USGS announces cause for WNS

[BrianC]

treated them with
conidia [aka "spores" -DW] of G. destructans h

Suffocation by cramming so much in their tiny little lungs. They were lucky to live as long as they did. I can imagine all the little I/V tubes all over the place with pumps flowing O2, certainly they weren't no codes.

[DeanWiseman]

From what I can tell from the abstract, the science isn't bad, and its one of those necessary (If obvious) steps.

The methods they used are pretty elegant. Articles with bad (or poorly-defensible) experimental protocols rarely,if ever, make "Nature"... given that "Nature" publishes less than 1 article out of every 10 submitted. The editors don't mess around, because they don't have to.

[BrianC]

I get so angry with scientific study's that can be interpreted as one sees fit.

So in a nutshell.
WNS does not transmit easily unless exposure to infected bats has occurred.
WNS does not transmit through the air
WNS requires existing bat to bat exposure in hibernacula to deposit enough spores to be of any threat to healthy bats which by the way would be to late for the bats.

[self-deleted_user]

Yeah Nature is arguably THE journal. EVERYONE wants to get into it. Extremely high impact rating, the only one that can come close is Science. If you are a scientist, you're dream is to get a Nature publication.

Now we just need to take this to Congress and all the services that are closing the caves, shove the proof in their face (nicely, of course) because really it's incontrovertible proof closing caves is gonna do shit. The (arguably) best thing that could have happened back in 2006 would have been euthanizing all the infected bats.

[BrianC]

Yeah Nature is arguably THE journal. EVERYONE wants to get into it. Extremely high impact rating, the only one that can come close is Science. If you are a scientist, you're dream is to get a Nature publication.

Now we just need to take this to Congress and all the services that are closing the caves, shove the proof in their face (nicely, of course) because really it's incontrovertible proof closing caves is gonna do shit. The (arguably) best thing that could have happened back in 2006 would have been euthanizing all the infected bats.

That is what Todd wanted, only it would require the caves and mines to be sealed to limit future exposure. Much to large of scale to be remotely plausible.

[self-deleted_user]

treated them with
conidia [aka "spores" -DW] of G. destructans h

Suffocation by cramming so much in their tiny little lungs. They were lucky to live as long as they did. I can imagine all the little I/V tubes all over the place with pumps flowing O2, certainly they weren't no codes.

...you clearly didn't read the article nor have any concept for how science is done.
Cram into tiny little lungs? They placed the spores on wing and fur between eye and ear. It's called reading the freakin' methods.

[self-deleted_user]

Yeah Nature is arguably THE journal. EVERYONE wants to get into it. Extremely high impact rating, the only one that can come close is Science. If you are a scientist, you're dream is to get a Nature publication.

Now we just need to take this to Congress and all the services that are closing the caves, shove the proof in their face (nicely, of course) because really it's incontrovertible proof closing caves is gonna do shit. The (arguably) best thing that could have happened back in 2006 would have been euthanizing all the infected bats.

That is what Todd wanted, only it would require the caves and mines to be sealed to limit future exposure. Much to large of scale to be remotely plausible.

No, sealing them doesn't stop the bats from getting to each other so all we do is take away their hibernacula? Righttttt that makes sense.

And at this point, the WNS is too wide-spread for euthanization to be effective which is why I stated if it had happened back in 2006 it would make sense, not sure it's viable for today. Nature will take care of itself like it has always done.

[Pippin]

This just proves what some of us have speculated all along, that another pathogen or viral weakening is occurring between the bats to allow the fungus to thrive.

That's not what it proves at all. I just read the study (thanks, Dean!) and from my reading of it, It just shows that perfectly healthy bats with no other underlying health conditions have a high chance (89%) of getting WNS when they're in close physical contact with bats that already have WNS. Healthy bats did not get sick while in close proximity, but not direct physical contact, with bats with WNS. This study doesn't have anything to do with other pathogens or virus--and the researchers checked the bats to make sure there wasn't anything else odd going on that would make them more susceptible to disease (unfortunately, during bat autopsy). Basically, it shows that the fungus all by itself, when spread between bats, is enough to make perfectly healthy bats sick.

The methods section of the paper says that the researchers applied a liquid solution containing spores to the bat's wing and they also applied a bit of solution to the fur between the eye and the ear--not directly to the nose!

Brian, I'm not sure why you seem to be slamming this study. It's good work and frankly backs up what cavers have been saying for a while now, that blanket cave closures don't help keep bats healthy--unless federal agencies think cavers like to catch live bats and rub them directly on contaminated boots or clothing (maybe I shouldn't say that, that will probably be the new excuse to maintain closures).

[Pippin]

In other words, this study to me shows that bats get sick when they rub up against bats that are already sick and have spores on their bodies or fur. It shows that under lab conditions, spores are not airborne and bats cannot get sick if they don't come into direct physical contact with a sick bat. If spores are not airborne, and since bats do not rub against against human cave explorers, I fail to see how anyone can now say that cavers are contributing to WNS in any significant way. I'm sure I'll find out soon.

The airborne argument is what I've heard repeatedly from biologists down my way. I've been told that I could take a spore into a cave "near" a bat hibernaculum, that the spore could float around and get on a bat, then that bat could spread the disease to a hibernating colony. I've heard lots of variations on that theme for years now to justify total closure of all caves. This study sort of blows that idea out of the water. To me, this study is good news. Well, bad news for bats, good news for cavers. Maybe people will stop blaming us now. I'm getting really sick of being blamed for WNS, especially since I love bats so much.

