Archive for April, 2012

On vampirism

Friday, April 20th, 2012

We all know what vampires are. Some of you may even think that such things are real. Well, they are. Not in the sense of actually having the dude with the teeth show up and ask to be invited in, but in the more insidious sense of having one take your soul. This, to me, is the real scary part of the fantasy, that your mind, your will, your identity could be devoured by a process that is sometimes represented as magical and sometimes (especially in the more modern era) as viral. That said, the supposedly more realistic biological transformations often move with ludicrous rapidity, ala the gory scene in Daybreakers where the vampire police goons turn on one another as they are progressively cured of the virus.

But in musing about the fantasy, one can’t but help to feel that there is an atavistic, visceral recognition of reality that should be respected. Because we can be taken over, mind and body, by viruses. The most obvious example is rabies, which slowly climbs the neurons into your brain, and then brings on a variety of behavioral changes, the most obvious of which is hypersensitivity and hyperaggresion (it is not for nothing that ‘rabies’ is the Latin word for ‘madness’). Think Cujo. Or, for a human version, Hap and Leonard encounter a rabies victim and foe in Lansdale’s brilliant “Bad Chili.”

Actually, now that I think about it, it’s a bit surprising that there aren’t more viruses that move their victims to do things they wouldn’t normally do, whether it’s open the window with someone floating outside (never open the window!) or irrationally bite anything that moves.

Or maybe there are.

My good friend Chris Sullivan, consummate virologist, loves to keep track of idiosyncracies of viruses. They are his friends, each one a personality to be savored. And so it was Chris who turned me on to the ‘zombie virus’ that takes over the brains of its caterpillar hosts (yes, I know, this is about vampires, but zombies are vampires with brains, until they don’t have brains, if you see what I mean; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110908-zombie-virus-caterpillars-science-weird-animals/). Once infected by a particular baculovirus, gypsy moth caterpillars climb high into trees, disintegrate as the virus eats them from the inside out, and then all the viruses ooze out of the remaining caterpillar muck and fall on their unsuspecting victims in the foliage below. The caterpillar’s brain was driven to this action, much as Cujo was driven to biting and Dracula was driven to overly dramatic entrances, by a viral gene known as egt.

Now, this is very cool: a single gene, that can promote a single action (climb tree, don’t stop until you reach the top). Who would have thought that behavior could be so … programmed. Well, biologists, really. Or at least the ones that know about behavior, instead of molecules (molecules are my friends). A really, really big snail, the Cone Snail, has developed a harpoon that it shoots into the much faster fish around it, paralyzing them and allowing them to be slowly devoured. The toxin contains a variety of peptides that interact with specific receptors in the brain. When injected into mouse brains, the toxins caused mice to “either jump, sleep, scratch, drag their hind legs, swing their heads or shake (http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BA/pain_Meds/pain6.php).” Whoa.

But back to viruses. Again, there should be lots of possibilities for little things (viruses) to redirect the behaviors of big things (us), to their advantage. Chris recently pointed me to another example, this time with the somewhat well-known dengue virus, an insidious tropical disease transmitted by mosquitoes. Researchers at Johns Hopkins recently dissected the impact of dengue virus infection on gene expression in the mosquito, and found that there were changes in the production of numerous proteins. Amongst these proteins, though, were ones that “appeared to make the antennae more sensitive to odors — making them better at hunting humans, the virus’s only known mammalian host. Other changes in salivary gland genes appeared to make it easier for the virus to get into a mosquito’s saliva, ready for injection.” The virus turns the mosquito into a hunter-killer machine for the virus. If Japanese mosquitoes have anime, then there must be some awesome cartoons of the virus piloting a great big Gundam mosquito.

So, what does this mean for the future? Will viruses be engineered to take over our brains, turning us into foppish Victorians with capes and teeth? Um, unlikely. But the notion that there are more subtle behaviors being influenced by the genes of pathogens and other riders, that has legs. As more and more sequence data is collected from the bacteria that inhabit our gut (there’s more bacterial DNA in us than ‘us’ DNA), it’s becoming increasingly clear that not all the genes are just about making the bacteria happy to eat the stuff we put down our gullets, nor even just for the internecine bacterial warfare that goes on inside us every day in every way. No, the bacteria may be harboring genes that … guide us. It’s becoming pretty clear that there are bacteria associated with obesity, bacteria associated with diabetes, bacteria associated with schizophrenia …. But is this cause or effect? Do they inhabit niches that we’ve carved out for them, or did they do some of the carving? Who knows, although one recent study showed that bacteria-free mice have profound neurochemical changes, and much less anxiety (Neurogastroenterol Motil (2011), 23:255). And maybe there are genes like egt waiting to be found, genes that drive us to climb our own trees, or at least our own walls, all to the bacteria’s benefit.

