USGS announces cause for WNS

[hewhocaves]

Btw, with regards to the article, I am a little disappointed in the wording in the conclusions (second paragraph to the end of the article.)

"In north america, the data indicate that WNS originated at a single site with high tourist traffic, consistent with the introduction of an exotic species".

Its a single sentence, but already it's being spun by the bat-to-bat deniers as "proof" that g.d. is spread by humans, which, unless the staff at Howe Caverns has a "bat petting" attraction, is unlikely .
Its unfortunate because the data within the paper suggest the exact opposite - that bat-to-bat contact is the only real transmission (89% under lab conditions - sounds very familiar to the ~90% - ~95% mortality rate).

[DeanWiseman]

Btw, with regards to the article, I am a little disappointed in the wording in the conclusions (second paragraph to the end of the article.)

"In north america, the data indicate that WNS originated at a single site with high tourist traffic, consistent with the introduction of an exotic species".

Its a single sentence, but already it's being spun by the bat-to-bat deniers as "proof" that g.d. is spread by humans, which, unless the staff at Howe Caverns has a "bat petting" attraction, is unlikely .
Its unfortunate because the data within the paper suggest the exact opposite - that bat-to-bat contact is the only real transmission (89% under lab conditions - sounds very familiar to the ~90% - ~95% mortality rate).

Well... I can see your point there. I think it's a fairly neutral sentence, but regardless, we have to take the good with the not-so-good. Anyone foolish enough to point to that statement as definitive proof in light of the current data is going to get peppered with verbal shrapnel, if I (or Peter) have any say about it.

From this study, it remains a very open question as to what introduced the exotic species in the first place. Given that millions and millions of people from all over the world have visited North American caves in the past century, that argues very much for idea that humans are an extremely low-risk vector. Yet, alternative hypotheses (i.e. bat in a shipping container) have yet to be ruled out.



-Dean

[self-deleted_user]

That was in the discussion section moreso, and in a paper, the discussion isn't to just summarize, it's to propose ideas of how things may have happened and people tend to just write a bunch of BS for it. And the truth is, exotic species are often introduced in such situations as they state. Of course, it doesn't make sense given their data as you pointed out, but it's the type of sentence that gets thrown into discussion often.

[tncaver]

WOW. (snip)
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.

Actually one step was left out. Basically we have to touch bats or rub up against something bats have touched AND THEN ACTUALLY TOUCH ANOTHER BAT AGAIN. And most likely that all has to happen before going out and deconning and going back to any other cave that has bats. Seems like the odds of most cavers infecting bats with WNS is probably one in a TRILLION.

WOW. That's common sense. This non scientist caver figured out at least two years ago that cavers weren't spreading WNS and was ridiculed for saying so. Scientists are soooo smart. Doh. It only took them two years longer to figure out what was obvious a long time ago. Maybe now they will be smart enough to tell their state DNRs the truth so that they can begin encouraging tourism again by opening up NON BAT CAVES to the public like it was before the WNS scare. Gosh, encouraging tourism might even help their state's local economy. Maybe even some BAT caves can be opened up when it
is not hibernation or maternity season. Gosh, I love common sense.

[Tim Williams]

There is an interesting Facebook page here https://www.facebook.com/SaveOurBats which presents any findings about WNS in a very negative pov for cavers (or splelunkers as they call us). At the moment they seem able to keep up to speed deleting any comments by real cavers who might like to dispute their statements with science and facts. For example they deleted my link to this BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15460894 which draws attention to the fact that Gd was not able to infect bats without direct bat-to-bat contact.

I wonder how they would cope with a very large number of cavers posting real facts and science on their page?

[Pippin]

I just posted it too and they deleted it. I wonder why? Because it points out in easy to understand terms that WNS isn't airborne?

[Cheryl Jones]

Actually one step was left out. Basically we have to touch bats or rub up against something bats have touched AND THEN ACTUALLY TOUCH ANOTHER BAT AGAIN.

