ReportWire

Tag: evolutionary biologist

  • The Most Mysterious Cells in Our Bodies Don’t Belong to Us

    The Most Mysterious Cells in Our Bodies Don’t Belong to Us

    [ad_1]

    Some 24 years ago, Diana Bianchi peered into a microscope at a piece of human thyroid and saw something that instantly gave her goosebumps. The sample had come from a woman who was chromosomally XX. But through the lens, Bianchi saw the unmistakable glimmer of Y chromosomes—dozens and dozens of them. “Clearly,” Bianchi told me, “part of her thyroid was entirely male.”

    The reason, Bianchi suspected, was pregnancy. Years ago, the patient had carried a male embryo, whose cells had at some point wandered out of the womb. They’d ended up in his mother’s thyroid—and, almost certainly, a bunch of other organs too—and taken on the identities and functions of the female cells that surrounded them so they could work in synchrony. Bianchi, now the director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, was astonished: “Her thyroid had been entirely remodeled by her son’s cells,” she said.

    The woman’s case wasn’t a one-off. Just about every time an embryo implants and begins to grow, it dispatches bits of itself into the body housing it. The depositions begin at least as early as four or five weeks into gestation. And they settle into just about every sliver of our anatomy where scientists have checked—the heart, the lungs, the breast, the colon, the kidney, the liver, the brain. From there, the cells might linger, grow, and divide for decades, or even, as many scientists suspect, for a lifetime, assimilating into the person that conceived them. They can almost be thought of as evolution’s original organ transplant, J. Lee Nelson, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, told me. Microchimerism may be the most common way in which genetically identical cells mature and develop inside two bodies at once.

    These cross-generational transfers are bidirectional. As fetal cells cross the placenta into maternal tissues, a small number of maternal cells migrate into fetal tissues, where they can persist into adulthood. Genetic swaps, then, might occur several times throughout a life. Some researchers believe that people may be miniature mosaics of many of their relatives, via chains of pregnancy: their older siblings, perhaps, or their maternal grandmother, or any aunts and uncles their grandmother might have conceived before their mother was born. “It’s like you carry your entire family inside of you,” Francisco Úbeda de Torres, an evolutionary biologist at the Royal Holloway University of London, told me.

    All of that makes microchimerism—named in homage to the part-lion, part-goat, part-dragon chimera of Greek myth—more common than pregnancy itself. It’s thought to affect every person who has carried an embryo, even if briefly, and anyone who has ever inhabited a womb. Other mammals—mice, cows, dogs, our fellow primates—seem to haul around these cellular heirlooms too. But borrowed cells don’t always show up in the same spots, or in the same numbers. In many cases, microchimeric cells are thought to be present at concentrations on the order of one in 1 million—levels that, “for a lot of biological assays, is approaching or at the limit of detection,” Sing Sing Way, an immunologist and a pediatrician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told me.

    Some scientists have argued that cells so sparse and inconsistent couldn’t possibly have meaningful effects. Even among microchimerism researchers, hypotheses about what these cells do—if anything at all—remain “highly controversial,” Way said. But many experts contend that microchimeric cells aren’t just passive passengers, adrift in someone else’s genomic sea. They are genetically distinct entities in a foreign residence, with their own evolutionary motivations that may clash with their landlord’s. And they might hold sway over many aspects of health: our susceptibility to infectious or autoimmune disease, the success of pregnancies, maybe even behavior. If these cells turn out to be as important as some scientists believe they are, they might be one of the most underappreciated architects of human life.

    Already, researchers have uncovered hints of what these wandering cells are up to. Way’s studies in mice, for instance, suggest that the microchimerism that babies inherit during gestation might help fine-tune their immune system, steeling the newborn body against viral infections; as the rodents age, their mother’s cells may aid in bringing their own pregnancies to term, by helping them see the fetus—made up of half-foreign DNA—as benign, rather than an unfamiliar threat.

    Similarly, inherited microchimerism might help explain why some studies have found that people are better at accepting organs from their mother than from their father, says William Burlingham, a transplant specialist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. In the early ’90s, Burlingham treated a kidney-transplant patient who had abruptly stopped taking his immunosuppressive medications—a move that should have prompted his body’s rejection of the new organ. But “he was doing fine,” Burlingham told me. The patient’s kidney had come from his mother, whose cells were still circulating in his blood and skin; when his body encountered the transplanted tissues, it saw the newcomers as more of the same.

