- Look at the list of links I provide.
- Pick a few (or all) to read.
- Make an intelligent comment here that shows you read and thought about at least one.
- Gain points. Comments that are made within the week receive maximum points.
Please remember to follow me on Twitter (@DrHMTHS) to get notified when new posts go up, and to complete the form to let us know about any extended vacation plans.
The links:
The links:
- Parasites don't need to infect a host to control behavior. Slight case of overselling the data with the headline, but it basically holds. Group behavior can be dangerous.
- New guidelines on antibiotic treatment coming? Maybe finishing the entire run will no longer be the standard. This may also require closer monitoring during treatment, since it seems sugar levels are a major indicator.
- CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing may not work in stem cells.
49 comments:
I am amazed that parasites can indirectly influence any non-infected hosts because a parasite is assumed to only effect the host. This study shows a scary but fascinating insight into the behaviors or parasites. Another article that interested me was that finishing an antibiotic prescription may not only be optional, but also could prevent resistance to the drug. This surprised me because I believed that the set time for taking an antibiotic would help prevent drug resistance. Such research is truly a breakthrough since it directly conflicts with past beliefs.
Out of the three articles I found the one titled “Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them” the most intriguing. I could barely wrap my head around the idea that parasites, like tapeworms, could live without a mouth or gut, circulatory or respiratory system and only bad sparse nerves that culminate in a cluster as a “brain” and yet their behavior is extremely complex. Tapeworms heavily rely on a fish called stickleback to get eaten by a water bird where they complete their life cycle and reproduce. Tapeworms don’t only know which animals to infect so they can get eaten by a stickleback, but they also can control the stickleback once eaten. Tapeworms can alter a stickleback’s actions so that they get eaten by a water bird faster. An infected fish would swim in danger zones with no fear, where as uninfected fish would flee the area and hide in plants. In some cases, where the infected fish were the majority, uninfected fish would copy what the infected fish were doing and also subjecting themselves to danger without even being infected by a parasite. I liked how the author of the article related this idea to humans. In a study there were a group of people who purposely picked the wrong answer to a question to see if the others would follow them and even though they knew the answer was wrong. Most of the time, the volunteers picked the wrong answer much like how the fish followed the infected ones even though they knew it was the wrong thing to do. I think it is important for humans to learn from animals so that we don’t make the same mistakes. From the article, I can take away that following that group is not always the right decision because sometimes it can lead to disastrous consequences.
Out of the three options, i believed that the article titled "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them" proved to be the most interesting. At this point, it is well known that tapeworms infect and change the personality and habits of their prey. The article in particular focuses on relationship between the parasite, Schistocephalus solidus, and the stickleback fish. Besides the obvious, nearly every individual in these schools of fish are negatively impacted, even if they have not been infected. Although this scenario may seem impossible, studies have shown that the behavior of the infected majority has guided the uninfected minority to make similar choices. Normally, if a predator, such as waterbirds, attacks the sticklebacks, the sticklebacks will swim out of the danger zone and to safety. However, the tapeworms change the nature of the fish, and their natural instinct to move away completely disappears. If the diseased fish refuse to swim away, the healthy fish will impersonate them. The fact that the uninfected stickleback are purposely putting themselves in harms way, when it can easily be avoided, brings the phrase "hopping on the bandwagon" to a whole new light. By doing this, they are equally in danger of getting killed as their sickly counterparts. Therefore, the parasite has now controlled them, even without actually living in their system.
Reading about the effects that tapeworms had in stickleback fish in the article, "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them," was a learning experience. I knew what tapeworms were before reading this article, but not how significantly they affected their hosts, and the same can be said for parasites as general. The information that this article presented has helped me to realize that while small, parasites can be downright deadly for the hosts they infect and even those they do not infect. When I first read the title, I was curious as to how exactly mind-control could have anything to do with the subject, but as I continued reading, that became clear to me: The parasites altered the host's behavior to suit their needs, while simultaneously putting the host at increased risk of being preyed on. In this specific case, the tapeworms caused the stickleback fish to swim up towards the surface where the water was warmer so they could multiply more quickly, but this put the fish at increased risk of being spotted by birds, and a study confirmed that when danger was present, the infected fish stayed up at the surface instead of rushing to the bottom to safety. It is truly fascinating that something so small can have such a big affect on another organism. As to how they could be dangerous to even the uninfected fish, the uninfected fish would mimic the behavior of the infected fish if they made up the majority of a group. This reminded me of how people have a tendency to just "go with the flow" and do or say things just because the people around them are. Because I know tapeworms can be found in raw pork, beef and fish, I looked up the effects of tapeworms in humans out of curiosity. Some symptoms I found were nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, and though there were no "mind-control effects," I discovered that in rare cases, tapeworm larvae can travel and cause damage to the brain and heart, among other organs. This made me question if the size of a host is a factor in how devastating of an effect the tapeworms can have. Regardless, tapeworms, and most likely all parasites at that, are both dangerous and oddly fascinating organisms.
Out of the three articles, I enjoyed "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them," and "Stop antibiotics before resistance 'tipping point'" the most. Both articles were quite fascinating, and I learned a lot from them as well. After reading the two pieces of text, I found some relation between them. In the first article,"Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them," the stickleback fish that were infected by the tapeworms did not hide from the birds and stayed in the danger zone, showing no fear. Results showed that if the majority of the fish in a community were infected and stayed in the danger zone, the rest of the uninfected fish would follow the infected, and instead of being safe by hiding in the plants, they too would be exposed to the danger zone. This could affect the community as a whole in a negative way as the birds could then eat the fish, causing the stickleback population as a whole to decline. Likewise, in the second article which talked about the tipping point in antibiotics, communities as a whole can be negatively affected as well. For example, antibiotic resistance does not happen in everyone, as for it to occur there needs to be a certain dose and time period, as well as a specific sugar level in a person. Yet, it could spread to the uninfected. An example of this is tuberculosis. If a person that had tuberculosis took antibiotics and exceeded the tipping point by meeting the criteria, the bacteria would then become resistant to the medication. This would happen as a result of one bacteria having a mutation and surviving the effects of the antibiotic, and then reproducing, creating more bacteria that have the same characteristics. In a hypothetical situation, if this person then went to work, the rest of the people breathing the same air as him/her would get infected with tuberculosis as well, since tuberculosis is a communicable disease, meaning it can be spread. Now several people have tuberculosis which cannot be cured as the bacteria are resistant to the antibiotics, which would result in the people being placed in danger. This relates back to the idea of stickleback fish, as the infected caused deaths and affected the community as a whole. Similarly, the infected person with resistant tuberculosis can spread that same disease to others,causing a decline in the population or at least a large effect on the community as a whole.
The article that I found the most interesting is titled "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them." I found this article very intriguing because the idea of an organism that has the ability of invading another organism and attaching itself to its internal organs is remarkable. Also, it is alarming to know that not only does a tapeworm enter your body, but it is able to control the brain of an entity with the hook on its head. Furthermore, the tapeworm lives as a parasite in an organism with no mouth, gut, circulatory or respiratory systems. This makes me very curious on how the tapeworm is able to survive in such environmental conditions. It is also very impressive the way the tapeworm controls the stickleback by compelling it to go toward warmer waters so that that the tapeworm grows rapidly and efficiently. I chose to read this article first because I had prior knowledge of this topic. I had learned about tapeworms in 7th grade and was educated about the different effects of various parasites. Another article I read was "Stop antibiotics before resistance 'tipping point'." It discusses about antibiotics and how if antibiotics are used too often it causes bacteria to become resistant. The article stated that researchers had discovered that the less antibiotics used in the course, reduces the risk of bacteria resistance in an organism. They even found that even when antibiotics are removed, bacteria continues to evolve and grow. I find this very thought-provoking considering that in modern days, antibiotics are used very often.
Out of the three articles here, I read the one about the parasites. I found this article very insightful and very interesting. It talked about a topic that I have never really thought about. It explained how tapeworms, who basically have very little features and change and control a fish. Once the stickleback fish was infected it became bolder and less afraid of things. It also kept going to warmer water which is the ideal temperature for tapeworm growth. These tapeworms are basically making the fish kill itself because the fish stop running away from predators and things that may hurt it. The stickleback fish are usually in groups and when one fish does something out of the ordinary, most of the others join in. so the tapeworms don't just hurt one fish but man. These tapeworms caused a major change in behavior for the fish. but its not the only parasite doing this, there are many others that affect other animals. I thought this article was intriguing and made me want to learn more.
