German scientists develop maps showing how the Zika virus can spread

The spread of infectious diseases such as Zika depends on many different factors. Environmental factors play a role, as do socioeconomic factors. Recently, several attempts have been made to predict the transmission risk of the Zika virus at a global and local level, but the spatial and temporal patterns of transmission are still not well understood. Researchers from Goethe University and the Senckenberg Society for Nature Research in Frankfurt were now able to generate reliable maps for the transmission risk of the Zika virus in South America. The results have been published in the scientific journal “PeerJ”. Based on the models for South America, they will use the method to determine the Zika risk for Europe as well.

In most cases, mosquitoes of the genus Aedes transmit the Zika virus to humans. Primary vectors are the yellow fever mosquito (Aedes aegypti) and the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus). Both mosquito species are widespread in South America. Whereas the yellow fever mosquito (Aedes albopictus) is nearly absent in Europe, the Asian tiger mosquito is widespread in the Mediterranean region. Zika infection risk modelled for South America.{module INSIDE STORY}

“With our new modeling approaches we can illustrate the risk areas for Zika infections in Latin America,” says Sven Klimpel Professor for Parasitology and Infection Biology at Goethe University in Frankfurt and the Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre. “The models additionally allow us to illustrate Zika risk areas for Europe. For example, our models indicate the two autochthonous cases in southern France in Département Var (see illustration).” At the end of October, French authorities announced the first Zika case in Europe; about a week later, a second case was made public.

According to the researcher’s calculations, the Zika infection risk in South America is highest along the Brazilian East Coast and in Central America. The risk is moderate in the Amazon region and lowest in the southern areas of the continent. The following countries are especially affected according to the model: Brazil, Columbia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela. In Europe, a risk of infection exists mainly in the Mediterranean region, but also in the inland regions of France and the Rhine areas of Baden-Württemberg.

To determine the infection risk of a specific area, the researchers Dr. Sarah Cunze and Professor Sven Klimpel modeled the potential spread of the two species of mosquito, Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Since the mosquitoes can only transmit the Zika virus in regions where the virus is present in the first place, the researchers included an Evidence Consensus Map in their risk model. This map categorizes the number of reported Zika illnesses at the regional level. The average temperature of the warmest quarter was also incorporated in the model since the temperature has a significant influence on whether the virus can survive and multiply in the mosquito. Finally, the scientists added socioeconomic factors such as population density and gross domestic product to their risk model

Finland's HELICS lab puts a conservation finger on the internet's pulse

Scientists from the University of Helsinki have figured out how to mine people's online reactions to endangered animals and plants so that they can reduce the chance of pushing species toward extinction.

When the last male northern white rhinoceros died in March 2018, online news printed obituaries, and millions of people grieved on social media. This one event alone quadrupled the number of posts using the keyword rhino, with the general sentiment expressed becoming distinctly negative.

Researchers at the Helsinki Lab of Interdisciplinary Conservation Science are keeping tabs on online trends that affect rhinos and other endangered species. They have developed a computer algorithm that continuously measures the volume of online discussions on the topic, and measures the emerging sentiments from users.

And it's this key information that alerts the scientists whenever the average sentiment exceeds the norm, highlighting that a major event affecting species has occurred. CAPTION Rhinoceros are threatened so severly by an illegal trade in their horns that tourists are advised not share the locations they spotted the animals in, so poachers cannot easily locate them.  CREDIT Christoph Fink{module INSIDE STORY}

In their article published in the journal Biological Conservation, lead researcher Christoph Fink and his team highlight the possibilities and the precision of their online-mining method. Compiling an exhaustive list of all rhino-related online events that happened around the world over five months, the researchers' method successfully identified all the major rhino-related events.

"We found that social media users and online news writers care most about rhinos when tragic events take place, such as the death of the last northern white rhino", Mr. Fink said. "But people love to share happy moments too, such as a rhino calf being born in a zoo."

Social media posts and online news articles mostly agree on which events are important, the researchers found. However, most posts came from countries that do not have rhinos.

"We don't think that this had much to do with the generally poorer internet access in countries where wild rhinos live, but more because many environmental agencies are based in Europe and in North America," Mr. Fink added.