G.d was found in soil samples taken from WNS-positive caves, and not found in soil samples from WNS-negative caves. I believe this was the paper on the results of the tests http://www.mycologia.org/content/103/2/241.abstract

This article Bat White-Nose Syndrome in North America by David S. Blehert, Jeffrey M. Lorch, Anne E. Ballmann, Paul M. Cryan, and Carol U. Meteyer in Microbe magazine says:
The cool and humid conditions of underground hibernacula provide ideal environmental conditions for G. destructans or other fungal growth. While most G. destructans isolates were cultured from skin or fur of bats collected in or near underground hibernacula during winter, DNA from the same fungus is found in soil samples from several hibernacula that harbor WNS-infected bats in the northeastern US. Also, G. destructans has been cultured from soil samples from hibernacula in three states where WNS occurs, supporting the hypothesis that bat hibernacula are reservoirs for this pathogen and that bats, humans, or fomites may transport G. destructans between hibernacula. How temperature and humidity differences among hibernacula influence G. destructans and WNS is not known.

So it appears that while we may have to touch a bat to transmit G.d., we could pick up the fungus on our clothing from soil in a WNS-infected cave.

Cheryl

[hewhocaves]

@Dean - yeah, I agree with you completely about introduction. I've spent several hours searching the 'net for anything resembling facts about bats accidentally introduced in the summer of 2005 (one of the great things about this study is that we are able to narrow it down to the summer of '05 (i.e. its a < 1 year incubation period). I couldn't find anything - no bats transported, no bat farms losing their exotic bats.. nothing. Of course that means nothing. In the post 9-11 world the last thing people were looking for on incoming shipments was a bat - they were looking for bombs.

What the CBD is employing here is a "God of the gaps" strategy. A "God of the gaps" strategy refers to a strategy fowarded by creationists (note: I am not advocating any religious / scientific view in this post - I am using this analogy solely to illustrate the parallels. The point will become apparent. Do NOT flame this post.). The strategy was to attribute anything not explained by science as proof of the existence of God. As science filled in more of the pieces, the other side became more adamant that the pieces left were most definitively "proof". The parallel is obvious. The CBD wants policy to be that people spread WNS. Since this paper has done a lot to make that hypothesis untenable, they will resort to saying that people brought it to new york. And since people brought it to NY, it must follow that people are a likely vector. Logically, if you accept the former as a premise, you must accept the latter. Unfortunately, the "proof" (if there ever was any) that it was a bat was either never observed or never recorded.

The evidence that it was a bat that brought it is circumstantial only.. It goes along this line:

1. New York City is the closest, largest port to Europe.
2. Albany is the closest regional distribution center to NYC.
3. Containers aren't opened until they reach a regional center (and are split up into smaller shipments).
4. In the years following 9/11, monitoring of imports dwindled (with a low in about 2005, coincident with the exposure of bats (which manifested in Feb 2006).
5. Commercial caves are frequently the most photographed, leading them to be preferentially selected as the initial site. (which means it may have been in a couple other caves, but there is no documentation).

The evidence against WNS being people transmitted is equally circumstantial...

1. People do not (usually) come into direct contact with bats.
2. People have been visiting commercial caves since the start of air travel. Why did it take 60+ years for WNS to show up?
3. Other caves (Mammoth, Luray, Carlsbad, Jewel) have more visitors per year than Howe. Those caves (Mammoth and Carlsbad especially) should have been the initial site for WNS.

@tncaver

I left a bunch of scenarios out - from total decon to bringing muddy gear in. Mostly because the data is sketchy on all of that. :) I welcome additional studies.

@Tim

a) thanks for the Likes.
b) they've deleted several of my posts as well, along with several of my replies. Understand, they are not interested in truth, accuracy or anything else. They are a (poorly disguised) front for the CBD to spread their anti-caver and anti-science agenda. I'm saying that as an individual - my views are not necessarily representative of the NSS (honestly, I don't want to get the parent organization in trouble because I go out on a limb as a whistleblower. and since i don't hold any position more important than "grotto treasurer" I can speak my mind without worry of political reprecussions as I speak for myself and not the NSS.

That's all I got. I encourage everyone to spread the journal article around. Its a wonderfully written and easily understood article. Kudos to the gaggle of authors.