When I saw these three articles, I automatically knew that the one that stood out to me the most was the article about the dangers of the resistance point of antibiotics. “ Stop Antibiotics Before Resistance ‘ Tipping Point " basically addressed how these groups of microorganisms that live in our bodies can eventually become ineffective to antibiotics. According to the article, the reason why this can occur is because of the duration and dose of antibiotics themselves. Changes in both of these and in sugar levels ( which resembles the sugar levels in the human body ) can ultimately lead to an antibiotic not being able to work. The article features studies to further expand on this idea. One study in particular, which involved Candida albicans and Candida glabrata, was the most intriguing. It allowed me to fully understand that sugar levels surprisingly played the biggest role in antibiotic resistance. Even though more research must be conducted to fully understand this complicated relationship, it made me question how antibiotics would be created in the future if microorganisms were truly powerful enough to defeat the treatments.
Out of the three articles I found "Stop antibiotics before resistance 'tipping point'" and "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them" very interesting. It amazed me that the antibiotics we take to protect ourselves from disease causing bacteria can actually turn the disease infected bacteria into antibiotic resistant bacteria. I beleived that it was good for your health to take the full course of antibiotics prescribed by the doctor but research shows that the full antibiotic course can cause the bacteria to develop a resistance towards the antibiotic. It is astonishing that for a long amount time we have been taking the full course of antibiotics and now it has been discovered that taking the full course of antibiotics isn't good but bad for health. Antibiotics that are meant to get rid of disease causing bacteria can now (if taken for the prescribed course) give rise to more disease causing bacteria. While reading the article about parasites what interested me was that the parasite could negatively affect an animal without even infecting it. In this case the parasite Schistocephalus solidus sometimes lives in stickleback fish. In stickleback fish the parasite can cause the fish to not flee from predators, leave the safety shoal and help the parasite grow. The thing about stickleback fish is that they tend to copy each other and act in large groups. When they parasite infected sticklebacks saw their predator they didn't flee since they were infected. When other non-parasite infected stickleback fish saw their behavior they decided to copy the infected and didn't flee from the predators. In the end all the stickleback fish were negatively affected even the ones that weren't infected with the parasite. It is fascinating how a parasite can negatively impact an animal without infecting it.
When reading all three of the articles posted for this weeks assignment, I found the article "Stop antibiotics before resistance 'tipping point'" published by the University of Exeter the most interesting. I was amazed to find out that the thing that was given to patients to make better, could possibly hurt them even more. Studies were shown where scientist looks groups of microbials and studied their sugar levels. The sugar levels of a microbial resembles the levels of a human. When studying the microbials, scientist noticed the levels botteming out when it reached a tipping point which meant they became resistant to the antibiotics given to them. It amazing how for years, doctors have told us to take all the antibiotics until it is done with, but now researchers are discovering that taking the prescription to its fullest can harm you. I found the article about parasites very interesting as well, especially the part where wasps can walk cockroaches, worms can make crickets suicidal, and fungi that zombifies ants. In a case studied, parasites called Schistocephalus solidus live in stickleback fish. When a fish is near prey, it normally will swim away to safety. However, when the parasite controls the fish and the fish is threatened by another bird (in this case a fake bird built with legos) the fish did not swim away. The parasite made the fish not care about the bird and not scared. Once the regular non infected fish saw the infected fish not afraid, they all copied it and stood their ground, like the saying monkey see monkey do. At the end of the article, they mentioned a study done in the 1950's about people following someone who is saying something clearly wrong, just to go alone with them. These two examples are just a few examples of how a mind can be influenced without being directly touched by anything.
The article I found most interesting was "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them." I thought it was so interesting how a tapeworm, that does not have a gut or mouth can control a host. In the article, I learned that tapeworms tend to live in Stickleback fish. Stickleback fish copy each other's actions, and act collectively rather than individually. Instead of fleeing from predators, the parasite causes Stickleback fish to stay near danger. When non-infected fish saw this behavior, they did not flee either. In a sense, if one fish out of a whole group is infected, it means that the group is infected as well. Also. infected fish were drawn to warmer water, where the parasite could grow. Without even trying, parasites change not only the behavior, but life of organisms. This article helped me learn how parasites, such as tapeworms really change the behavior of fish, as well as other organisms.
After reading the three articles, I was intrigued by "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them" and found the information quite appealing in many aspects. To start off, the unique physical traits of a tapeworm are very simple, yet it has the ability to do incredible actions. It does not contain any circulatory or respiratory systems and only has a cluster of sparse nerves that serve as its brain and its head is essentially a grappling hook that attaches itself to the organs of its host and absorbs nutrients for their long, flat bodies. The tapeworm's physique is certainly not complex, but what amazed me was that it still has the extraordinary ability to manipulate the brains of larger and more intricate organisms without even having to infect them. In this article, it talks about how the Schistocephalus solidus can manipulate the stickleback fish once it consumes the infected copepods so that it exhibits a behavior to swim towards the warmer water, where the worm can develop at a faster rate and grow to make up as much as half the stickleback's weight. Not only that, but they also cause the stickleback fish to have a bolder and less cautious demeanor. Instead of staying in a safe area where there is less of a chance for predators to eat them, they move outside of that range and become more vulnerable to any predators including the waterbirds. They also become less resistant to these predators and typically do not flee once they see or come in contact with any of them. It is very fascinating to see how through their indirect manipulative abilities, they are able to continue their own life cycles as a population, but at the same time negatively impact the stickleback community as a whole, causing their populations to decline as they continue to be eaten by predators without resisting. However, what is even more remarkable about all this and making the Schistocephalus solidus even more impactful is that the fearless behavior of the infected stickleback fish refusing to avoid the predators not only effects themselves as individuals but effects their whole group. Nicolle Demandt and Benedikt Says from the University of Munster came to the conclusion through multiple experiments that if there was a majority of infected sticklebacks in a group compared to the uninfected individuals, then there will be more of a chance that the whole group will stay together regardless if they are infected or not and assert nonresistant behavior against the waterbirds or any other predators that attempt to consume them. This adds a greater advantage to the tapeworms because their population will continue to grow exponentially as long as there is still an adequate amount of stickleback fish being infected. All in all, this article completely had me blown away on the numerous capabilities of tapeworms and how their nimble size is incomparable to the amount of destruction they can do to a whole population without even having to infect their host directly.
"p53 throws a wrench in the CRISPR/Cas9 gears" was probably the article I found the most challenging to read, but also the one I learned the most from. I had initially read about CRISPR technology in my eight grade science class. I knew that it was used for gene editing and that there were still many hitches in the technology. This article helped me understand that CRISPR is a threat to pluripotent cells. Pluripotent cells are cells that can turn into several different cell types and they contain the tumor suppressor p53. p53 is a protein that causes the cell to commit suicide when it senses breaks in DNA. CRISPR works by introducing short guide RNAs into cells that guide the enzyme, Cas9, to cut DNA strands. Then, the cell repairs the strands which creates insertions and deletions in the genome. The flaw lies in the cutting of the DNA strands. When Cas9 cuts the double stranded DNA, p53 kicks in and causes the cell to kill itself before the cell can repair. The simple solution may seem to eradicate p53, but p53 is vital for battling cancer. p53 is a tumor suppressor which means it protects a cell from the path to cancer. Often, cancer is caused by mutations in p53 making p53 a very unpredictable gene. For this reason, I think CRISPR shouldn't be used on pluripotent cells until cell death can be prevented. This article taught me a lot about the p53 gene. Not only does it play a role in CRISPR, but also in cancer. This makes me wonder if CRISPR could potentially be used to fight cancer. If CRISPR is used on cancer cells, perhaps it could trigger the p53 and cause the cancer cells to commit suicide. I also enjoyed reading "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them". I found it fascinating that such simple organisms could cause so much havoc. Not only do they affect their host, but they also affect those surrounding the host. For instance, Schistocephalus solidus causes stickleback fish to swim towards warmer water and become more susceptible to predators when they don't flee. When the majority of a group of stickleback fish are infected ,they can influence their peers to act as if they're infected. Their refusal to flee from predators can influence uninfected sticklebacks to do the same. Perhaps the stickleback fish will develop a behavioral adaptation towards the tapeworm. Instead of following each other, they may choose to do what's best for their survival. I found both of these articles to be very interesting, especially the one on CRISPR because it can revolutionize the modern world.