    Even fetal cells that meander into mothers during pregnancy might buoy the baby’s health. David Haig, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, thinks that these cells may position themselves to optimally extract resources from Mom: in the brain, to command more attention; in the breast, to stimulate more milk production; in the thyroid, to coax more body heat. The cells, he told me, might also fiddle with a mother’s fertility, extending the interval between births to give the baby more uninterrupted care. Fetal delegates could then serve as informants for future offspring that inhabit the same womb, Úbeda de Torres told me. If later fetuses don’t detect much relatedness between themselves and their older siblings, he said, they might become greedier when siphoning nutrients from their mother’s body, rather than leaving extra behind for future siblings whose paternity may also differ from theirs.

    The perks of microchimerism for mothers have been tougher to pin down. One likely possibility is that the more thoroughly embryonic cells infiltrate the mother’s body, the better she might be able to tolerate her fetus’s tissue, reducing her chances of miscarriage or a high-risk birth. “I really think it’s a baby’s insurance policy on the mom,” Amy Boddy, a biological anthropologist at UC Santa Barbara, told me. “Like, ‘Hey, don’t attack.’” After delivery, the cells that stick around in the mother’s body may ease future pregnancies too (at least those by the same father). Pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia become rarer the more times someone conceives with the same partner. And when mothers send cellular envoys into their babies, they might be able to cut Mom a break by upping a child’s sleepiness, or curbing their fussiness.

    Microchimerism may not always be kind to moms. Nelson and others have found that, long-term, women with more fetal cells are also more likely to develop certain kinds of autoimmune disease, perhaps because their children’s cells are mistakenly reassessed by certain postpartum bodies as unwanted invaders. Nelson’s former postdoctoral fellow Nathalie Lambert, now at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, has found evidence in mouse experiments that fetal microchimeric cells may also produce antibodies that can goad attacks on maternal cells, Lambert told me. But the situation is also more complicated than that. “I don’t think they’re bad actors,” Nelson said of the interloping fetal cells. She and her colleagues have also found that fetal cells might sometimes protect against autoimmunity, leading a few conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, to actually abate during and shortly after pregnancy.

    In other contexts, too, fetal cells might offer both help and harm to the mother, or neither at all. Fetally derived microchimeric cells have been spotted voyaging into the cardiac tissues of mice who have experienced mid-pregnancy heart attacks, settling the pancreases of newly diabetic mouse moms, and lurking inside human tumors and C-section scars. But scientists aren’t sure whether the foreign cells are causing damage, repairing it, or simply bystanders, discovered in these spots by coincidence.

    These questions are so difficult to answer, Way told me, because microchimeric cells are so challenging to study. They might be in all of us, but they’re still rare, and frequently hidden in tough-to-access internal tissues. Researchers can’t yet say whether the cells actively deploy to predetermined sites or are pulled into specific organs by maternal cells—or just follow the natural flow of blood like river sediments. There’s also no consensus on how much microchimerism a body can tolerate. In a vacuum of evidence, even microchimerism researchers are steeling themselves for a letdown. “A very large part of me is prepared to think that most if not all microchimerism is completely benign,” Melissa Wilson, a computational evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University, told me.

    But if microchimeric cells do have a role to play in autoimmunity or reproductive success, the potential for therapies could be huge. One option, Burlingham told me, might be to infuse organ-transplant patients with cells from their mother, which could, like tiny ambassadors, coax the body into accepting any new tissue. Microchimerism-inspired therapies could help ease the burdens of high-risk pregnancies, Boddy told me, many of which seem to be fueled by the maternal body mounting an inappropriately aggressive immune response. They might also improve the experience of surrogates, who are more likely to experience pregnancy complications such as high blood pressure, preterm birth, and gestational diabetes. The cells’ stem-esque properties could even help researchers design better treatments for genetic diseases in utero; one research group, at UC San Francisco, is pursuing this idea for the blood disorder alpha thalassemia.