[hewhocaves]

Actually one step was left out. Basically we have to touch bats or rub up against something bats have touched AND THEN ACTUALLY TOUCH ANOTHER BAT AGAIN.

G.d was found in soil samples taken from WNS-positive caves, and not found in soil samples from WNS-negative caves. I believe this was the paper on the results of the tests http://www.mycologia.org/content/103/2/241.abstract

This article Bat White-Nose Syndrome in North America by David S. Blehert, Jeffrey M. Lorch, Anne E. Ballmann, Paul M. Cryan, and Carol U. Meteyer in Microbe magazine says:
The cool and humid conditions of underground hibernacula provide ideal environmental conditions for G. destructans or other fungal growth. While most G. destructans isolates were cultured from skin or fur of bats collected in or near underground hibernacula during winter, DNA from the same fungus is found in soil samples from several hibernacula that harbor WNS-infected bats in the northeastern US. Also, G. destructans has been cultured from soil samples from hibernacula in three states where WNS occurs, supporting the hypothesis that bat hibernacula are reservoirs for this pathogen and that bats, humans, or fomites may transport G. destructans between hibernacula. How temperature and humidity differences among hibernacula influence G. destructans and WNS is not known.

So it appears that while we may have to touch a bat to transmit G.d., we could pick up the fungus on our clothing from soil in a WNS-infected cave.

Cheryl

yup - another reason why i tried to keep it simpler. I'd love to see some studies done to further quantify this!

[ron_miller]

While I would be delighted if this Nature paper said what others are claiming it says, unfortunately that's not the case. I think we can all agree that the paper provides very solid evidence that Geomyces destructans is the causal agent of WNS, but the paper most certainly does NOT state that bats must come into physical contact with a WNS infected bat to contract WNS.

What the paper does say about airborne transmission is that in the laboratory-based conditions and limited duration of this study, WNS was not transmitted directly through the air from sick bats to healthy ones. The paper itself provides several potential explanations for this:

"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." [note: "conidia" = "spores"]

It apparently took three years of trials before researchers could even get bat-to-bat transmission to work in a lab setting, so it's not surprising that the first study to look at airborne transmission did not find it. Note that the authors make absolutely no claim that this study rules out airborne transmission as a mechanism by which WNS can spread. Proving a negative is often difficult; this one study is not remotely strong enough to make such a claim. More research on this issue could prove very valuable.

It is ABSOLUTELY FALSE to claim that this study proves that direct bat-to-bat physical contact is the ONLY mechanism by which WNS can be transmitted. First, as noted above, just because airborne transmission didn't occur in this short-term test in a laboratory setting doesn't mean it doesn't occur in the field, nor that it can't occur at all. Second, and more importantly, we already know from other studies that bats can contract WNS solely from an infected environment, without the possibility of ANY contact with infected bats (Hicks and others, 2010 - healthy bats from Wisconsin, introduced into two known WNS-affected mines in Vermont from which all other bats were excluded, still contracted WNS). Third, we also know from WNS studies as well as from years of studies on other types of fungal transmission, that it's possible to inadvertently pick up spores in a contaminated environment, and if the gear or clothing isn't properly decontaminated, to transport those spores into a new environment and contaminate it with the fungus.

The fact that G.d. spores (conidia) on the infected bats in this study didn't fly willy-nilly through the air and wipe out the nearby bats without direct contact is certainly good news. I agree that this result suggests direct airborne transmission, if it exists, is at least somewhat harder than was previously thought, making it even more unlikely that humans could inadvertently transmit WNS through incidental contact with G.d. contaminated environments. This finding strengthens decontamination as a solid risk-management tool to reduce that already low probability even further.

Bottom line - to reduce the risk of inadvertently spreading G.d. or other microbial life from one isolated ecosystem to another, people should still be cleaning, and preferably decontaminating, their gear and clothing between caves.