In the article,"Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them", I quickly became intrigued on the topic of tapeworms manifesting in their hosts bodies. The continuous cycle with the waterbirds and the stickleback fish, from the worm existing inside the bird, then latching onto copepods, then being eaten by the fish really is mind boggling because it comes back full circle to where the waterbirds prey on the infested fish. The experiment was what I found shocking. Non-infested fish differed from the infested fish because when they were approached by the "bird" they swam to the bottom, "the safe zone", whereas the affected fishes stay in the "danger zone". This just compliments a previous point made in the article that talked about the tapeworm being less likely to flee from potential predators and more likely to be eaten by the waterbirds. In a following experiment, the study shows that even the non-infested fish stayed in the "danger zone" with the infested fish because there were more infested fish so they followed the majority, which resided at the top at the time of the "attack". One cool example I heard from Ed Yong's TED Talks was with the wasp and the cockroach. The wasp's stinger injected venom into the wasp and "changed its inside". It basically unchecked the cockroach's motivation to fly or to escape from the situation. Granted, it still had the ability to fly away or escape, but it lacked motivation. Yong compared that to a human example: A human walking a dog.
One of the articles that I read and was intrigued by was "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them". As soon as I saw the title I knew that this would capture me immediately and it did. The fact that parasites can simply alter the thinking of animals that are much larger than them is exciting. It opens up new possibilities and shows that that parasites can change whole populations. What surprised me even more was that the parasite doesn't necessarily have to affect its host to alter its thinking. The tapeworm can make the host commit dangerous acts just for its own benefit. For example, in the article it mentions how the tapeworm changes the thinking of sticklebacks to swim towards warmer water where the worm can grow faster. By doing this, the stickleback is putting its own life at risk. The population changing part I mentioned earlier comes into play due to influencing peers. The article states, "Small decisions made by individuals can translate into large collective movements by the group. And if certain individuals are infected by a mind-controlling parasite, to an extent, the group is too." Large groups could be at risk due to one parasite, which sounds far-fetched but is quite true. Experimental results showed that if infected individuals were a majority and went to the danger zone, others followed, even if they were uninflected. It would make sense to find safety in numbers, but it's still a high risk high reward scenario. It also amazes me how the host's mind is rendered completely defenseless and practically becomes a puppet for the parasite. Many population sizes would decrease just so the parasite can meet its own needs. That is fascinating and scary at the same time. I also enjoyed reading the article, "p53 throws a wrench in the CRISPR/Cas9 gears". It talks about how the p53 protein inhibits CRISPR/Cas9 editing in hPSCs. I learned a lot about the p53 protein and its many functions in honors bio, and I hope I get to explore more into it this year as well.
The article that I found the most interesting was “Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them.” I found it fascinating that a parasite could control or possess its host without actually infecting it since I only knew about the common belief that all parasites must infect its host in order to control it. The relationship between the tapeworm and the sticklebacks in which it can influence it to move to warmer water reminds me of the connection between Will Byers and the Shadow Monster in the show Stranger Things. In the show, Will acts as a host to the parasite, the Shadow Monster. The parasite enters Wills body and starts to control him without infecting the boy just like the Tapeworm does to the Stickleback. The monster did not infect Will, but it controlled his body to do certain things such as staying away from higher temperatures. I also found it interesting that the tapeworm had the ability to make the stickleback stray from its shoal making it more vulnerable to predators. In addition, as proven by Demandt and Saus’s experiment, the infected fish could influence the uninfected ones to move closer to danger. It is incredible that such a small parasite could have so much power over an organism that is much larger than it.
While I found the article “Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them” the most interesting, I did find “Stop antibiotics before resistance ‘tipping point’’’ pretty compelling as well. Before reading this article, I believed that taking more antibiotics would benefit a person with microbial infections by killing all the harmful bacteria in their body. However, taking a higher dose of the medicine for a long duration can actually make the bacteria resistant to the antibiotic. The sudden ability to resist the medication most likely is the result of a mutation in the cells of one of the bacteria. It cannot be a direct result of the medicine because conditions don’t influence these kinds of changes in an organism. The reason that all the resistant bacteria were able to multiply was the result of natural selection or “survival of the fittest.” In natural selection, the organisms with the advantageous trait are able to survive and reproduce successfully. In this scenario, the resistant bacteria have an advantageous trait of being able to resist the antibiotic medicines and as a result they are able to grow in population size while the non-resistant ones die out.
I found the article "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them" to be very interesting. It is incredible how something described as a "parasitic towel" is able to control not only the organisms it affects, but also other organisms of its host's group. This is especially note worthy because the parasite is so simple that it hardly has a brain, let alone a mouth, gut, circulatory system, or respiratory system. I also found the cycle of the tapeworm to be intriguing, as it involves many steps, some of which rely on the parasite altering the hosts' behaviors. Essentially, the tapeworm life cycle starts when they reproduce in the guts of waterbirds, then the waterbirds excrete the eggs and the tapeworm eggs hatch outside of the birds. Then, the larvae infect copepods, crustaceans which are eaten by stickleback fish, and the fish are then eaten by the waterbirds, so the parasites can once again lay eggs in the birds' guts. Although the cycle itself already appears to be quite complex, there are other important factors involved, such as influencing the fish to go against their instincts and swim to warmer water so that the parasites can grow more quickly. In addition, the tapeworms somehow cause the fish to be braver and not flee from predators, thus increasing their chance of being eaten and passing along the parasite. Since stickleback fish live in shoals, the unaffected members of the group respond to the actions of the infected fish. Consequently, the unaffected fish also begin to exhibit the same behaviors as the ones with tapeworms, such as not fleeing from predators.
After reading all the articles, the article "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them" stood out the most to me. The article intrigued me and I wanted to learn more about the topic. The author uses tapeworms called Schistocephalus solidus as an example. Tapeworms are not at all complex organisms and have simple features. The organisms do not have a mouth or a gut and do not have a circulatory or respiratory system. The thing that amazed me the most was that tapeworms do not even have a proper brain. In contrast to these simple features, the parasites still have the ability to cause much harm and damage to their host through "mind-control." This intrigued me as their hosts are much larger and far more complex than the tapeworms. Initially, before reading the article, I believed that in parasitism, which is an example of a community interaction the parasite would have to infect its host before causing damage to it. However, the parasite can actually control their host without actually infecting them. In other words, the parasite basically mind controls their host which is beneficial for the parasite, but is deadly for the host. In the author's example the tapeworm enters the stickleback fish and somehow changes the stickleback's brain. This made me wonder how exactly the tapeworm alter the stickleback's behavior as in the article it does not fully explain the process. The affected fish would move towards warmer waters as they were controlled by the tapeworm because warmer waters allowed the tapeworm to grow more rapidly. The tapeworms also cause the stickleback fish to be more courageous. This causes a higher chance for waterbirds to catch the stickleback fish because the fish are less likely to flee from them as they are more fearless. The changed behavior also has a drastic effect on fish who were not infected by the tapeworms. To further explain, the affected fish who are bolder compared to the regular fish travel to places where danger is more prominent as they have no care. The unaffected fish follow the affected fish mindlessly, putting them in danger as well. Overall, the tapeworm is not infecting their host: the fish, but is affecting them. So, the tapeworm is mind-controling the stickleback fish. This idea amazes me and I want to learn further.
I read the article titled “Stop antibiotics before resistance 'tipping point'”. In this article it suggests that withdrawing from antibiotic use sooner rather than later decreases bacterial resistance to said antibiotic and avoids a ‘tipping point’. Personally I have never considered this before, but upon reading the article it makes sense as a direct relationship. The longer your body is taking in antibiotics, the longer the bacteria has to adapt and fight the drug. Additionally I was surprised to find that factors such as sugar levels can lead to a ‘tipping point’, and lead me to wonder if other similar factors have the same effect. This knowledge can be helpful in the future, especially as select bacterial infections require stronger, more advanced antibiotics due to ‘tipping points’ being widely reached and resistance continuing even after antibiotic use stops.
