| Wolbachia in Humans? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contents: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| What is Wolbachia? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Wolbachia is an endosymbiont bacteria that infects the gametes of up to 76% of the world's insect species, causing such bizarre effects as cytoplasmic incompatibility, male-to-female sex-change, parthenogenesis, and in some cases outright killing off of all male off-spring. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cytoplasmic incompatibility can come in two forms:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Looking for a good SciFi read? Preview A Destiny of Fools A novel about Wolbachia by Ejner Fulsang |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Table 1 - Unidirectional cytoplasmic incompatibility |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Note in the unidirectional case (Table 1, Row 2) how an infected female can still become pregnant from an uninfected male. This is because of a peculiar feature of endosymbiont bacteria in that they cannot infect sperm cells. Sperm cells do not need to live long and thus have no need of cytoplasm, and as such, no capacity for a cargo of Wolbachia. This does not mean that a male insect cannot be infected with Wolbachia. They can and frequently are; they just cannot inherit the disease vertically the way their sisters do. Instead, they must contract the disease through horizontal transfer, e.g., the way humans might catch pneumonia. In males, Wolbachia occupy the cells responsible for the manufacture of sperm cells where they paint the maturing sperm cells with a toxin. On contact with the uninfected female egg, this toxin prevents the proper formation of a zygote and the egg dies. However, if the toxic sperm cell should encounter an infected female egg of the same strain of Wolbachia, the egg produces an antidote to the toxin and the zygote is allowed to form. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Table 2 - Bidirectional cytoplasmic incompatibility |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| In the bidirectional case (Table 2, Row 2) the differing strains of Wolbachia make fertilization impossible since the female's antitoxin is not able to counter the male sperm's toxin and no pregnancy occurs. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Male-to-female sex-change is common among Wolbachia-infected pill bugs, Armadillidium vulgare, aka the common wood louse. Male pill bugs are quite rare in the wild. Wolbachia benefits from this by skewing the sex ratio in favor of females. (Recall only females can pass on Wolbachia through inheritance. Males must pick it up through infection, hence, when they reproduce, no Wolbachia are reproduced.) Pill bugs have a WZ sex-determination system, in contrast to the more common XY system found in humans. Male pill bugs have ZZ chromosomes, female WZ. Males have all the requisite genes to become females, needing only a dose of male-inducing hormone to produce maleness. Wolbachia can inhibit the production of this hormone, thereby controlling gender in pill bugs. Hence, when an infected WZ female gives birth the offspring will be mostly WZ females and ZZ male-to-female conversions. The few males that are born become much sought after members of the colony. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Parthenogenesis, according to John Werren of the University of Rochester, has been identified in three dozen species of insects, mostly wasps. The bacteria accomplish this by duplicating and rejoining the chromosomes in the female egg during meiosis, the net result being a genetic duplicate, or clone, of the mother. Hence, only daughters are produced. Males in such a society quickly become obsolete in the practical sense, and what is obsolete, Nature quickly discards in the genetic sense. In some species when the Wolbachia are eliminated with antibiotics, the insects can no longer reproduce sexually. For example, when the wasp, Encarsia formosa, is treated for Wolbachia, males are produced in the offspring but they are incapable of mating, having lost their genes for male courtship. In other species, the females have lost the courtship response. In others the males have lost the genes responsible for making sperm. Wolbachia has developed complete control over the reproductive capabilities of these insects, giving some entomologists the idea that a way to combat insect pests is to eliminate their Wolbachia. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Killing off male offspring is common among a species of Ugandan butterfly, Acraea encendana. [See the Francis Jiggins reference in Zimmer.] This practice may seem counterproductive to Wolbachia, since killing off its male host amounts to suicide. However, if one assumes a given ecosystem can only support a certain number of butterflies, then from a Darwinian perspective, it makes sense for Wobachia to favor the sex that can support the most Wolbachia. Normal reproductive behavior in insects calls for hoards of males to congregate around choosy females with the females having the final say as to who gets to father the next generation. In A. encendana these roles are reversed because Wolbachia has reduced the male population from a norm of 50% to only 6%. The surviving males--now surrounded by hoards of females--are selective about whom they mate with, preferring non-infected females since they are the only ones that can produce males. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| In essence, Wolbachia is a parasitic bacterium that controls its host's reproduction. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| How is a species' identity affected by Wolbachia? