New WNS Map Sets Precedent

[PYoungbaer]

Re: the Myotis velifer in Oklahoma, we need more details. I have seen the various e-mails flying around, and the phrase "not generally open to the public" has been used, but not defined. The bat has the fungus on it, but is not showing any other clinical signs. We don't know what the means. This species of bat isn't known in the East, but some eastern species (e.g pipistrelles) are known to travel west. That may be the bridge, or some have of course suggested a human bridge, but we have no evidence to support any guess at this time.

Re: the Myotis myotis, that's one of the European bats that has shown Geomyces destructans - is that what you're asking about?

I've not heard anyone mention morphing of the fungus, but you've raised the question, so I'll ask it next week in Pittsburgh when all the scientists and wildlife folks (and a few of us NGO types) gather for the third WNS Symposium. It will be hot, no doubt.

[PYoungbaer]

Here's the official Oklahoma press release:

http://www.caves.org/WNS/Oklahoma_Press_Release.pdf

[Batgirl]

Re: the Myotis myotis, that's one of the European bats that has shown Geomyces destructans - is that what you're asking about?

Sorry Peter, No I was referring to the Myotis Velifer in Oklahoma. These scientific names are confusing and hard to keep track of, but I am working on it.


This was one of the reasons I asked the question about morphing hyphae.

Although genetic tests indicate that the bat was harboring the fungus, the pattern of infection was not consistent with the white-nose syndrome infection observed in bats in the eastern United States.

According to some research I have done, spores mutate and adapt to their environment rather quickly. Temp fluctuations have a lot to do with spore generation as well. But as another thought, I wonder what the connection is between the French bat (Myotis Myotis) and the Oklahoma bat (Myotis Velifer)? Since both species test positive for G.D., but share no other clinical symptoms. Is the genetic sequencing the same? Are the two infections similar?

This new infection just creates so many more questions. Between this and the new fungus that recently showed up in the Pacific NW and making its way down into California, it makes me wonder what is going on. It's appears that there are some very serious environmental changes occurring.

[John Lovaas]

batgirl-

This was one of the reasons I asked the question about morphing hyphae.

Although genetic tests indicate that the bat was harboring the fungus, the pattern of infection was not consistent with the white-nose syndrome infection observed in bats in the

eastern United States.

According to some research I have done, spores mutate and adapt to their environment rather quickly.

I don't think there's any reason to think the fungus is mutating. From one of the OK DNR notices about WNS:

http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2 ... 1000,82782

The lab initially ran a PCR test which was positive for _G. destructans_. Follow-up genetic sequencing confirmed the find is a 100 percent match for _G. destructans_.

However, the pattern of infection was not consistent with white-nose syndrome observed on bats from the eastern U.S., nor were characteristic conidia observed to assist in identifying the fungus observed.

1) The lab(USGS-Madison WI) had a positive PCR result for Gd. Hard to say that there's been mutation. Gd genetic material was present- or, more precisely, the genetic markers associated with Gd.

2) ...However, the pattern of infection was not consistent with white-nose syndrome observed on bats from the eastern U.S..

based on what I've read, seen and heard recently, this could be re-written as "if we were just looking for bats with white noses and wing damage, we wouldn't have given this bat a moment's notice." A number of speakers at the recent Midwest Bat Working Group conference:

http://wiatri.net/inventory/bats/MBWG/2010dayOne.cfm

discuss this. I hope everyone sets aside some time to listen to all of the talks that are archived from this May meeting.

3) ...nor were characteristic conidia observed to assist in identifying the fungus observed...

or- they didn't find any spores on the bat. Just genetic material.

As to the OK myotis and the European myotis- well, they're both of the genus Myotis. And I suspect that if you were to review the collection records for Myotis in the eastern US that have tested postive for Gd, some of them might have a "pattern of infection not consistent with white-nose syndrome..."

[Batgirl]

I don't think there's any reason to think the fungus is mutating. From one of the OK DNR notices about WNS:

http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2 ... 1000,82782

The lab initially ran a PCR test which was positive for _G. destructans_. Follow-up genetic sequencing confirmed the find is a 100 percent match for _G. destructans_.