I chose to sample the articles "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them" and "p53 throws a wrench in the CRISPR/Cas9 gears" as listed and found each to be captivating in its own way. The first article I read, "p53 throws a wrench in the CRISPR/Cas9 gears", was easy to follow along with due to my prior knowledge of the p53 protein. As I recall learning in honors lab biology, the eukaryotic cell cycle contains three "checkpoints" at which it is ensured that the cell does not divide under unfavorable conditions. During the first checkpoint a protein known as p53 triggers DNA repair enzymes to repair the cell's DNA if it is damaged, and if the damage is unrepairable, p53 triggers "apoptosis", the process by which the cell essentially kills itself. Prior to reading the article, I had known of CRISPR-Cas9 but never fully understood its relevance to gene editing. Subsequent to reading the article I learned that CRISPR-Cas9, an enzyme, is led by short guide RNAs to the double stranded DNA molecule where it cuts the molecule. In all cells except for human pluripotent STEM cells (hPSCs), or cells that have the ability to separate into different kinds of cells, p53 triggers DNA repair enzymes upon the cutting of the DNA molecule that insert or delete nucleotides in or from the breaks- thus altering the gene on which the portion of the DNA molecule affected by the CRISPR-Cas9 lay. However, in hPSCs, the breaks imposed on the DNA molecule by CRISPR-Cas9 are far more lethal- so much so that p53 triggers apoptosis, leading to the demise of the cell. I found the CRISPR-Cas 9 gene editing system, the fact these short guided RNAs were synthesized by mankind and programmed to assist in the altering of something as complex as human genes, truly captivating. As suggested by the authors of the original article, p53 can potentially be temporarily inhibited while CRISP-Cas9 is in effect and reinstated afterwards so that it is unable to trigger cell suicide. I believe that gene editing in hPSCs is significant because, as I recall from a group project I completed in honors biology, hPSCs can serve as an alternative to embryonic stem cells which require the killing of embryos and are thus the target of much controversy. Overall, I found the article ""p53 throws a wrench in the CRISPR/Cas9 gears" to be highly insightful and comprehensive; I was able to use my prior knowledge of p53 in understanding the role of CRISPR-Cas9 and its toxicity in hPSCs.
Secondly, I read the article "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them" and found it highly engaging and thought-provoking. The fact that an organism as simple a tapeworm, which lacks a mouth, gut, circulatory system, and respiratory system, has the ability to toy with minds of organisms with bodies far more intricate than that of itself enthralled me. The life cycle of the Schistocephalus solidus, for instance, relies on three separate organisms: the waterbird, the copepod, and the stickleback fish. It procreates in the gut of the waterbird, and its eggs are expelled from the waterbird's body along with the waterbird's waste. Subsequently to the hatching of the tapeworm eggs, the larvae contaminate copepods, or miniature crustaceans, which are then consumed by stickleback fish, which are then in turn consumed by waterbirds- thus restarting the cycle. The Schistocephalus solidus can alter the conduct of the stickleback so that it swims in the direction of warmer water, where it can then grow at a quicker rate. I had known from prior knowledge that parasites weaken their hosts, but I never would have imagined that certain parasites can manipulate and alter the behaviors of their hosts- especially one as delicate and simplistic as the tapeworm. I was compelled enough to share the profound information with others.
After reading each article, I found “Stop antibiotics before resistance ’tipping point’” to be particularly fascinating because many people who have taken antibiotics most likely would have never been aware of antibiotic resistance, including myself. Most simply one would assume taking an antibiotic would help fight off an illness, however the article explains that certain factors can increase one’s resistance. In turn, what was once a solution may no longer be viable. The main focus of the article is the “tipping point”, which the article explains as the point in time in which microbial communities become resistant to antibiotics as a result of changing conditions in prolonged duration, dosages and low sugar levels. Ironically, prior to this discovery people thought not finishing a dosage would actually cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. This is a prime example of advancements in the medical field which have proven to have a major effect on patients, even opening up for more research into how long antibiotics should be taken in order to ensure the least possibility of resistance. Without an awareness of this new discovery of the “tipping point” the outcome could be drastic for patients who often find themselves ill and in need of treatment because becoming immune to treatment makes being cured much more difficult. Moving forward more precautions should be taken by doctors including follow up appointments in order to determine if the full dose is necessary so that resistance is avoided. If not, more than just current patients are at risk because as soon as someone becomes immune to antibiotics that means they could possibly spread their illness, which is a threat to other healthy individuals. Overall this article has open my eyes to the unpredictability in the medical field in which there is always room for further advancements and courses of action.
I chose to read the articles, "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them", written by Ed Yong and "Stop Antibiotics Before Resistance'tipping point'". Both articles were quite fascinating despite the fact that they revolved around two completely different main ideas. The article, "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them", talks about how not every parasite needs to inflict pain on its host in order to gain control of its host and benefit from them. Even if parasites are not complex organisms and are extremely minuscule when compared to their hosts, they have the capacity to mind control their hosts. This characteristic gives parasites the ability to grow and reproduce in conditions of their preference. For example, Hydrocephalus solidus, a specific tape worm, alters the behavior of his host in order to ensure a complete life cycle. The tape worm changes the host's behavior and makes sure that the host swims in warmer waters because warm water help tape worms grow to their maximum size faster than regular water. However, the most intriguing idea introduced in this article revolved around how other organisms would be affected as well, with or without tape worms. Small actions taken by individual organisms inspire large collective group movements which means that all organisms are affected. Originally, I thought that parasites had to cause harm to their host by inflicting pain on them in order to benefit but instead, they use mind control. The second passage, "Stop Antibiotics Before Resistance'tipping point'", talks about how an overuse of antibiotics can lead to resistance. If resistance is reached, antibiotics are no longer helpful to many bacterial infections which puts many human beings in danger. This idea was very ironic because we see antibiotics as cures and we were always told that taking the full course of antibiotics would heal us but now it has come to the point where the cure is harmful to the body because it is now known that taking full course promotes resistance.
The article that most interested me was “Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them.” Before reading it, my mind got carried away with all of the possibilities. Perhaps a parasite was capable of producing chemicals or pheromones which triggered a response from animals, effectively “mind-controlling them” without directly infecting them. Maybe the parasite found some other way to communicate with its hosts. The actual article was mildly disappointing compared my wild imagination, but still very thought provoking. It showed that parasites could cause their hosts to behave in certain ways, and if multiple individuals in a group are infected and show this new behavior, the uninfected individuals might adopt it. This is due to the evolutionary advantage given through safety in numbers, and these fish have evolved to depend on it. In trying to maintain it, they will follow the majority, even if they are performing a dangerous action. It has always intrigued me that traits that have an evolutionary advantage can also have a disadvantage. For example, allergies develop from an overactive immune system. The immune system evolved to protect the body from foreign entities, and it helps us survive disease. However, it can cause death if a person has a severe allergy. The immune system has a downside. Stuff like this makes me realize that evolution is not a linear path with an end goal in mind. Creatures are not more evolved than one another, they are simply differently evolved. Not all beneficial traits are absolutely good.
“Stop antibiotics before resistance 'tipping point'” was also a very interesting article. It reaffirmed my belief that antibiotics need to be more closely regulated. In some countries, they are used so liberally that people take them every time they feel under the weather. They are used freely on livestock in certain parts of the world. When people use antibiotics freely, it can lead to microorganisms developing resistances to them. This means the effectiveness of our medicine will drop if we are not careful with how we use it. This has been a growing concern for our society in recent years, and we have even come up with a name for bacteria resistant to multiple antibiotics: Superbugs. These highly resistant bacteria could spread uncontrollably and bring about the end of humanity in a worst case scenario. We need to be more careful with our antibiotics, and organizations like the FDA and WHO need to take responsibility for ensuring that we stay safe. Doctors themselves need to take care when prescribing patients antibiotics, and should monitor patients during treatment to make sure that the ‘tipping point’ mentioned in the article is not reached.
The article "p53 throws a wrench in the CRISPR/Cas9 gears" is an interesting report on how just one of the biological processes that we conduct will have complications, which we must find solutions to in order to overcome these difficulties. In this article that describes one of the possibly many problems that will appear as we continue gene editing, we find that a gene that suppresses tumors acts in a way that makes gene editing more difficult to accomplish. Scientists require the breakdown of the two or three hydrogen bonds in DNA during one step of gene editing completed by the DNA endonuclease enzyme, Cas9. This step prompts the p53 gene to force the cell to go through apoptosis, which is programmed cell death, as the gene recognizes the broken hydrogen bonds in the DNA. This produces a greater level of toxicity in the organism, which can be harmful to a certain degree, and because the cell has destroyed itself, it will prevent the altered DNA from replicating. Because of the p53 gene and how it mistakes our actions to alter DNA, from faulty cells that may lead to cancer, scientists must find a way to get around this tough problem. One solution that scientists have come up with has been to restrain the effect of the p53 gene, create edited cells, and then to restore the p53 genes in the edited cells so they can once again function properly. I find this to be a simple but efficient process, so that the correct changes can be made without having to deal with the p53, and then later restore the gene once the correct changes have been made.
This is a continuation of my original comment.