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The litmus test for whether two animals are of the same species is whether a pair can mate and produce fertile offspring. For example, a horse and donkey can breed but their offspring, a mule or jenny, cannot. Hence, the horse and donkey are said to be of different species. Had they not been domesticated, over time the horse and donkey would likely become more genetically differentiated to the extent that they would be able to produce no offspring at all. This phenomenon is known as genetic drift, a key mechanism for speciation in the wild. Genetic drift is the evolutionary tendency of all life forms to modify their DNA to meet the changing demands of their environments. It applies to all life forms, even humans. For example, as groups of humans became geographically isolated during the ice ages, they began to adapt to their particular environments, producing what we think of today as racial differences. Had the ice sheets not receded, thereby reuniting these disparate groups, the 'racial' differences would eventually have become so profound as to prevent interbreeding. It can be said that it is the constant shuffling of sexual partners that causes a species to retain its genetic identity. However, it does not take an ice age to separate a group within a species. There are many ways to achieve sexual separation besides geographical. Among humans cultural taboos can be very effective. Insects have no culture to speak of, but they do have Wolbachia. The presence of a particular strain of Wolbachia within an insect colony effectively causes that colony to become genetically isolated from other colonies of the same species. In time genetic drift will have its way and a new species will be born. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Wolbachia could be a significant driver of speciation. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Can a bacterium common to insects invade a human? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| In 2001, Wolbachia was the subject of a biology class project at the University of Wyoming. Presented in PowerPoint as a CDC investigative report, complete with official looking logos from the Center for Disease Control's Division of Parasitic Diseases, the whole thing was entirely hypothetical, although the stir it caused was reminiscent of Orson Welles' famous radio broadcast of 'War of the Worlds.' The instructor was Dr. Merav Ben-David and the author of the presentation was one of her students, Samin Dadelahi. The premise of the scenario was that the Wolbachia bacterium had accidentally been incorporated into a bacterium that was virulent to humans, thereby causing the local human population to display the some of the same symptoms as insects do when similarly infected. In this scenario the symptom that attracted the attention of the CDC was parthenogenesis, females spontaneously cloning daughters. In the spring of 2000, the 'CDC' dispatched an investigative team to West Africa where the accident occurred to determine if there was any truth to the rumors of 'virgin' births. The team returned with the conclusion that the asexual pregnancies were real, the proof being that only females resulted from these pregnancies and in each case they were genetic duplicates of the their mothers. Further investigation revealed Wolbachia had infected the gametes of the mothers. Years ago, a laboratory experiment to infect mice with Wolbachia failed. Scott O'Neill of Yale Medical School points out that the bacteria are intolerant of the basal body temperature of mammals. However, Werren points out that it is too early to dismiss the possibility of Wolbachia infecting vertebrates. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| At least some scientists believe the notion of Wolbachia in humans is not entirely preposterous. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| How could an insect bacterium invade a human? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Although there have been no known infections of Wolbachia occurring in the vertebrates to date, there are biologically plausible means for such a transfer to take place. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Could Wolbachia be co-opted as a weapon of terrorism? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The motive for applying Wolbachia to terrorist agendas already exists. Western thinking received a serious wake-up call September 11, 2001. Before 9/11 who would have believed that a group of people would deliberately commandeer an airliner, kill the crew, and then crash the airplane into a skyscraper? And yet it happened, almost four times in a single day. Modern 'anything-goes' terrorists don't think like the work-a-day folks of western society. The only question that remains is what terrorist groups might have an interest in controlling reproduction? Following are some examples:
That Wolbachia could theoretically find its way into humans has been established, the major biological impediment being Wolbachia's disdain for the more tropical climate found in mammalian gametes. Skeptics might also argue that, as with insects in the laboratory, Wolbachia have proven easy to eliminate with antibiotics such as tetracycline. (Set aside for the moment that overuse of antibiotics can render them ineffective against microbes.) Moreover, with the development of the polymerase chain reaction, endosymbiont microbes such as Wolbachia have become much easier to detect. Finally, there is the problem of propagation. How would a terrorist group disseminate such a weapon on a local, national, or international scale? So at first blush Wolbachia would only make for a low-tech, easily-countered weapon. Wolbachia could be made into a sophisticated and sinister weapon of reproductive control. Consider the well-known organelle common to almost all nucleated cells in nature, the mitochondrion. Normally responsible for providing for the cell's internal energy requirements, the mitochrondrion shares its genetic lineage with Wolbachia and the two organisms harbor many of the same behavioral characteristics, e.g., both are only inherited along maternal lines. Indeed, it has often been observed in such plants as corn and rye that the mitochondrion is responsible for skewing the sex ratio in favor of females, the better to propagate more mitochondria. This gives rise to two notions:
modified to behave as Wolbachia could be exceedingly difficult to detect. How does one tell a benign mitochondrion from a modified one, given the only difference is in the internal DNA? Admittedly, with modern gene sequencing equipment, this is not impossible, but imagine trying to diagnose a local population of millions of people with such means! On the other hand, destruction of such a mitochondrion through antibiotics is a far simpler proposition until one has to address the host gametes' need for an alternate internal energy supply. The cure is effective but lethal. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Could Wolbachia be co-opted as a weapon of terror? How do you know it hasn't already? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bibliography:
presentation done as a class project for Evolution 2001, Deleted from Site 2002.
Island Model, Integrative and Comparative Biology, April 2002.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||