However, the pattern of infection was not consistent with white-nose syndrome observed on bats from the eastern U.S., nor were characteristic conidia observed to assist in identifying the fungus observed.

1) The lab(USGS-Madison WI) had a positive PCR result for Gd. Hard to say that there's been mutation. Gd genetic material was present- or, more precisely, the genetic markers associated with Gd.

2) ...However, the pattern of infection was not consistent with white-nose syndrome observed on bats from the eastern U.S..

based on what I've read, seen and heard recently, this could be re-written as "if we were just looking for bats with white noses and wing damage, we wouldn't have given this bat a moment's notice." A number of speakers at the recent Midwest Bat Working Group conference:

http://wiatri.net/inventory/bats/MBWG/2010dayOne.cfm

discuss this. I hope everyone sets aside some time to listen to all of the talks that are archived from this May meeting.

This is very informative John, thanks for posting.

As to the OK myotis and the European myotis- well, they're both of the genus Myotis. And I suspect that if you were to review the collection records for Myotis in the eastern US that have tested postive for Gd, some of them might have a "pattern of infection not consistent with white-nose syndrome..."

Why would the pattern not be consistent? Are there any similarities in inconsistencies between the OK bat and the French bat? If the bat shows the fungus but no other clinical signs, does this mean that the bat is immune? Can some species be carriers but not be infected? What does all this tell us about the disease? Is this something different than a possible 1st year infection? Could this be further proof that the fungus is opportunistic of something else and NOT the cause of death?

3) ...nor were characteristic conidia observed to assist in identifying the fungus observed...
or- they didn't find any spores on the bat. Just genetic material.

What is the difference between the conidia and the genetic material?

[wyandottecaver]

this has actually been mentioned before, especially in active bats and summer captures. They apparently groom off the exterior fungus and (in theory) the warmer spring/summer temps retard the exterior fungus growth, though the spores and possibly internal infection remains. Thus, the Conidia (the fungus "fruit" )may be absent, but the genetic material remains (possibly inactive spores).

Thus it probably does not show any type of immunity and simply represents a bat that might be in a somewhat common early summer situation if found in the east coast, being stumbled upon by chance in early spring in OK. The MO and far east TN examples are somewhat similiar in context if not details IMHO. It probably also shows that WNS is present in a region at least 1-2 years before hibernacula mortality is observed...which we kinda suspected anyway.

The European bats showed visible evidence of fungus but were not "apparently" as susecptable. However, their densities are MUCH lower and even if GD killed them just as readily, there would be fewer of them to find and GD would have to move through a much lower population density.

[Batgirl]

So Todd, are you saying that you think this is basically a 1st year infection?

[wyandottecaver]

I'm not saying that because I do not know. However, based on previous observations and what we *think* we know so far, I'd say the odds are high. I think that what we are seeing are bats that were infected in late-winter somewhere and then become mobile earlyy this spring. They groomed off any exterior fungus and would have (maybe?) survived the summer only to fall prey to GD this winter after hibernation.

It certainly is possible that the cave myotis has some higher resistance...but given that we have seen similiar situations where there wasn't any external fungus on infected animals before, I'd say the odds are low.

[PYoungbaer]

Having just returned from the Pittsburgh WNS Symposium, I've been getting caught up on the e-mails, Cave Chatter, etc., and thought this was as good a place to jump in as any - particularly as the genetic research is not settled on Geomyces destructans. This has implications for interpreting both the WNS map and media reports.

Several geneticists - both American and European - gave presentations in Pittsburgh, and there was active discussion leading me to conclude that much more research is needed on this fungus.

Dr. Hazel Barton gave a provocative presentation where she reported that she has isolated over 1000 fungal strains from caves. Working with 200 of these, she has identified 38 Geomyces species (using phylogenetic testing). Geomyces destructans has a unique intron (a portion of DNA) in its ITS region - a segment of the entire genome, but only a segment.

14 of these 38 Geomyces species have this same set, meaning that using this limited fungal primer set to get PCR positive results is insufficient for positive identification. The full genome must be sequenced, or many false positives may result.