[hewhocaves]

3.)To determine if WNS could be spread between bats through the air,
healthy bats (n536) were placed in mesh cages in close proximity to
(separated by 1.3 cm), but not in direct contact with, the positive
control and treated groups. After a period of 102 days, none of the
animals exposed to possible airborne conidia from bats with WNS
showed histopathological evidence of infection. This may be due to
an inability of G. destructans conidia to travel through air at levels
sufficient to establish infections in neighbouring individuals over the
experimental interval or could reflect that conditions within the incubators
(for example, airflow patterns and/or static charges) were not
conducive to airborne transfer of conidia.[/i]

WOW. that is BIG. very BIG. (assuming I understand it). Let me try to rephrase that -
WNS transmission requires direct contact (touching) between a WNS affected surface and the bat. So basically, we have to touch the bats or rub up against something that the bat touches to give WNS to them. A distance as small as 1.3 cm is insufficient to transmit WNS.

Hey, people in charge! See those bats on the ceiling 10 feet above my head with the WNS? Yeah, we didn't do that.

I'm going to read and re-read and re-re-read this article now. Thank you for posting it. Very very cool.

[DeanWiseman]

Hey, people in charge! See those bats on the ceiling 10 feet above my head with the WNS? Yeah, we didn't do that.

It's a seminal finding, for sure. You guys are sort of experiencing something that we "in the business" experience, which is that "Oh! Wow!" feeling you get reading articles that really change one's perspective.

Now we just need to take this to Congress and all the services that are closing the caves, shove the proof in their face (nicely, of course) because really it's incontrovertible proof closing caves is gonna do shit. The (arguably) best thing that could have happened back in 2006 would have been euthanizing all the infected bats.

Along those lines, the WNS Committee (with certain Board Members, ) is currently working on something to that end. Stay tuned...


-Dean

[BrianC]

This just proves what some of us have speculated all along, that another pathogen or viral weakening is occurring between the bats to allow the fungus to thrive.

That's not what it proves at all. I just read the study (thanks, Dean!) and from my reading of it, It just shows that perfectly healthy bats with no other underlying health conditions have a high chance (89%) of getting WNS when they're in close physical contact with bats that already have WNS. Healthy bats did not get sick while in close proximity, but not direct physical contact, with bats with WNS. This study doesn't have anything to do with other pathogens or virus--and the researchers checked the bats to make sure there wasn't anything else odd going on that would make them more susceptible to disease (unfortunately, during bat autopsy). Basically, it shows that the fungus all by itself, when spread between bats, is enough to make perfectly healthy bats sick.

The methods section of the paper says that the researchers applied a liquid solution containing spores to the bat's wing and they also applied a bit of solution to the fur between the eye and the ear--not directly to the nose!

Brian, I'm not sure why you seem to be slamming this study. It's good work and frankly backs up what cavers have been saying for a while now, that blanket cave closures don't help keep bats healthy--unless federal agencies think cavers like to catch live bats and rub them directly on contaminated boots or clothing (maybe I shouldn't say that, that will probably be the new excuse to maintain closures).

You are right Pippin, I had speculated prior to reading what Dean had written. Though my thoughts were based on spore transmission being airborne (normal spore transmission) Now that blows my thinking out of the water. I could not imagine spores not being airborne, nor could anyone else for that matter, that is why spores are spores, so spread naturally can be easy. On another note, since the spores are more or less sticky, the study does give a similar outcome of humans not spreading WNS. All I can say is that the facts all along didn't provide evidence of human transmission(this was very obvious) Now this study, in a totally different way, gives us the same outcome.

[BrianC]

I would now like to see the spores test on mice, to see the immune response, and possibly give a clue to some reversal actions we can use to fight the problem.

[DeanWiseman]

You are right Pippin, I had speculated prior to reading what Dean had written. Though my thoughts were based on spore transmission being airborne (normal spore transmission) Now that blows my thinking out of the water. I could not imagine spores not being airborne, nor could anyone else for that matter, that is why spores are spores, so spread naturally can be easy. On another note, since the spores are more or less sticky, the study does give a similar outcome of humans not spreading WNS. All I can say is that the facts all along didn't provide evidence of human transmission(this was very obvious) Now this study, in a totally different way, gives us the same outcome.

Think of fungal spores as like seeds from weeds and plants. Some (dandelion, cottonwood tree) take advantage of air mechanisms... other weeds (like beggar's lice) stick to your clothes and then drop off in some other place. Some even use water-based floating mechanisms for dispersal (i.e. coconut). Same is true with fungi. You don't get athlete's foot (a fungal infection) from air exposure. You get it walking across a contaminated floor. On the other hand, certain forms of yeast fly through the air all the time... which is why certain ales, wines, breads, and cheeses are unique to certain regions, by virtue of local forms of yeast.

So while many fungi do transmit through air... the hypothesis that WNS is air-transmitted now has fairly strong evidence against it.


-Dean

[BrianC]

Think of fungal spores as like seeds from weeds and plants. Some (dandelion, cottonwood tree) take advantage of air mechanisms... other weeds (like beggar's lice) stick to your clothes and then drop off in some other place. Some even use water-based floating mechanisms for dispersal (i.e. coconut). Same is true with fungi. You don't get athlete's foot (a fungal infection) from air exposure. You get it walking across a contaminated floor. On the other hand, certain forms of yeast fly through the air all the time... which is why certain ales, wines, breads, and cheeses are unique to certain regions, by virtue of local forms of yeast.

So while many fungi do transmit through air... the hypothesis that WNS is air-transmitted now has fairly strong evidence against it.


-Dean

Thanks Dean! I have been dealing with algae spores for more than thirty years, and am versed in their transmission and growth, destruction potential. Fungal spores are in most (obviously Gd is different) cases similar.