    Before those visions can be enacted, some questions need to be resolved. Researchers have unearthed evidence that microchimeric cells from different sources might sometimes compete with, or even displace one another, in bids for dominance. If the same dynamic plays out with future therapies, doctors may need to be careful about which cells they introduce to people and when, or risk losing the precious cargo they infuse. And, perhaps most fundamental, scientists can’t yet say how many microchimeric cells are necessary to exert influence over a specific person’s health—a threshold that will likely determine just how practical these theoretical treatments might be, Kristine Chua, a biological anthropologist at UCSB, told me.

    Even amid these uncertainties, the experts I spoke with stand by microchimerism’s likely importance: The cells are so persistent, so ubiquitous, so evolutionarily ancient, Boddy told me, that they must have an effect. The simple fact that they’re allowed to stick around for decades, while they grow and develop and change, could have a lot to teach us about immunity—and our understanding of ourselves. “In my mind, it does alter my concept of who I am,” Bianchi, who herself has given birth to a son, told me. Although he’s since grown up, she’s never without him, nor he without her.

    [ad_2]

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • Go Ahead, Try to Explain Milk

    Go Ahead, Try to Explain Milk

    [ad_1]

    If an alien life form landed on Earth tomorrow and called up some of the planet’s foremost experts on lactation, it would have a heck of time figuring out what, exactly, humans and other mammals are feeding their kids.

    The trouble is, no one can really describe what milk is—least of all the people who think most often about it. They can describe, mostly, who makes it: mammals (though arguably also some other animals that feed their young secretions from their throat or their skin). They can describe, mostly, where it comes from: mammary glands via, usually, nipples (though please note the existence of monotremes, which ooze milk into abdominal grooves). They can even describe, mostly, what milk does: nourish, protect, and exchange chemical signals with infants to support development and growth.

    But few of these answers get at what milk, materially, compositionally, is actually like. Bridget Young, an infant-nutrition researcher at the University of Rochester, told me milk was an “ecological system”; Alan S. Ryan, a clinical-research consultant, called it a “nutritional instrument.” Bruce German, a food scientist at UC Davis, told me milk was “the result of the evolutionary selective pressure on a unique feeding strategy,” adding, by way of clarification, that it was “a biological process.” A few researchers defaulted to using milk to explain something else. “It’s the defining feature of mammals,” says Melanie Martin, an anthropologist at the University of Washington. None of these characterizations were bad. But had I been that alien, I would have no idea what these people were talking about.

    What these experts were trying to avoid was categorizing milk as a “food”—the way that most people on Earth might, especially in industrialized countries where dairy products command entire supermarket aisles. “Overwhelmingly, when we think about milk, when we talk about milk, we think of nutrition,” says Katie Hinde, an evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University. That’s not the wrong way to think about it. But it’s also not entirely right.

    The milk that mammals make is undoubtedly full of the carbs, fat, protein, vitamins, and minerals newborn mammals need to survive. And, across species, much of it does resemble the creamy, tart-tangy, lactose-rich whitish liquid that billions of people regularly buy. But to consider only milk’s nutrient constituents—to imply that it has a single recipe—is to do it “a disservice,” German told me. Mammalian milk is a manifestation of hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary tinkering that have turned it into a diet, and a developmental stimulus, and a conduit for maternal-infant communication, and a passive vaccine. It builds organs, fine-tunes metabolism, and calibrates immunity; it paints some of an infant’s first portraits of its mother, and telegraphs chemical signals to the microbes that live inside the gut. Milk can sustain echidnas that hatch from eggs, and wildebeest that can gallop within hours of birth; it can support newborn honey possums that weigh just three milligrams at birth, and blue-whale calves clocking in at up to 20 tons. Among some primates, it influences infants’ playfulness, and may shape their sleep habits and bias them toward certain foods. Some of its ingredients are found nowhere else in nature; others are indigestible, still others are alive.

    Milk is also dynamic in a way that no other fluid is. It remodels in the hours, days, weeks, and months after birth; it changes from the beginning of a single stint of feeding to the end. In humans, scientists have identified “morning” milk that’s high in cortisol, and “night” milk that’s heavy in melatonin; certain primates have “boy milk and girl milk,” German told me, which support subtly different developmental needs. Tammar wallabies, which can nurse two joeys of different ages at once, even produce milks tailored to each offspring’s developmental stage; Kevin Nicholas, a biologist at Monash University, has found that when the joeys swap teats, the younger sibling’s growth accelerates. And when mothers and their offspring change, milk changes in lockstep. It reflects the mother’s stress level and physical health, taking on new flavors as her diet shifts; its fat content fluctuates, depending on how far apart bouts of nursing are spaced. Scientists are just beginning to understand how made-to-order milk might be: Some evidence suggests that maternal tissues may register, via the breast, when infants catch infections—and modify milk in real time to furnish babies with the exact immune cells or molecules they need.