On missives

Friday, April 6th, 2012

Really great folks keep their correspondence, and then generations later it is still the fodder of insight and speculation. Now that we have the Internet, what will this mean to historians? Will it really matter how many Lolcatz I looked at in between figuring out how to make fluorinated organisms?

Anyway, I do maintain a reasonably robust correspondence with peers, and recently a captain of industry sent me the following unsettling piece about how farmers in the developing world are literally laying down to die because of the questionable biological and economic viability of genetically modified seeds:

http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-s-gmo-seeds-contributing-farmer-suicides-every-30-minutes-1333632229

To which I replied:

“That’s very unsettling … as are the comments that follow the piece. So, we know the benefits of science and technology. I guess I’m so used to thinking about the invisible hand as being ultimately beneficial (self-correcting towards upward progress) that I don’t really think about the possibility of rapacious companies (the Gilded Age, robber barons, and patent medicines aside).

The real folks who could do something about this … are in Monsanto. Why would they even get to this point? I’m sorry to be so naive, but if you had a product that was causing this much grief, wouldn’t you by God do something about it? For business reasons, even if it wasn’t the right thing to do?

Why does Monsanto get so much bad press? Why don’t they take steps to integrate their products with the consumers (farmers) that buy them? This would not seem that hard a thing to do.

I suppose they might say “High tech agriculture beats sustainable agriculture, and these folks would be laying down to die, anyway, once their incomes fell precipitously in a competitive global economy in which others used our products.” Maybe they’d be right. But they could also take steps to help make all boats rise by introducing products in a way that was most appropriate for local or regional agriculture.

Or maybe this is mis-reported? It’s easy to blame GMO for so many things, and one assumes that the suicide tsunami is real, and not a concocted fact. In the comments you can see the old canard about GMO being bad for you conflated with GMO destroying economies. I’m willing to buy into the latter, but I have never seen credible evidence for the former (which is also mechanistically implausible).

Anyway, having looked at it from many points of view, I think I’m just boggled that Monsanto apparently has no one dealing with PR, and would be very sad to find that we actually had a modern day Sinclairian Jungle in agribusiness.”

Now, you can all count me as naive as you want because of my child-like faith in business. But I am rather bullish on capitalism, as long as it’s practiced with social restraints. Those social restraints typically kick in via economic feedbacks, sometimes through political ones, but I am used to them kicking in. Smoking is harmful; smoking is restricted. That said, I think there may be a nascent sense that we have an economic Koyaanisqatsi, that the business world is decidedly out of balance. That capital has taken on a life of its own, separate from the people that use it. After all, companies are now people, as Romney likes to remind us. Such a transformation may be inevitable; capital is a very wondrous thing whose properties we continue to discover, many years after the death of Adam Smith.

If the economic world is indeed so far out of balance, that balance has to be recovered. That recovery will have to be guided by people, with the invisible hand chiming in to make things right on the money side. But it will be a conflict; it will quite possibly be a war. A war against our own money. What an odd thing to think or say. For me, at least. I only vaguely perceive the boundaries of this coming (continuing?) conflict. But the real-world attributes would presumably be a pushback against some of the perceived excesses. If agribusiness is indeed predatory and rapacious, then the seeds that bring hope to many and death to some can be further tampered with, and by those who are not in Monsanto. I do not currently know of engineered viruses that have been released in direct response to GMOs, but it really wouldn’t surprise me if they existed, or if they were on the drawing boards somewhere. As I’ve suggested elsewhere, I’m not particularly worried about the DIY Bio community writ large, but once social dislocation occurs, then the technological repsonse begins, likely first at the top (company on company warfare) and working its way down (people on company warfare) and possibly ultimately resulting in our old companion, people-on-people warfare. Bad times make for good wars.