New methods for complex data

"We're combining technologies from several fields, such as computer science, geography, and linguistics," Mr. Fink said. "Automatic sentiment analysis reveals the feelings people express in text, and other so-called natural language processing techniques have not been used much in conservation science."

The research team has collected around 5000 Twitter posts and 1000 online news articles in 20 different languages each day over the last five years. "But not every post is relevant", explains Dr. Anna Hausmann, one of the team members, "It's so much data that we have to boil it down to the essential information. For instance, a government official might want to keep an eye on if and how people embrace a new conservation action, but they cannot possibly look through tens of thousands of posts each day to get the vibe of the population".

Versatile applications

The researchers' new method can now be used for a wide range of conservation applications. Understanding how the public feels about the protection of certain animals, plants or landscapes will help in designing conservation policies that will be widely accepted or to adapt strategies facing pushback.

The algorithm can also slow the spread of misinformation, fight prejudices, and debunk ineffective solutions promoted in social-media bubbles. The method can also be used to measure the effectiveness of education programs and outreach campaigns, and it serves as a good starting point for gathering feedback on conservation tourism.

"We have finally shown how to use online network information to help conserve endangered animals and plants", said team leader, Associate Professor Enrico Di Minin. "Ultimately, we want to gain a deeper understanding of how much people care about other species, and how much they are willing to invest to save them." "Discerning how much people want to conserve species is essential for fighting the environmental crises unfolding around the world."

Researchers may stumble upon new drugs when supercomputing for alternative molecules to DNA, RNA among millions of possible genetic molecules

Scientists supercomputed a zoo of millions of alternate genetic polymer molecular structures, giving context for why biology encodes information how it does, and providing potential leads for new drugs and a guide to searches for extraterrestrial biology.

Biology encodes information in DNA and RNA, which are complex molecules finely tuned to their functions. But are they the only way to store hereditary molecular information? Some scientists believe life as we know it could not have existed before there were nucleic acids, thus understanding how they came to exist on the primitive Earth is a fundamental goal of basic research. The central role of nucleic acids in biological information flow also makes them key targets for pharmaceutical research, and synthetic molecules mimicking nucleic acids form the basis of many treatments for viral diseases, including HIV. Other nucleic acid-like polymers are known, yet much remains unknown regarding possible alternatives for hereditary information storage. Using sophisticated computational methods, scientists from the Earth-Life Science Institute (ELSI) at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, the German Aerospace Center (DLR) and Emory University explored the "chemical neighborhood" of nucleic acid analogs. Surprisingly, they found well over a million variants, suggesting a vast unexplored universe of chemistry relevant to pharmacology, biochemistry, and efforts to understand the origins of life. The molecules revealed by this study could be further modified to gives hundreds of millions of potential pharmaceutical drug leads. {module INSIDE STORY}

Nucleic acids were first identified in the 19th century, but their composition, biological role, and function were not understood by scientists until the 20th century. The discovery of DNA's double-helical structure by Watson and Crick in 1953 revealed a simple explanation for how biology and evolution function. All living things on Earth store information in DNA, which consists of two polymer strands wrapped around each other like a caduceus, with each strand being the complement of the other. When the strands are pulled apart, copying the complement on either template results in two copies of the original. The DNA polymer itself is composed of a sequence of "letters", the bases adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T), and living organisms have evolved ways to make sure during DNA copying that the appropriate sequence of letters is almost always reproduced. The sequence of bases is copied into RNA by proteins, which then is read into a protein sequence. The proteins themselves then enable a wonderland of finely-tuned chemical processes that make life possible.

Small errors occasionally occur during DNA copying, and others are sometimes introduced by environmental mutagens. These small errors are the fodder for natural selection: some of these errors result in sequences that produce fitter organisms, though most have little effect, and many even prove lethal. The ability of new sequences to allow their hosts to better survive is the "ratchet" which allows biology to almost magically adapt to the constantly changing challenges the environment provides. This is the underlying reason for the kaleidoscope of biological forms we see around us, from humble bacteria to tigers, the information stored in nucleic acids allows for "memory" in biology. But are DNA and RNA the only way to store this information? Or are they perhaps just the best way, discovered only after millions of years of evolutionary tinkering?