The other article that I found interesting and very relevant to our everyday lives was "Stop antibiotics before resistance 'tipping point'," which describes how the length of the antibiotic course affects the antibiotic resistance to the drug by bacteria. A team of researchers from the University of Exeter found that a certain duration of antibiotic treatment along with certain levels of the powerfulness of antibiotics can lead to a state in bacteria dubbed the 'tipping point,' in which the bacteria can irreversibly become drug resistant. To many, including myself, this is a terrifying find, as the overuse of antibiotics such as antibiotic prescriptions commonly handed out by doctors for even small cases of a sickness, can lead to a state where the bacteria inside of you can no longer be affected by antibiotics. This new research done by the team and professors invites further research on this topic to be completed so we could further understand what we can do to reduce the resistance by bacteria to antibiotics. The solution to reducing resistance may be in finding the correct durations to give treatments of antibiotics, as well as the correct dosages. There is much work to be done in this field and topic, as this problem is ongoing, and time is of the essence in finding the solution to limit bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Out of the three articles, the two I chose to read were the one about parasites ("Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them") and the one about antibiotics ("Stop antibiotics before resistance 'tipping point'"). In the article about parasites in animals, it was intriguing to learn that tapeworms in stickleback fish can alter their behavior and make them swim to an environment so that the tapeworm could grow. In the experiment that was explained, the fish that weren't infected with the tapeworms followed the fish to the surface that were infected because they all like to stick with each other. This puts them in danger of being eaten by the birds. This shows how big of an influence the tapeworms have over the fish that weren't even touched by them.
In the article about antibiotics, I found it interesting that it is even possible for your body to become resistant to a drug because I was unaware of that. I always thought that you should take antibiotics according to how much and how long a doctor prescribes it for you, and that you should always finish it. As it mentioned in the article, strep throat is one of the many needs for antibiotics and I always got that when I was younger. At that time, I didn't know that I shouldn't be overusing the medicine or that my body could eventually become resistant to it. It also mentioned that even though everyone has relatively different blood sugar levels, the same amount of antibiotics are given to many people to cure a said infection. If the sugar levels in a microbial community suddenly drops (while being given an antimicrobial), then there is a danger that the body could become resistant to a certain antimicrobial, even after the usage has been stopped.
The article that caught my eye was "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Affecting Them." This intrigued me because I believe that parasitism is one of the most fascinating relationships of ecology. Parasitism is a relationship between two organisms in which one organism, the parasite, benefits by harming the other organism, the host. Also, this article was appealing to me because it's fascinating how such parasites are far simpler and smaller than their intricate hosts. Still, parasites are able to manipulate the hosts to their advantage, by either acquiring nutrients, shelter, or safety from them. In this article, the author outlines this ecological relationship by using tapeworms (Schistocephalus solidus) as an example. These notorious parasites have no mouth, gut, circulatory system, or respiratory system. Their nervous system consists of just a cluster of nerves that barely resemble a brain. As I was reading the article, I was wondering how tapeworms obtain nutrients from the surrounding environment, as they lack major body parts. However, when I learned about the life cycle of these creatures, I was able to answer my question. The tapeworm's life cycle essentially revolves by acquiring food and nutrients and living inside the bodies of other organisms, which are the hosts. The cycle commences when tapeworm eggs hatch after being excreted from the guts of waterbirds, where the tapeworm originally reproduced. After these eggs hatch, the larvae infect, or in other words, intrude small crustaceans called copepods. Next, the tapeworms enter the bodies of stickleback fish, when the copepods are consumed by them. This is where the tapeworms will spend majority of their lives, and this is where it is possible to see the true nature of such parasites. By controlling the sticklebacks, the tapeworms can manipulate them by making them swim toward warmer water, where the tapeworms have more ideal environmental conditions to grow and develop. Also, tapeworms can embolden the sticklebacks to venture outside the safety of a shoal, or a group of fish. This makes them more likely to be consumed by predators, such as a waterbird, which allows the cycle to restart. In this situation, the sticklebacks are being harmed because they are behaving differently than they normally would, due to the fact that the tapeworms gain control of them. Also, according to the article, tapeworms can inflict their influence on other fish other than the one they are infecting. They are able to do this because if majority of the sticklebacks are infected, the unaffected ones will follow, and act in the same way without being infected. This allows tapeworms to basically conquer a specific population of fish without infecting them all. In this case, sticking with the group isn’t necessarily wrong for the sticklebacks, given that it provides safety in numbers. However, the parasitic worms might be converting the safety they receive from being in a pack into danger for all. In conclusion, from this article I took away that sometimes parasites can control their hosts without even infecting them. This shows that even the smallest of animals can be powerful, and can cause an issue to much larger and complex organisms.
Of the three articles given to read, the one that struck me as interesting was "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them". When I read that parasites can control the behaviors of animals without having to infect them, it had me wondering about a lot of what I had known. Parasites harm the host, as I had learnt in Biology; however, I had thought it was by infecting them. It is mind-blowing how certain populations and organisms, despite being simple without many structures and systems. It shows that even simple organisms can be complex and dangerous. It also brings up new questions, like "If simple parasites can control other complex organisms to live, like fish, then wouldn't they also have the capability to control humans to their will?", "Nowadays, technology helps us humans take control of various situations regarding life and biology, like selective breeding and control of populations, but exactly how much control would we have in reality, if parasites can possibly control us?", and "To control populations going out of control, are mind-controlling parasites the solution?" Parasites being able to control organisms can make them bend to their will and probably be lead to their deaths for the parasites' benefit, like how a tapeworm leads a stickleback to be eaten by a water bird. What is more intriguing about this is how are the parasites able to control organisms far more complex than themselves? Would they send out signals to directly affect the brains of them? Would they stop the organisms' part of the brain that controls judgement and influence their own thinking on the organism to benefit them? Ultimately, parasites end up controlling the lives of the sticklebacks and when they die. Because of the controlled sticklebacks' behaviors, they also influence the behaviors of those not being controlled, as shown in the experiments conducted by Demandt, Saus, and Scharsack. Also, as shown by Asch, even humans can be controlled indirectly by peers around them, despite knowing what is right and what is not. I find this scary because if groups can affect individuals, then would that affect the future? Would that get in the way between choosing to do the right thing and not? Would that get in the way of future discoveries, as majority can reject it and also cause the individual to reject the discovery? Ultimately, parasites behaviors of mind-controlling and individual not only harms them, but also can affect a group as a whole.
I had also read another article, "p53 Throws a Wrench in the CRISPR/Cas9 gears." The article is about how genome editing via CRISPR/Cas9 on hPSCs is more troubling due to p53 causing cell arrest and apoptosis as soon as a break in DNA occurs during the process. Despite it being very lethal to the stem cells, altering them to fix them can provide an alternative to other ways of acquiring stem cells to differentiate into any other cell. By conducting CRISPR/Cas9 on them and editing their genes, humans can make new cells to replace old ones that can't be replaced, like differentiated brain cells. By doing so, in the future, this may help prevent diseases like Alzheimer's. However, conducting gene editing in hPSCs can alter the function of p53 and cause them to not work properly. This can be potentially dangerous because if mistakes in cell reproduction isn't caught by p53, it can create defective proteins or even uncontrolled cell multiplication, leading to serious problems like cancer. After reading this article, I realized that although gene editing technology seems extremely helpful in the future, it isn't all that perfect. Any small mistake can lead to a big problem.
What made the article, "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them," so interesting was not only the biological aspects of this parasite, Schistocephalus solidus, but the behavioral affects that arose as a result of the infestation. The fact that such a simple organism holds the potential for so much influence over an animal in which the parasite is essentially making the host into its slave is mind-blowing. However, there's also the fact of how these parasites can mind-control individuals that are not infected because these non-infected individuals feel the need to follow along with whatever the group is doing, even if they know that it's dangerous. This natural feeling to follow the group and "safety in numbers" is what is essentially paving the road for these parasites to gain control over larger groups of animals without even having to infect them all. They just need to influence some of the members of the group and the rest will likely follow along, despite how wrong and dangerous the action can be. This observation can also be seen in human subjects too. These results were observed in humans when in an experiment from the 50s, volunteers were often giving wrong answers to questions if people around them, the paid actors, were giving the wrong answers. These volunteers were often certain that the answer was wrong, but still went along with it. Parasitic tapeworms have the ability to control infected hosts, this is a biological fact. However, they also have the ability to control the individuals around the infected host by making them believe that this wrong idea is in fact the right one, just because everyone else is doing it, and this is a behavioral fact. Some infected animals hold the capability of psychology infecting all the non affected individuals. This is how parasites, like the tapeworm, are able to control so many individuals so that they have in the end given themselves the best chance at thriving and surviving. This article was truly appealing to me and has inspired me to do more research about this topic of parasites. I would love to expand and learn more on this topic, especially about some other experiments that were done.
"Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them" was the most interesting article to me. The fact that parasites could a affect an animal's nervous system so that they do not respond to their surroundings shows how parasites can easily negatively affect an animal. The fact that the sticklebacks that are infected get eaten can cause a chain reaction because the parasite is in the animal that ate the stickleback. Domesticated animals can easily get infected with tape worms if not treated right, so they could be affected yet people do not know since people protect their pets at all costs. Tape worms can also live in people and could possibly affect the mindset of a human. It might not affect a human's mind as drastic as a stickleback's, but still negatively affect a human.