    “It’s a triad: mother, milk, and infant,” says Moran Yassour, a computational biologist at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. “Each one of them is playing a role, and the milk is active.” That dynamism makes milk both a miracle, and an enduring mystery—as unique and unreplicable as any individual parent or child, and just as difficult to define.


    In its earliest forms, milk probably didn’t have much nutritional value at all. Scientists think the substance’s origins date back about 300 million years, before the rise of mammals, in a lineage of creatures that hatched their young from very delicate eggs. The structures that would later develop into mammary glands started out similar to the ones we use to sweat; the substance that would become proper milk pooled on the surface of skin and was slathered onto shells. The earliest milks probably had few calories and almost none of its hallmark lactose. But they were deeply hydrating, and teeming with immunity.

    As our ancestors jettisoned egg laying for live birth, they began to extrude milk not just as a defensive shield for their offspring, but as a source of calories, vitamins, and minerals. The more that milk offered to infants, the more that it demanded of those that produced it: Mothers “dissolve themselves to make it,” German told me, liquefying their own fat stores to keep their babies fed, “which is impressive and scary at the same time.” In its many modern manifestations, milk is, in every mammal that produces it, a one-stop shop for newborn needs—“the only real time in life where we have hydration, nutrients, and bioactive factors that are all a single source,” says Liz Johnson, an infant-nutrition researcher at Cornell.

    Each time mammals have splintered into new lineages, taking on new traits, so too has their milk. While most primates and other species that can afford to spend months doting on their young produce dilute, sugary milks that can be given on demand, other mammals have evolved milk that encourages more independence and is calorific enough to nourish in short, ultra-efficient bursts. Hooded seals, which have to wean their pups within four days of birth, churn out goopy milk that’s nearly sugar-free, but clocks in at about 60 percent fat—helping their offspring nearly double in weight by the time they swim away. Marsupial milk, meanwhile, is ultra-sweet, with double or triple the sugar content of what cows produce, and cottontail rabbits pump out a particularly protein-rich brew. (One thing milk can’t do? Be high in both sugar and fat, says Mike Power, a biological anthropologist at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, where he maintains a large repository of mammalian milk: “Nature has never been able to produce ice cream.”) Each species’ milk even has its own microbiome—a community of helpful bacteria that goes on to seed the newborn infant’s gut. Mammal milks are now so specialized to their species that they can’t substitute for one another, even between species that otherwise live similar lives.

    Human milk—like other primate milk—is on the watery, sugary side. But its concentrations of immunity-promoting ingredients have no comparator. It bustles with defensive cells; it shuttles a stream of antibodies from mother to young, at levels that in some cases outstrip those of other great apes’ milk by a factor of at least 10. Its third-most-common solid ingredient is a group of carbohydrates known as human milk oligosaccharides, or HMOs, which aren’t digestible by our own cells but feed beneficial bacteria in the colon while keeping pathogens out. Roughly 200 types of oligosaccharides have been found in human milk—an inventory with more diversity, complexity, and nuance than that of any other mammalian species described to date, says Concepcion Remoroza, a chemist who’s cataloging the HMOs of different mammalian milks at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    The sheer defensive firepower in our species’ milk is probably a glimpse into the challenges in our past, as humans crowded together to plant, fertilize, and harvest mass quantities of food, and invited domesticated creatures into our jam-packed homes. “We were basically concentrating our pathogens and our parasites,” Power told me, in ways that put infants at risk. Perhaps the millennia modified our milk in response, making those unsanitary conditions possible to survive.


    Mammals would not exist without their milk. And yet, “we don’t actually know that much about milk,” down to the list of its core ingredients in our own species, says E. A. Quinn, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis. Even for the breast-milk components that scientists can confidently identify, Quinn told me, “we don’t really have a good handle on what normal human values are.” Many studies examining the contents of breast milk have focused on Western countries, where the population skews wealthier, well nourished, and white. But so much varies from person to person, from moment to moment, that it’s tough to get a read on what’s universally good; likely, no such standard exists, at least not one that can apply across so many situations, demographics, and phases of lactation, much less to each infant’s of-the-moment needs.