"There are two kinds of nucleic acids in biology, and maybe 20 or 30 effective nucleic acid-binding nucleic acid analogs. We wanted to know if there is one more to be found or even a million more. The answer is, there seem to be many, many more than was expected," says professor Jim Cleaves of ELSI.

Though biologists don't consider them organisms, viruses also use nucleic acids to store their heritable information, though some viruses use a slight variant on DNA, RNA, as their molecular storage system. RNA differs from DNA in the presence of a single atom substitution, but overall RNA plays by very similar molecular rules as DNA. The remarkable thing is, among the incredible variety of organisms on Earth, these two molecules are essentially the only ones biology uses.

Biologists and chemists have long wondered why this should be. Are these the only molecules that could perform this function? If not, are they perhaps the best, that is to say, other molecules could play this role, and perhaps biology tried them out during evolution?

The central importance of nucleic acids in biology has also long made them drug targets for chemists. If a drug can inhibit the ability of an organism or virus to pass its knowledge of how to be infectious on to offspring, it effectively kills the organisms or viruses. Mucking up the heredity of an organism or virus is a great way to knock it dead. Fortunately for chemists, and all of us, the cellular machinery which manages nucleic acid copying in each organism is slightly different, and viruses often very different.

Organisms with large genomes, like humans, need to be very careful about copying their hereditary information and thus are very selective about not using the wrong precursors when copying their nucleic acids. Conversely, viruses, which generally have much smaller genomes, are much more tolerant of using similar, but slightly different molecules to copy themselves. This means chemicals that are similar to the building blocks of nucleic acids, known as nucleotides, can sometimes impair the biochemistry of one organism worse than another. Most of the important anti-viral drugs used today are nucleotide (or nucleoside, which are molecule differing by the removal of a phosphate group) analogs, including those used to treat HIV, herpes and viral hepatitis. Many important cancer drugs are also nucleotide or nucleoside analogs, as cancer cells sometimes have mutations that make them copy nucleic acids in unusual ways.

"Trying to understand the nature of heredity, and how else it might be embodied, is just about the most basic research one can do, but it also has some really important practical applications," says co-author Chris Butch, formerly of ELSI and now a professor at Nanjing University.

Since most scientists believe the basis of biology is heritable information, without which natural selection would be impossible, evolutionary scientists studying the origins of life have also focused on ways of making DNA or RNA from simple chemicals that might have occurred spontaneously on primitive Earth. Once nucleic acids existed, many problems in the origins of life and early evolution would make sense. Most scientists think RNA evolved before DNA, and for subtle chemical reasons which make DNA much more stable than RNA, DNA became life's hard disk. However, research in the 1960s soon split the theoretical origins field in two: those who saw RNA as the simple "Occam's Razor" answer to the origins-of-biology problem and those who saw the many kinks in the armor of RNA's abiological synthesis. RNA is still a complicated molecule, and it is possible structurally simpler molecules could have served in its place before it arose.

Co-author Dr. Jay Goodwin, a chemist with Emory University says "It is truly exciting to consider the potential for alternative genetic systems, based on these analogous nucleosides - that these might possibly have emerged and evolved in different environments, perhaps even on other planets or moons within our solar system. These alternate genetic systems might expand our conception of biology's 'central dogma' into new evolutionary directions, in response and robust to increasingly challenging environments here on Earth."

Examining all of these basic questions, which molecule came first, what is unique about RNA and DNA, all at once by physically making molecules in the laboratory, is difficult. On the other hand, supercomputing molecules before making them could potentially save chemists a lot of time. "We were surprised by the outcome of this computation," says co-author Dr. Markus Meringer, "it would be very difficult to estimate a priori that there are more than a million nucleic-acid like scaffolds. Now we know, and we can start looking into testing some of these in the lab."

"It is absolutely fascinating to think that by using modern computational techniques we might stumble upon new drugs when searching for alternative molecules to DNA and RNA that can store hereditary information. It is cross-disciplinary studies such as this that make science challenging and fun yet impactful," says co-author Dr. Pieter Burger, also of Emory University.