MRSA is an important warning sign because doctors are frequently having to use the strongest antibiotics to treat it. We know this to be an effect of antibiotic overuse. The end result is a breed of bacteria against which we have little, if any recourse for a cure. "The challenge that we'll face is that a growing number of bacterial infections will be more and more difficult to treat. The reports are rare, but we're already seeing [cases] of bacteria... where there are no effective antibiotics to treat the infection," says Dr. Srinivasan. Right now, these cases are appearing only in hospitals and only in the most immunocompromised patients, but that was once the case for drug-resistant staph, too.

The only real, immediate course of action is education and vigilance about proper antibiotic use, because, as Dr. Srinivasan notes, "our ability to develop new drugs has already been surpassed by the speed with which bacteria are developing resistance." Several institutions have undertaken awareness campaigns, like the CDC's "Get Smart" program and the Infectious Diseases Society of America's "Bad Bugs, No Drugs," both of which have had good success educating both patients and health-care workers.


Continue to Pandemic!2

Hiding in Plain Sight

Stunning pictures of some of North America's most impressive animal camouflage
Art Wolfe


Art Wolfe


Art Wolfe


Art Wolfe



Art Wolfe


Art Wolfe






Cannibal Bacteria Colonies

New research shows that some strains of bacteria can be tricked into killing off their own kind; it may have future applications in medicine











Bacterial infections are the number one killer in hospitals, and while most can be treated with antibiotics, there are many strains that have developed resistance to the drugs. New research from Tel Aviv University and Texas University suggests that bacteria can be outsmarted by turning their natural defense mechanisms against them, which can completely wipe them out without using antibiotics.

When bacteria are starved or exposed to other stressors, they release a chemical that kills off some of the colony so that the rest can survive. But, according to Eshel Ben-Jacob of TAU, co-author of the study, they exhibit a kind of “rudimentary social intelligence” which prevents them from killing the entire colony. The new research exploits that idea by exposing two neighboring sibling colonies to the same chemical signal.

The result was that the siblings—which came from the same original colony—killed each other off. And, when the chemical messages between the sibling colonies were cut off, the bacteria stopped dying.

Custom-Made Bacteria
The bacteria used in the study, Paenibacillus dendritiformis, was developed by Ben-Jacob specifically for this type of experiment. According to Ben-Jacob, P. dendritiformis have a complex social life and display relatively large, striking patterns that make reactions to the chemicals easy to observe. The bacteria have genes specific to cannibalism, communication, and have a highly developed defense system, which makes them ideal for exploring ways in which to exploit these features.

P. dendritiformis is not pathogenic, so there is no risk of infection for the researchers. The bacteria are also representative of many strains that are resistant to antibiotics, which makes them a good model for experimentation.

Smart Bugs
According to Ben-Jacob, bacteria are surprisingly intelligent: “In the medical community, they perceive the bacteria as a collection of dumb creatures, but they actually not.” This collective intelligence can and should be used to turn the bacteria against itself, rather than spending time and money developing antibiotics, he says.

In this study, each bacteria colony is around four inches in diameter, and the number of bacteria is around ten times the world’s human population. Every individual bacterial cell is in constant communication with all the rest. “Think of it as if ten times the number of people on earth were all connected by SMS to every other one, sending messages all the time. It is even better than fastest kid texting today,” said Ben-Jacob.

Small World, Smaller Creatures2


Continue from Small World, Smaller Creatures

Small World, Smaller Creatures

In the microscope-aided photography competition, these embryos stand out
Chick embryo (6x): This shot of a nine-day-old chick embryo won first place in the popular vote on Nikon Small World’s website. The New York Times’s John Tierney thinks that’s just because it’s so dang cute, but I beg to differ: as ridiculously cool as it is, it looks something like a fruit snack-cum-monster. De Azevedo obtained this image by staining the embryo with green dye, immersing it in wintergreen oil, and photographing it with a stereomicroscope. Courtesy Nikon Small World Photo Micrography Competition; Photographed by Tomas Pais de Azevedo

Nikon’s annual Small World Competition has been awarding prizes to the country’s best microscope-aided photography since 1977. The contest winners always present a reliably fascinating and freakish slice of life at a Lilliputian level. Last week, this year’s 115 winners were announced.

Since this is a column about reproduction—and since everyone loves to gaze upon an embryo every now and then—here’s a selection of the best of the unborn, ranging from the merely small to the seriously minuscule.