    Milk’s enduring enigmas don’t just pose an academic puzzle. They also present a frustrating target—simultaneously hazy and mobile—for infant formulas that billions of people rely on as a supplement or substitute. Originally conceived of and still regulated as a food, formula fulfills only part of milk’s tripartite raison d’etre. Thanks to the strict standards on carb, fat, protein, vitamin, and mineral content set by the FDA and other government agencies, modern formulas—most of which are based on skim cow’s milk—do “the nourish part really well,” helping babies meet all their growth milestones, Bridget Young, the University of Rochester infant nutrition researcher, told me. “The protect and communicate part is where we start to fall short.” Differences in health outcomes for breastfed and formula-fed infants, though they’ve shrunk, do still exist: Milk-raised babies have, on average, fewer digestive troubles and infections; later in life, they might be less likely to develop certain metabolic issues.

    To close a few of those gaps, some formula companies have set their sights on some of milk’s more mysterious ingredients. For nearly a decade, Abbott, one of the largest manufacturers of formula in the United States, has been introducing a small number of HMOs into its products; elsewhere, scientists are tinkering with the healthful punch via live bacterial cultures, à la yogurt. A few are even trying a more animal-centric route. The company ByHeart uses whole cow’s milk as its base, instead of the more-standard skim. And Nicholas, the Monash University biologist, is taking inspiration from wallaby milk—complex, nutritious, and stimulating enough to grow organs of multiple species almost from scratch—which he thinks could guide the development of formulas for premature human infants not yet ready to subsist solely on mature milk.

    All of these approaches, though, have their limits. Of the 200 or so HMOs known to be in human milk, companies have managed to painstakingly synthesize and include just a handful in their products; the rest are more complex, and even less well understood. Getting the full roster into formula will “never happen,” Sharon Donovan, a nutritional scientist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, told me. Other protein- and fat-based components of milk, specially packaged by mammary glands, are, in theory, more straightforward to mix in. But those ingredients might not always behave as expected when worked onto a template of cow’s milk, which just “cannot be compared” to the intricacies of human milk, Remoroza told me. (In terms of carbs, fats, and protein, zebra milk is, technically, a better match for us.)

    A company called Biomilq is trying a radical way to circumvent cows altogether: It’s in the early stages of growing donated human-mammary-gland cells in bioreactors, in hopes of producing a more recognizable analogue for breast milk, ready-made with our own species-specific mix of lactose, fats, and proteins, and maybe even a few HMOs, Leila Strickland, one of Biomilq’s co-founders, told me. But even Strickland is careful to say that her company’s product will never be breast milk. Too many of breast milk’s immunological, hormonal, and microbial components come from elsewhere in the mother’s body; they represent her experience in the world as an entire person, not a stand-alone gland. And like every other milk alternative, Biomilq’s product won’t be able to adjust itself in real time to suit a baby’s individual needs. If true milk represents a live discourse between mother and infant, the best Biomilq can manage will be a sophisticated, pretaped monologue.

    For all the ground that formula has gained, “no human recipe can replicate what has evolved” over hundreds of millions of years, Martin, of the University of Washington, told me. That may be especially true as long as formula continues to be officially regarded as a food—requiring it to be, above all else, safe, and every batch the same. Uniformity and relative sterility are part and parcel of mass production, yet almost antithetical to the variation and malleability of milk, Cornell’s Johnson told me. And in regulatory terms, foods aren’t designed to treat or cure, which can create headaches for companies that try to introduce microbes and molecules that carry even a twinge of additional health risk. Float the notion of a very biologically active addition like a growth factor or a metabolic hormone, and that can quickly “start to scare people a bit,” Donovan, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, told me.

    As companies have vied to make their formulas more milk-esque and complex, some experts have discussed treating them more like drugs, a designation reserved for products with proven health impact. But that classification, too, seems a poor fit. “We’re not developing a cure for infancy,” Strickland, of Biomilq, told me. Formula’s main calling is, for now, still to “promote optimal growth and development,” Ryan, the research consultant, told me. Formula may not even need to aspire to meet milk’s bar. For babies that are born full-term, who remain up-to-date on their vaccinations and have access to consistent medical care, who are rich in socioeconomic support, who are held and doted on and loved—infants whose caregivers offer them immunity, resources, and guidance in many other ways—the effect of swapping formula for milk “is teeny,” Katie Hinde, of Arizona State University, told me. Other differences noted in the past between formula- and breastfed infants have also potentially been exaggerated or misleading; so many demographic differences exist between people who are able to breastfeed their kids and those who formula-feed that tracing any single shred of a person’s adult medical history back to their experiences in infancy is tough.