[Tim Williams]

[quote="ron_miller"
Bottom line - to reduce the risk of inadvertently spreading G.d. or other microbial life from one isolated ecosystem to another, people should still be cleaning, and preferably decontaminating, their gear and clothing between caves.[/quote]

Quite right. Instead of anthropomorphically putting ourselves at the heart of this problem we should consider the potential for human impact as limited and, with decontamination, totally manageable.

[DeanWiseman]

Ron, we need a more specific literature citation regarding your "Hicks and others, 2010" and the study locking bats into a WNS-positive environment. You've used that reference twice in public (here and Facebook), and I've been looking for it, with no success so far.

Note that Alan Hicks was a co-author on the current study, too. Which generally means that no statement is going to go through any manuscript with his name on it without his permission. If he violently disagreed with the conclusions or statements in there, you bet he would not be on that author list... unless he was more concerned with being ON the list, which then is a conflict-of-interest.

-Dean

[tncaver]

I just posted it too and they deleted it. I wonder why? Because it points out in easy to understand terms that WNS isn't airborne?

Maybe because they get MONEY for research so long as the general public and government officials "think" WNS is being spread by humans.

[tncaver]

Actually one step was left out. Basically we have to touch bats or rub up against something bats have touched AND THEN ACTUALLY TOUCH ANOTHER BAT AGAIN.

G.d was found in soil samples taken from WNS-positive caves, and not found in soil samples from WNS-negative caves. I believe this was the paper on the results of the tests http://www.mycologia.org/content/103/2/241.abstract

So it appears that while we may have to touch a bat to transmit G.d., we could pick up the fungus on our clothing from soil in a WNS-infected cave.

Cheryl

Even if soil is infected, humans will not infect bats unless they actually touch a bat with the part of their body that touched the soil. If Ron Miller does
not believe the data support that statement, I think he is being stubborn. It is already known that GD has been shown to be difficult to grow in the
laboratory. Now it is has been proven that close proximity to infected bats is NOT enough to infect healthy bats. Biologists who visit a bat hibernacula or maternity area are not likely to be crawling through quano with the intention of handling bats with infected gloves.It seems the only way for humans to infect bats, would require INTENTIONAL handling of bats with infected gloves.

Cavers have been taught to NOT handle bats by our local grottoes for decades. We have
also been taught not to disturb them or wake them up. Cavers I know go out of their way to avoid bats. It has also been known for decades that bats can have rabies. It is also known that bat quano (aka the soil) may carry histoplasmosis, which is airborne. That is another reason cavers have been
taught to stay away from bats and bat areas. The likely hood of cavers spreading WNS is slim to none.

The latest paper mentioned that bats caged within 1.3 centimeter of each other still did not infect each other. That means being close to a bat is not enough to spread infection. Only direct contact with infected bats or infected areas spreads WNS. Ron Miller may chose not to believe that statement however, evidence does seem to indicate that scenerio.

Perhaps another study should be conducted to see if infected bats must touch specific body parts to spread the disease such as mouth or genitals or can it be spread by bats simply touching wings. A study could also be conducted to determine how much airflow (if at all possible) would it take to spread WNS via airborne particles. The information could be refined to help understand just how difficult it is for humans to spread WNS. Anyone up for this research?

[hewhocaves]

Ron, we need a more specific literature citation regarding your "Hicks and others, 2010" and the study locking bats into a WNS-positive environment. You've used that reference twice in public (here and Facebook), and I've been looking for it, with no success so far.

Note that Alan Hicks was a co-author on the current study, too. Which generally means that no statement is going to go through any manuscript with his name on it without his permission. If he violently disagreed with the conclusions or statements in there, you bet he would not be on that author list... unless he was more concerned with being ON the list, which then is a conflict-of-interest.

-Dean

I think I can help -

The study does seem to be difficult to find online. I find reference to it in a powerpoint here:
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/hot/W ... update.pdf

the Burlington Free press has a little more info (page 4):
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/arti ... e-syndrome

"Meanwhile, Darling had become a partner in the national search to understand white-nose syndrome. In October 2009, he brought 80 healthy bats from white-nose-free Wisconsin and introduced them to a mine in Stockbridge and a cave in Bridgewater where bats had died the previous winter.