One of the articles which I found interesting was titled, "p53 throws a wrench in the CRISPR/Cas9 gears" by Vincent Racaniello. A previous background in biotechnology and cell reproduction was what compelled me to choose this article. It discusses some of the flaws and dangers of using the new CRISPR/CAS9 genome editing technologies. I believe that it is important for people to be aware of these risks before they begin using these technologies. The tumor suppressor gene p53 checks for DNA damage during replication and if it is found it triggers the cell to undergo apoptosis. This prevents CRISPR/CAS9 editing in these cells. The Cas9 enzyme cuts the DNA causing indels. This type of technology was seen to be used to create so-called "designer babies" where bases could be added or deleted to the DNA strand via the Cas9 enzyme so they could code for favorable traits. A flaw with this technology is that the presence of the p53 gene causes the hPSC cells to not replicate because the editing is viewed as damage. Caution should be taken with these new technologies because if an "edited hPSC cell could select for p53 gene mutations that tolerate DNA damage...[it] could lead to tumor formation (Racaniello 6)." This could eventually lead to diseases like cancer which will do more harm than good to the individual. Furthermore, another interesting article was titled, "Stop antibiotics before resistance 'tipping point' " by the University of Exeter. This article warned about the dangers of antibiotic resistance. This is when microbes are able to get past drugs which were designed to kill them. They do this by developing mutations which allow them to adapt to such hostile environments in which the drugs are present. An interesting part of the article was regarding a recent study in which a microbial community was experimented on using different doses of antibiotics and sugar and it revealed a shocking fact. There is a link between the two! It was seen that resistance would continue to happen regardless of the use of the antimicrobial as a result of sugar levels dropping. Both articles show the dangers of new technologies and drugs. Taking precautions can help us prevent future issues as seen with the sugars and antibiotic resistance.
I read the two articles I read were "parasites don't need to infect a host to control behavior", as well as "New guidelines on antibiotic treatment coming". Both intrigued me a lot, as it opened my eyes to new possibilities. For one, in the first article, "Parasites don't need to infect a host to control behavior", the author focused on the tapeworm parasite, "it has no mouth or gut... yet this very simple creature can manipulate the minds of more complex animals- even without infecting them." The author continues to describe how the tapeworm can manipulate schools of fish into swimming into more treacherous, and dangerous waters, even if the fish knows that it is dangerous and possibly life-threatening. However, the tapeworm will benefit as they fish are more likely to be eaten by birds, where their eggs will lie. I knew previously that these creatures caused nausea, weakness, and abdominal pain, however, I found it outstanding that they can "control minds". I also found it interesting that the school of fish that the tapeworms infect undergo the influences of mob mentality. Due to this, the tapeworm can control the entire school, even if they only infect some fish. I found the next article interesting as well, as it claimed that modern medicinal treatments should be changed. This article stated that the duration of the antibiotic treatments should be changed, as the longer, the antibiotic is present, the faster the "tipping point'' will be reached. For example, one of the best ways to treat strep is through antibiotics, however, this bacteria is slowly becoming resistant. Due to evolution, this bacteria has favored the allele that allows it to be resistant to the antibacterial, allowing it to survive longer. The article also showed how the sugar levels in a patient can influence the treatment as well. according to the Candida albicans experiment, scientists differentiated the number of sugar levels in their hosts. These scientists found then that if sugar levels are dropped, the microbial community could reach a "tipping point", in which the resistant would become even more persistent. This sheds the light on a new change in medical treatments, as doctors must now pay attention to the patient's sugar levels throughout the duration of the treatment, as it could affect the outcome. Many people in America have diabetes, or other sugar level problems, and can be affected by this new information, as the bacteria become more resistant as sugar levels drop.
After reading “Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them,” I learned that parasites can affect their hosts in a very powerful way. Parasites, such as tapeworms, have the ability to alter their hosts’ innate behavior for their own benefit. This capability ensures that the parasite’s reproduction cycle is completed; parasites force their hosts to navigate to conditions that support the parasite’s growth, and ultimately allow them to spread. Although this incredible influence surprised me, the most fascinating part of the article was how some social hosts, like stickleback fish, take cues from their group. This tendency to conform may be detrimental to the stickleback population, as infected hosts might influence uninfected sticklebacks into hazardous conditions, causing them to be consumed by other predators. When reading, I wondered how tapeworms have not yet dominated their ecosystem. Surely, with the power to change the behavior of hosts and their uninfected peers, the tapeworm population must be substantial. Although the article did not mention this, there must be a counteracting force that prevents these parasites from spreading too quickly. Otherwise, they would have infected the entire population of sticklebacks and spread quite rapidly. While reading, I was also interested in how other parasites change the behavior of their hosts; the article briefly noted that other parasitic organisms have this ability over their hosts as well. It interests me to see how this relationship works out, so I will definitely read up on other articles concerning this topic.
Reading “Stop Antibiotics Before Resistance ‘Tipping Point’” demonstrated to me how delicate antibiotic treatment is. These treatments have many different variables, including the type of medication, the patient’s sugar levels, and the duration of the treatment. Changing one of these variables might cause a patient to become resistant to the drug’s positive effects. The process of reaching a “tipping point” reminded me of a similar phenomenon in the realm of substance abuse. When a person uses a certain drug for a great amount of time, he or she can become tolerant of it. If this happens, using a “normal” amount of the drug will not yield the wanted result, and the person must resort to greater and greater doses in order to achieve it. Evidently, tolerance can be compared to antibiotics and how cells become immune to their effects after a certain amount of time. However, a person can simply take more drugs to combat tolerance (despite the obvious health risks); with antibiotics, the amount of time it is taken must be carefully measured so that resistance is avoided.
Upon reading the following articles, I became engulfed in the article titled “Parasites can mind-control animals without infecting them.” It fascinated me that organisms, such as the tapeworm, can have such great impact and complexity despite its simplicity in structure as it lacks a mouth and gut and also two important systems that almost all organisms need: circulatory and respiratory. Furthermore, it is impressive how tapeworms can control the behavior of other organisms such as the stickleback fish by preventing them from fleeing in times of danger. This can be illustrated through the experiment devised by Nicolle Demandt and Benedikt Saus from the University of Munster. The observations included uninfected fish fleeing to the bottom of the tank when an artificial bird was present, while the infected fish remained unimpacted by the danger. A quote that resided deeply with me was “small decisions made by individuals can translate into large collective movements by the group.” This intrigued me because this can be proven all throughout life, not just animals. For instance, it’s interesting how one’s actions can control multiple organisms. In the case of the stickleback fish, the tapeworm forces danger upon all the fish because it forces those who are uninfected to also remain in sight of predators. Ultimately, the idea that parasites can control their hosts behavior without infecting them seemed supernatural to me, however, this article broadened my understanding and allowed me to think more deeply. In addition, the opening of the article “stop antibiotics before resistance tipping point” shocked me in that many people I know including myself have used antibiotics to cure a sickness. Therefore the idea that antibiotic treatment should be stopped concerned me because you would not expect medicine meant to cure you to stop working within the dosage recommended. For example, the article suggests, through a study of microbial communities reacted to antibiotic cycling patterns, that alterations in time of use and dosage of antibiotics can cause a shift in the effectiveness after a “tipping point” and cause the user to become drug resistant. This was interesting to me because it opens up the need for further research into how to determine how long to slow antibiotic treatment until it causes resistance.
The scenarios and data discussed in “Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them” are especially intriguing not only because of the new information it presents but also the new questions it raises. The tapeworm has an intricate life cycle infecting copepods, stickleback fish, and waterbirds as it increases in size and matures. Survival for a tapeworm, and for tapeworms as a species, is dependent on several factors, the fact that an organism controlled by a cluster of nerves barely worth considering a brain can juggle these factors is a feat in and of itself. However, the tapeworm accomplishes much more than mere survival. One of the factors tapeworms depend on is infected sticklebacks being consumed by waterbirds. To optimize the chances of continuing to progress through their life cycles, tapeworms alter the behavior of the stickleback fish. Infected sticklebacks are emboldened, remaining instead of fleeing a predators and venturing away from the safety of the shoal and plants. These alterations make the sticklebacks more likely to be eaten by waterbirds. What’s more, if enough fish behave in this manner, uninfected fish will also remain near a predator. While these observations are interesting, the implications and applications are what hooked my attention. What methods does such a simple organism use to cause drastic changes in the sticklebacks’ behavior? The possible answers to this question keep me thinking. Additionally, as the article briefly discusses near its conclusion, the group behavior observed in the sticklebacks has interesting parallels to human behavior.