    The biggest hurdles in infant feeding nowadays, after all, are more about access than tech. Many people—some of them already at higher risk of poorer health outcomes later in life—end up halting breastfeeding earlier than they intend or want to, because it’s financially, socially, or institutionally unsustainable. Those disparities are especially apparent in places such as the U.S., where health care is privatized and paid parental leave and affordable lactation consultants are scarce, and where breastfeeding rates splinter unequally along the lines of race, education, and socioeconomic status. “Where milk matters the most, breastfeeding tends to be supported the least,” Hinde told me. If milk is a singular triumph of evolution, a catalyst for and a product of how all mammals came to be, it shouldn’t be relegated to a societal luxury.

    [ad_2]

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • The Coronavirus-Naming Free-for-All

    The Coronavirus-Naming Free-for-All

    [ad_1]

    These days, it’s a real headache to keep tabs on the coronavirus’s ever-shifting subvariants. BA.2, BA.4, and BA.5, three Omicron permutations that rose to prominence last year, were confusing enough. Now, in addition to those, we have to deal with BQ.1.1, BF.7, B.5.2.6, and XBB.1.5, the version of Omicron currently featuring in concerned headlines. Recently, things have also gotten considerably stranger. Alongside the strings of letters and numbers, several nicknames for these subvariants have started to gain traction online. Where once we had Alpha and Delta and Omicron, we now have Basilisk, Minotaur, and Hippogryph. Some people have been referring to XBB.1.5 simply as “the Kraken.” A list compiled on Twitter reads less like an inventory of variants than like the directory of a mythological zoo.

    The nicknames are not official. They were coined not by the World Health Organization but by an informal group of scientists on Twitter who believe Omicron’s many rotating varieties deserve more widespread conversation. The names have, to an extent, caught on: Kraken has already made its way from Twitter to a number of major news sites, including Bloomberg and The New York Times. Unofficial epithets have come and gone throughout the pandemic—remember “stealth Omicron” and the “Frankenstein variant”?—but these new ones are on another level of weirdness. And not everyone’s a fan.

    The names associated with the coronavirus have been a fraught conversation since the pandemic’s earliest days, as scientists and public-health figures have tried to use terms that are comprehensible and hold people’s attention but that also avoid pitfalls of inaccuracy, fear-mongering, or xenophobia and racism (see: Donald Trump referring to the coronavirus as “the Chinese virus” and “kung flu”). The official names for variants and subvariants—names such as SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7—come from the Pango naming system, which was fashioned by evolutionary biologists in the early months of the pandemic to standardize variant-naming practices. As baffling as they can seem, they follow a clear logic: Under the system, B refers to a particular COVID lineage, B.1 refers to the sublineage of B lineage, B.1.1 refers to the first sublineage of the B.1 sublineage, and so on. When the names get too long, a letter replaces a string of numbers—B.1.1.529.1, for example, becomes BA.1.

    These official names do not exactly roll off the tongue or stick in the memory, which became a problem when new variants of concern started to arise and the world began groping for ways to talk about them. In May 2021, the WHO instituted its now-familiar Greek-letter naming system to stamp out the geographic associations that were gaining prominence at the time. B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and B.1.617—which were being referred to respectively as the U.K. variant, the South African variant, and the Indian variant—became Alpha, Beta, and Delta. But then, alas, came Omicron. Rather than giving way to yet another new Greek-letter variant, Omicron has spent more than a year branching into sublineages, and sublineages of sublineages. As a result, the nomenclature has devolved back into alphanumeric incomprehensibility. Seven different Omicron sublineages now account for at least 2 percent of all infections, and none accounts for more than about 40 percent (though XBB.1.5 is threatening to overwhelm its competitors).