Local bats were kept out of the cave with screens. Within weeks all the Wisconsin bats were infected, demonstrating that the caves themselves had become repositories of the fungus — bat-to-bat transmission wasn't necessary."

the actual source appears to be a talk presented at a WNS conference (p12).
http://www.fws.gov/WhiteNoseSyndrome/pd ... ersFor.pdf

The abstract is below:
"Addressing the white-nose syndrome (WNS) related decline in bats requires in part, an understanding of the role played by environmental transmission of the disease during the hibernating season. To further that understanding , we transferred 79 Myotis lucifugus from a WNS free mine in northern Wisconsin and released them into two WNS
positive mines in Vermont (Greely and Bridgewater), where native bats had been excluded. Wing bands and uniquely marked data loggers or similar masses were attached to each bat. We took elaborate precautions to make sure that the introduced bats would not escape and return to Wisconsin. Bats were released in each mine on October 26,
2009, and were subsequently visited on December 16, January 27, February 18, March 18, and April 9, 2010. On each visit we recorded the location of all bats encountered, collected dead, and severely moribund, individuals for necropsy and photographed all animals on roost so that we could check for visible evidence of Geomyces destructans (G.d.) infection (the presumed causative agent of WNS). Twenty one bats (12 of 41 at Bridgewater, 9 of 38 at Greely) were
never observed alive during these visits and presumably died from non- WNS causes. Among the living observed on 12/16 (8 weeks postrelease), 15 of 24 (Greely) and 1 of 28 (Bridgewater) showed visible evidence of a G.d. like infection. In Greely, all bats that had ever been observed alive were dead by 2/18/2010. Four bats were still alive at
Bridgewater on 3/18/2010 one of which was still alive, but moribund on 4/8/2008. We have not completed the examinations, or analysis of data, so we cannot yet state how many mortalities can be attributed to WNS. We discuss the likelihood of a positive finding and what it could mean for disease management and the future of affected bat species."

So, long story short, the took 2 mines - presumably swept them for live bats and introduced "clean" bats. The stats break down as follows:

Bridgewater Mine
41 bats introduced
12 bats "lost" (never observed after introduction) - this leaves 29 to monitor
1 had g.d. 51 days later
25 were dead 143 days later
28 were dead 165 days later

Greely Mine
38 bats introduced
9 bats "lost" (never observed after introduction) - this leaves 29 to monitor
15 had g.d 51 days later
all bats dead 115 days later

A few points immediately spring to mind.

1. Its assumed that there were no bats present in the mine. From the news article, it sounds like they put netting up on the mine entrance to keep the infected bats out. While I'm sure the crew tried their best to isolate the cave, it should also be pointed out that after they released the clead bats they were unable to find 29% of the Bats in Bridgewater Mine as well as 24% of the bats in Greely mine. Yikes! That's not encouraging.

2. these were large colonies. Greely mine had 3,000 bats in it before WNS (1). (I can't find figures for Bridgewater mine). Presumably these are the worst case scenarios and g.d. is literally all over the place. Which means that the "environment" is no different than a researcher swabbing a bat with g.d in a lab. (i.e. scenario one). It does suggest that these mines need to be sealed from bats and "Deconned" before we ever let bats in or we'll be back to square one.

3. There's a error in their experimental process. By allowing the bats to intermingle in the cave with one another, this experiment is not an environment to bat test. It's an environment to bat test ONLY until the first bat gets infected. Then we're back to bat to bat transmission. We can see that after day 51 at least one bat has it in both locations. So if you're trying to show ONLY environmental impacts, then you have to throw out the data after day 51 as you've changed the experimental parameters.

Don't get me wrong, this is a fascinating study, and corresponds nicely with the lab work study just published. But you can see how this study is less rigorous than the lab study, because we cannot account for all the possible variables in the study - were the mines truly sealed? did they get all the bats beforehand? how did the first bat get g.d and did he give it to the other bats or did they get it independently?

(1) http://www.therenewableplanet.com/blogs ... ungus.aspx

photo of the Greely Mine netting
http://www.fws.gov/newengland/images/Ba ... te_jpg.jpg