The articles given to read were each all interesting in their own unique ways. The article that struck me the most and caused me to reflect was “Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them.” This article detailed the relationship between a parasite (like a tapeworm) and its host (sticklebacks). In particular it examined the cycle of Schistocephalus solidus. This tapeworm reproduces in the guts of waterbirds. These waterbirds then excrete the tapeworms’ eggs in their droppings. After the tapeworm eggs hatch, the larvae infect small crustaceans called copepods. These are eaten by stickleback fish, which are then eaten by waterbirds, completing the cycle. What is truly intriguing is the fact that the parasites change the behavior of their host. For example, when a tapeworm enters a stickleback it somehow changes their behavior so they swim toward warmer water. Under these conditions the worm grows more quickly and makes up a large amount of the stickleback’s weight. The tapeworm also emboldens its hosts so that they’re more likely to venture outside the safety of a shoal. It also makes the sticklebacks less likely to flee from predators. Consequently, they’re more likely to be eaten by birds which fuels the parasitic cycle. Nicolle Demandt and Benedikt Saus from the University of Munster developed a study regarding the tapeworm’s control over its host. “They would put groups of sticklebacks in a tank, lure them to the surface with floating patches of food, and then attack them with an artificial “bird.” After being attacked, uninfected fish would flee to the bottom of the tank to hide whereas infected sticklebacks stuck to the danger zone. Demandt and Benedikt repeated the study with mixed groups of infected and uninfected individuals. They found that if the infected were the majority, the uninfected ones followed them, staying in the danger zone instead of fleeing. This indirect control ends up benefiting the parasite. If more stay at the water’s surface, predators are more likely to find and attack them, thereby continuing the parastic cycle. In other words the infected stickleback’s bold behavior influenced their peers. It is very fascinating that this can be connected to humans. Original experiments show that people could often be persuaded to give wrong answers to simple questions if others around them (paid actors) answered wrongly too. Like a parasitic tapeworm, a bad idea can indirectly influence people. This small connection made in the article compelled me as it connected science and research with the behavior of people. I hope we can learn more about relationships between different organisms in class this year.
Out of all of the articles introduced, I found the article “Stop antibiotics before resistance ’tipping point’” to be the most interesting. The article had stated many claims regarding antibiotic use through many microbial communities. Someone who would have no knowledge of the topic would automatically assume that having a larger intake of antibiotics would have a better effect of fighting off illness while having a smaller intake would be the opposite. This claim would be true up until the "tipping point" of an organism", which was a key variable brought up throughout the article. To test the "tipping points" of different organisms, scientists had tested different treatment groups within microbial communities. Sugar level was a key factor that was taken account of because it would identify if whether the organism was drug resistant or not. Sugar level is more important in the fact that it is the closest relation to humans and microbes throughout the test. Through further reading of the topic, what really caught my attention was the fact that an organism would still remain resistant even if the antibiotic were withdrawn all because of the fact that the "tipping point" was ultimately passed during the treatment. I then thought of the fact that dosage is crucial because prior wisdom had implied that taking too few tablets would allow for bacteria to mutate and become resistant while now we know that the longer microbes are exposed to antibiotics, the more likely it is that resistance will develop. Ironic enough, it is important to take into account of the fact that larger dosages have the same effect as smaller dosages. Regarding real patients, it's important to now advise doctors to give prescription drugs in moderate dosages and have frequent check ups to make sure that the "tipping point" wasn't passed. The article has displayed that the correct solution in medicine isn't as black and white as people would perceive it to be.
The first article I read was “Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them” by Ed Yong. I found this article intriguing because it is truly fascinating that parasites can not only harm their hosts, but also other animals through indirect influence. Last school year, in my Honors Biology class during the Ecology unit, I learned that parasitism, a symbiotic relationship, is a relationship during which a parasite lives on or in a host and benefits by feeding on it while the host is harmed. Since parasites deprive the host from many things such as nutrients, it was understandable that parasites can harm and affect the life of their host. However, the title of this article suggests that no direct correlation between the parasite and an animal is needed for the animal to be negatively affected. Therefore, I was interested in reading it. I was fascinated and concerned to learn that parasites’ ability to control the mind of their host can influence other individuals around the host, causing the parasite to negatively affect many other individuals with which they are not directly associated. This benefits the parasite because it increases their chances of reaching their next destination. This article made me aware of how parasites can be “converting safety in numbers into danger for all” and understand how what I know already from prior knowledge affects surrounding individuals, as well. I also appreciate that the author connects the idea of indirect influence to humans at the end of the article because it allowed me to further understand the influence one individual or a group of individuals can have on others and the harm that can cause.
Additionally, I read the article “p53 Throws a Wrench in the CRISPR/Cas9 Gear” by Vincent Racaniello. Prior to reading this article, I knew about p53 due to the Cellular Reproduction unit I learned last year. I had learned about the cell cycle and the checkpoints and mechanisms the cell has for an error during cellular reproduction. I learned that p53 could prevent Rb phosphorylation, which prevents the DNA from being read and replicated, in between the G1 to S phases of Interphase. p53 can also prevent chromosome condensation in between the G2 phase to Mitosis, and it can prevent spindle fibers from contracting in between Metaphase and Anaphase of Mitosis. Without p53, cells can become cancerous. In addition, I also completed a project on Gene Therapy last year, so I was aware of CRISPR/Cas9 technology in relation to genome editing prior to reading the article. Ultimately, CRISPR/Cas9 edits the genome by altering, adding, or removing sections of DNA sequences. Therefore, when I read about how p53 inhibits CRISPR/Cas9 editing in hPSCs, it was not surprising to me because I connected the dots of what I knew from the title. However, it was interesting to learn that “one approach to gene editing, as suggested by the authors, might be to transiently inhibit p53, generate edited cells with Cas9, and restore p53.” I look forward to learning about that and expanding my knowledge of gene therapy in the future.
individuals. They found that if the infected were the majority, the uninfected ones followed them, staying in the danger zone instead of fleeing. This indirect control ends up benefiting the parasite. If more stay at the water’s surface, predators are more likely to find and attack them, thereby continuing the parastic cycle. In other words the infected stickleback’s bold behavior influenced their peers. It is very fascinating that this can be connected to humans. Original experiments show that people could often be persuaded to give wrong answers to simple questions if others around them (paid actors) answered wrongly too. Like a parasitic tapeworm, a bad idea can indirectly influence people. This small connection made in the article compelled me as it connected science and research with the behavior of people. I hope we can learn more about relationships between different organisms in class this year. -Karan Nayak (Repost - originally handed in on 7/16 but showed up as unknown)
"Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them," "Stop antibiotics before 'resistance-tipping point'," and "p53 Throws a Wrench In the CRISPR/Cas9 Gears," are all articles that greatly intrigued me. More importantly, they made me come upon the realization that in science everything isn't as cut & dry as it may seem. Almost anything is possible when science is involved. For example, in the article by Ed Young about the parasites, I was shocked and amazed to discover that some of the most simple organisms- tapeworms- which are barely even made up of a brain, are able to control other organisms! While I was aware about parasitism, I always believed that a parasite infected its host & that this was the manner in which it was able to obtain its own nutrients. However, after reading this article, I was shocked to discover that this isn't the case at all, and simple organisms such as tapeworms, can control the host they're within (in the article, the example of the host was the sticklebacks) without infecting it. This article made me stumble upon the understanding that there really is more to parasitism then what I had previously perceived & it really isn’t as simple as it seems! In the second article, relating to antibiotics, I also realized that even antibiotics aren’t as simple as we think, and there’s actually a lot we aren’t aware about. According to research, the use of antibiotics in treatments should be greatly reduced due to the fact that if the ‘tipping point’ is passed, harmful bacteria can become resistant to the effects of the antibiotic. Many people, when they go to the doctors for an illness or injury, are prescribed with antibiotics for treatment. However, I realized due to this article to this article that maybe antibiotics shouldn’t be used as treatments because if too much is used, & the tipping point is passed, harmful bacteria/cells may regenerate as they’ll build up resistance instead of dying! So instead of dying they’ll end up multiplying! The article also discussed the ways in which sugar can greatly impact resistance of the bacteria. Changes in the levels of sugar & doses of the antibiotic can also cause harmful bacteria to become resistant to the drug. This article really surprised me and changed my whole view on antibiotics. Just like any other person, I’ve always thought antibiotics were meant to protect us but instead they can actually cause infected bacteria to get stronger! In the last article, “p53 throws a wrench in the CRISPR/Cas9 gears,” I also obtained & learned new information I wasn’t previously aware about & learned that CRISPR also has some restrictions. While I have limited knowledge about CRISPR, I do know that it can destroy unwanted DNA nucleotides & replace them with a wanted nucleotide. However, after reading this article, I was surprised to find that because of p53- a tumor suppressor- editing in hPSCs isn’t possible! While I still don’t know a great detail about this topic, I’m hoping I can learn more and explore more about it. Once again, science shows that there really is no simplicity and straightforwardness to science and the wonders of the world. (By Krisha Shah, initially posted July 14, but it showed up as unknown)
The article that intrigued me the most was “Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them”. This article explained how tapeworms are able to control the actions of another organism without even infecting it. The article discusses how the Schistocephalus solidus (a specific species of tapeworms) was able to change the behavior of their host, the stickleback. Because of the tapeworms, the sticklebacks swam towards warmer water, which was the ideal environment for the tapeworms. This warm water allowed them to thrive and grow rapidly. In addition, the presence of these tapeworms caused the sticklebacks to become more daring. They often did not flee from prey and left the safety of their own shoals. Tapeworms were especially dangerous to this species because if there were more infected sticklebacks than uninfected, the uninfected organisms would still follow the infected ones into dangerous situations. This shows the effect tapeworms have on organisms they don’t even infect. The main point that the article was trying to illustrate is that tapeworms are able to control the actions of their hosts. This interested me because I had believed that a parasite would only feed off of its host and then kill it, which is obviously not the case.