So, what does this mean? It means that without the histology (other clinical signs), some of the findings confirming the presence of G. d. may not be. Species closely related to G.d. both genetically and morphologically are widespread in U.S. caves. It may also mean that the reports of the European version of G.d. being "100% confirmed" are only referring to being identical in the limited ITS region, not the entire genome.

This may mean that because of the increasing sophistication of the attempts to detect WNS, we're getting false positives on the bats of closely related fungi, but won't see mortalities as a result. On the other hand, it may also mean that we're just better at detecting the early arrival of WNS. Re: the "first year" discussions, that's a wide-open area of debate among the folks working on WNS - and I'm not sure it really is terribly important when all is said and done.

By the way, the French and German researchers at the Symposium made very clear that their version of the fungus is widespread in Europe, and they are not seeing related mortalities. They also made it clear they want us to keep our killing fungus here, and not send it to Europe. (So, we blame the Europeans - and they blame us. Hmmm.).

As I said, this was a provocative presentation, and I'm sure much will be debated about it. But it did reinforce my belief that we need to get more people, especially mycologists, working on the fungus. We're learning more about bats, but not enough about the fungus or the disease progression.

[wyandottecaver]

In other words, there are at least 14 look-alikes based solely on the quick PCR test...But I was under the impression the European strain had been fully sequenced and was a match...?

[John Lovaas]

In other words, there are at least 14 look-alikes based solely on the quick PCR test...But I was under the impression the European strain had been fully sequenced and was a match...?

I was looking at the French paper:

http://www.caves.org/WNS/WNS%20in%20Fra ... 9-1391.pdf

and saw this:

"...Two molecular markers were sequenced from 6 randomly chosen fungus cultures to confirm species identity... The internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions (ITS1, 5.8S, and ITS2) and the small subunit (SSU) of the rRNA gene were amplified separately..."

so the French ID was based, in part, on a match for these ITS regions.

If I'm reading Peter's description of Hazel's talk right, the PCR test developed to identify Gd does so by identifying specific ITS regions of the fungal DNA. And now, it appears, these ITS regions are common to other Geomyces we hadn't paid any attention to before. So the specific Gd PCR test might not be so specific.

The French fungus could, in theory, be a Geomyces- but a Geomyces that only shares ITS regions with Gd, but is not Gd.

[boogercaver71]

Thanks for the update Peter, I bet it was a highly spirited debate

[cavergirl]

Thanks, Peter.
Will there be a special WNS session at the NSS convention? will any of the researchers be presenting data?

[PYoungbaer]

As I am the Facilities Chair for the Vermont Convention, I have not taken on organizing a special session on WNS as I did at the ICS/Texas Convention last summer. There will be a display and decon station set up by USFWS, and WNS disinfection/personal safety workshop organized by the NSS Safety and Techniques Section, and a special evening WNS presentation by Vermont's bat biologist, Scott Darling, who has been intimately involved in the field research. That will take place Tuesday evening at the Lake Champlain ECHO Aquarium and Science Center on the waterfront, and will be open to the public. I have not seen the content of all the sessions, nor the list of all the presenters, but there may be WNS presentations as part of a larger session topic. The state and federal fish and wildlife folks are also working on some hands-on activities, such as working with bat detectors in the evening. And I've been asked by Gordon Birkhimer to speak to the Board of Governors about WNS at one of their Convention meetings - I'm not sure they've decided which yet, but I expect it will be Monday morning.

[Batgirl]

Peter,

Based on your summary report, could this mean that both MO and OK may be false positives or were the bats collected from these sites fully sequenced by the lab? How many other previously confirmed sites may be retested as a result? This presents a dilemma for confirmations that have occurred this past year.

By the way, the French and German researchers at the Symposium made very clear that their version of the fungus is widespread in Europe, and they are not seeing related mortalities. They also made it clear they want us to keep our killing fungus here, and not send it to Europe. (So, we blame the Europeans - and they blame us. Hmmm.).

Are you kidding me? If it's widespread in Europe, but new to US.....what color is their kettle?