    It’s great news that the ways in which the coronavirus has been mutating recently haven’t been significant enough to produce a whole new, widespread, and possibly far more worrisome version of itself that the world has to contend with. But it also makes talking about the virus much more annoying. Enter T. Ryan Gregory, an evolutionary biologist at Canada’s University of Guelph who is one of the leaders of a small, informal group of scientists that have taken it upon themselves to name the many subvariants that the WHO does not deem worthy of a new Greek letter. The names—Hydra, Cerberus, Centaurus—originated on Twitter, where Gregory compiled them into a list.

    Their value, Gregory told me, is that they fill the space in between the Greek and Pango systems, allowing people to discuss the many current Omicron variants that do not justify a new Greek letter but are still, perhaps, of interest. You can think of it in the same way we do animal taxonomy, he said. Calling a variant Omicron, like calling an animal a mammal, is not particularly descriptive. Calling a variant by its Pango name, like calling an animal by its Latinate species designation, is highly descriptive but a bit unwieldy in common parlance. When we speak of farm animals that moo and produce milk, we speak not of mammals or of Bos taurus but of cows. And so BA.2.3.20 became Basilisk.

    To decide whether a new lineage deserves its own name, Gregory told me, he and his colleagues consider both evolutionary factors (how different is this lineage from its predecessors, and how concerning are its mutations?) and epidemiological factors (how much havoc is this lineage wreaking in the population?). They’re trying to make the process more formal, but Gregory would prefer that the WHO take over and standardize the process.

    That, however, is unlikely to happen. When I asked about this, Tarik Jasarevic, a WHO spokesperson, told me that the organization is aware of the unofficial names but that, for the moment, they’re not necessary. “Virologists and other scientists are monitoring these variants, but the public doesn’t need to distinguish between these Omicron subvariants in order to better understand their risk or the measures they need to take to protect themselves,” he said. The WHO’s position, in other words, is that the differences between one Omicron subvariant and another simply haven’t mattered much in any practical sense, because they shouldn’t have any effect on our behavior. No matter the sublineage, vaccines and boosters still offer the best protection available. Masks still work. Guidance on testing and isolation, too, is the same across the board. “If there is a new variant that requires public communication and discourse,” Jasarevic told me, “it would be designated a new variant of concern and assigned a new label.”

    The WHO isn’t alone in objecting. For Stephen Goldstein, an evolutionary virologist at the University of Utah, the new names are not just unnecessary but potentially harmful. “It’s absolutely crazy that we’re having random people on Twitter name variants,” he told me. For Goldstein, dressing up each new subvariant with an ominous monster name overplays the differences between the mutations and feeds into the panic that comes every time the coronavirus shifts form. In this view, distinguishing one Omicron sublineage from another is less like distinguishing a wolf from a cow and more like distinguishing a white-footed mouse from a deer mouse: important to a rodentologist but not really to anyone else. To go as far as naming lineages after terrifying mythical beasts, he said, “seems obviously intended to scare the shit out of people … It’s hard to understand what broader goal there is here other than this very self-serving clout chasing.”

    Gregory told me that fear and attention are not his group’s aim. He also said, though, that his group is thinking of switching from mythological creatures to something more neutral, such as constellations, in part to address concerns of whipping up unnecessary panic. When it comes to XBB.1.5, some of that panic certainly already exists, whipped up by less-than-nuanced headlines and Twitter personalities who feast on moments like these. Whether or not the name Kraken has contributed, the fear is that XBB.1.5 might be a variant so immune-evasive that it infects everyone all over again or so virulent that it amps up the risk of any given infection. So far, that does not seem to be the case.

    As my colleague Katherine Wu reported in November, we are likely (though by no means definitely) stuck for the foreseeable future in this Omicron purgatory, with its more gradual, more piecemeal pattern of viral evolution. This is certainly preferable to the sudden and unexpected emergence of a dangerous, drastically different variant. But it does mean that we’re likely going to be arguing about whether and how and with what names to discuss Omicron subvariants for some time to come.

    Whichever side you come down on, the state of variant-naming pretty well encapsulates the state of the pandemic as a whole. Hardly anything about the pandemic has been a matter of universal agreement, but the present nomenclatural free-for-all seems to have taken us somewhere even more splintered, even more anarchic. We’re not just arguing about the pandemic; we’re arguing about how to argue about the pandemic. And there’s no end in sight.

    [ad_2]

    Jacob Stern

    Source link