The article, "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them," was very intriguing. I do not know a lot about the parasite and host relationship, besides the general concept of it. So, learning that the tapeworm parasite can control it's host without actually infecting it is almost hard to understand. It can be related to the Placebo Effect, which I studied in my Psychology class. The Placebo Effect can be used during an experiment, to test the validity and effectiveness of a medication. For example, group A would be given the real medicine, while group B is given the "placebo," or a fake medicine that looks like the real thing, but in reality has no effect. However, if done correctly, group B will experience similar effects of group A, even though they never received the real medication. That is the Placebo Effect. Tying back to the article, the infected fish are not phased by the bird predator-prop. At the same time, some of the unaffected fish swim away from the predator. However, some follow the steps of the infected fish. This action can be compared to the placebo effect. The placebo effect can also be used to describe the case where the tapeworm never actually infected the fish, yet they can still manipulate the fish. Overall the placebo effect and this article can relate in several ways, and assists in the understanding of the whole concept.
I found that the new research discovered in the article, “Stop Antibiotics Before Resistance 'Tipping Point,’” is very significant for everyone to know, as it does have an impact on all. A team of researchers from the University of Exeter has discovered that the longer antibiotics are used, the higher the chance that microbes can develop antibiotic resistance. This is contrary to the popular belief that if you do not take enough antibiotics, then the microbes will mutate and thus become resistant. For decades, people have been informed by their doctors to make sure they follow through with the full course of antibiotic treatments in order for their infection, such as strep throat, to go away. However, this new information found by the University of Exeter is saying that prolonged duration of antibiotics can ultimately harm one. Thus, this research is a breakthrough in the medicine world as the big question is now “How much should antibiotics be used?” In addition to prolonged duration, the research team found that low levels of sugar can lead to the “tipping point” of resistance. The research team worked with microbial communities that included Candida albicans and Candida glabrata in that the team Gabe them different doses of an antimicrobial when fed with sugar. Researchers discovered that that if sugar levels became low in the community, resistance could develop, and it would persist even after the antibiotics had ceased being used. I found this surprising since I did not know the amount of sugar can affect antibiotic resistance. The fact that resistance persists even after the antibiotics are not being used anymore is also shocking, as it makes treating bacterial infections even more complicated. Ultimately, this article was very interesting since antibiotics are known to treat infections, not make them worse. This valuable information discovered by the University of Exeter thus catalyzes a new search for the best way to utilize antibiotics and to fight against bacterial infections.
The article "Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them" was a very informative read. It's so powerful to be able to control multiple organisms bigger than you. I used to think that parasites have to infect their hosts in order to be in control, but thanks to this article, I now know it's false. Parasites generally lack many organs that are crucial to most other living things, yet are still capable of being in charge. For instance, it's incredible how tape worms do so much damage but lack a proper brain, as well as a mouth and a gut. In the article "Stop antibiotics before resistance 'tipping point'" I was taught that microorganisms that live in our bodies microorganisms that live in our bodies can eventually become ineffective to antibiotics can and will eventually become ineffective to antibiotics. Changes in sugar levels will also dramatically affect the strength of antibiotics, according to the Candida albicans and Candida glabrata research.
I think that the article, Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them", was very interesting. This is because I had no idea that a simple tapeworm, could influence a much more complex organism, indirectly influencing other organisms as well. The tapeworm does not have many proper body parts like a mouth, gut, or even a whole brain! Even though they don't have these things they are able to control fish making them swim towards places that make the tapeworm grow faster, also they can make them easier to get eaten by predators further spreading the tapeworms. The most interesting part of the article was that some organisms will follow others, and if the organism they are following is being controlled then they are indirectly being controlled too. Overall, this article made me more aware of the dangers of parasites.
This article titled "Parasites can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them" was an article that I really liked. This article talks about how a tapeworm can infect a stickleback fish and how infecting the fish and leading it up to warm water, allows the fish to be hunted by birds. Once the fish is caught the tapeworm enters the bird and it's eggs come out in the bird's waste. The eggs hatch and go back into the fish and the cycle repeats. The article talks about how the sticklebacks like to do things in groups, so basically only a single infected fish, can cause the whole group to swim up to warm water and then be hunted. An experiment was done on a group of infected and a group of non-infected fish. the single infected fish did not swim away when a fake bird beak was poked into the water, but the rest also stayed because they believe there is strength in numbers. The group without a single infected fish, all swam away when intimidated. I believe this relates to real life because people usually reflect their peers and surroundings and prefer to "go with the flow", but in reality, going with what everyone is is doing could be harmful and thats exactly what happened to the sticklebacks who weren't actually infected.
I found the article “Parasites can mind-control animals without infecting them” very intriguing. The first thing I’d like to say is that the article title is a little misleading. I don’t feel like the fish that weren’t infected in a group of infected fish were “mind controlled” by any means. I think the best way of describing it is that the parasites indirectly influenced the uninfected fish. The uninfected fish were very much in control of their own minds. Their behavior was different when surrounded by infected fish, yes, but the uninfected fish had looked at what it’s other fish friends were doing, and chose, by itself, to follow them. Regardless, I still find it fascinating that a parasite can seemingly take domain over how a bird and fish species interact with one another in order to benefit its own species. And ill be honest, its also a bit terrifying. Some questions that come to mind are, “Do the infected fish know that they are being manipulated?”, “If there was a parasite that could influence the human brain, would it be more dangerous than an ordinary parasite, considering the stunning complexity of the human brain?”, and “Does the parasite have any kind of negative effects on the bird when it’s consumed?”.
Out of the three articles, I chose to read, “Parasites Can Mind-Control Animals Without Infecting Them,” because I found it to be the most informative. I remember learning about parasites, specifically tapeworms in biology class last year . In class we discussed the life-threatening problems tapeworms can cause to the host being infected. Although, this article brought me to the realization that these parasites can control animals without ever infecting them. When we learned about parasitism, I thought that the parasite had to infect the animal and make it their host in order to have control. Tapeworms, a type of parasite that lacks organs and have grappling hooks for a head, have the ability to mind-control the animals they inhabit without actually infecting them. The tapeworm’s lifespan, specifically the Schistocephalus solidus, is complex and consists of the parasite traveling from organism to organism to thrive. They first reproduce in the gut of a water bird and wait for the eggs to be released in the droppings. Once the eggs hatch, the larvae infects copecods which are then eaten by stickleback fish. These stickleback fish are then hunted by the waterbirds which begins the cycle once again. While inside the stickleback fish, the tapeworm convinced the fish, by mind-control, to swim toward warmer water to maximize the tapeworm’s growth. The tapeworms make the fish more prone to being eaten by the water birds, so that the tapeworms can begin their life cycle again. When scientists conducted an expirement involving a group of uninfected fish and fish inhabiting tapeworms. They found that the fish with tapeworms didn’t seem to flee for safety even after seeing other of their kind being eating by waterbirds. On the other hand, the uninfected fish fled to safety as soon as they saw their predator. It’s fascinating how tapeworms, who have nothing close to a brain, are capable of controlling the animals and hosts they infect for their advantage. The host, in this case the stickleback fish, has no control over the tapeworm’s damage and simply has to abide.
Post a Comment