Sixty Three Years of Global Warming

On The Origin of Propaganda - 2

It is not just for the human species

In the first post of this series we considered some of the ways of deception and propaganda.

Specifically we looked at cases where microbes and other creatures exhibit deceptive behaviors.

Since then, one journal has gone all out by dedicating an entire edition to the subject of those types of microbial manipulations.

On the other hand, there is also a recent paper which shows communicative examples where some microbes issue factual or accurate signals in communication with other species to help other species to navigate to a suitable location where metamorphosis can be initiated (Settlement Signal).

An entire edition of one journal, for an example of primitive propaganda, concerns how some parasitic species can develop processes for the manipulation of the brains of their host species:

The ability of parasites to alter the behaviour of their hosts fascinates both scientists and non-scientists alike. One reason that this topic resonates with so many is that it touches on core philosophical issues such as the existence of free will. If the mind is merely a machine, then it can be controlled by any entity that understands the code and has access to the machinery. This special issue of The Journal of Experimental Biology highlights some of the best-understood examples of parasite-induced changes in host brain and behaviour, encompassing both invertebrate and vertebrate hosts and micro- and macro-parasites. The observation that parasitic infection can modify specific host behaviours is an old one (see Moore, 2002). The general consensus has been that these parasites have evolved the ability to manipulate host behaviour in order to advance their own reproductive success (Moore, 2002). Unfortunately, there has been a lack of information on two key points of this hypothesis. Firstly, it has proved difficult to unequivocally demonstrate that changes in host behaviour benefit the parasite (i.e. enhance parasitic fitness). Secondly, the mechanisms that parasites use to change host behaviour were completely unknown for many years, particularly in the case of vertebrate host systems.

(Neural Parasitology). Regular readers will remember that in other Ecocosmology Blog posts we have looked at how that pathogenic behavior can and has been changed whereby the pathogenic and/or parasitic behavior can become mutualistic once again to benefit both host and symbiont (Microbial Languages: Rehabilitation of the Unseen--2).

This concept of wanting to understand interspecies and intra-species communication for better or worse is a long and winding road:

Many parasite taxa are able to alter a wide range of phenotypic traits of their hosts in ways that seem to improve the parasite’s chance of completing its life cycle. Host behavioural alterations are classically seen as compelling illustrations of the ‘extended phenotype’ concept, which suggests that parasite genes have phenotype effects on the host. The molecular mechanisms and the host–parasite cross-talk involved during the manipulative process of a host by its parasite are still poorly understood. In this Review, the current knowledge on proximate mechanisms related to the ‘parasite manipulation hypothesis’ is presented. Parasite genome sequences do not themselves provide a full explanation of parasite biology nor of the molecular cross-talk involved in host–parasite associations. Recently, first-generation proteomics tools have been employed to unravel some aspects of the parasite manipulation process (i.e. proximate mechanisms and evolutionary convergence) using certain model arthropod-host–parasite associations. The pioneer proteomics results obtained on the manipulative process are here highlighted, along with the many gaps in our knowledge.

(Host–parasite Molecular Cross-talk). Signaling and messaging is common within, between, and among species, and that cross-talk is composed of both propaganda messaging and truthful messaging.

It would seem that our approach to other species sends them a scary message which may affect their behaviors (Are Microbes The Origin of PTSD?).

We attack small and large life on Earth incessantly with pollution, antibiotics, and just about anything else we can throw at them (On The Memorial Daze, Mammals May Be Nearly Half Way Toward Mass Extinction).

In the sense that we live off the bounty of the Earth, yet are destroying it, we are a parasitic species.

But like those pathogens and parasites that have changed their behaviors into benefiting others, we can and must do so as well (Change Is Not An Option - It Is A Must).

The previous post in this series is here

Microbial Languages: Rehabilitation of the Unseen--2

Are They Friend or Foe?

In the first post of this series (Microbial Languages: Rehabilitation of the Unseen) I postulated that perhaps there was a way to communicate with those microbes which are leading a pathogenic lifestyle, so as to induce modifications to their behavior.

Those modifications to their behavior would result in a change from a pathogen into a symbiotic microbe.

The result of their becoming a symbiont, a mutualistic microbe (which by definition means that it offers some benefit to its host --rather than being a damaging pathogen or parasite) would be a benefit to both.

A benefit to the host and to the new symbiont, which had previously been a pathogen or parasite endangering the host and perhaps even the used-to-be pathogen as well.

There could be peace and health to both that way, rather than war and disease.

Well, as it turns out there is a scientific paper which was published after that Ecocosmology Blog post, which indicates --whether in part or in whole-- that this dynamic has now been shown to have not only taken place, but shown to have taken place more often than what was expected:

Like pretty much all multi-cellular organisms, humans enjoy the benefits of helpful bacteria. (As you may have heard, there are more [bacterial cells] in the human body than [human cells].) These mutualistic microbes live within the body of a larger organism, and, like any good long-term houseguest, help out their hosts, while making a successful life for themselves. It’s a win-win situation for both parties.

Scientists still don’t understand exactly how these relationships began, however. To find out, a team of researchers from the University of California, Riverside, used protein markers to create a detailed phylogenic tree of life for 405 taxa from the Proteobacteria phylum—a diverse group that includes pathogens such as salmonella as well as both mutualistic and free-living species.

Those analyses revealed that mutualism in Proteobacteria independently evolved between 34 to 39 times, the researchers report in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.  The team was a bit surprised to find that this happened so frequently, inferring that evolution apparently views this lifestyle quite favorably.

Their results also show that mutualism most often arises in species that were originally parasites and pathogens.

(Smithsonian, emphasis added, links removed; paper is here). The statement "evolution apparently views this lifestyle quite favorably" should come as no surprise, assuming that a better chance at survival is a value of evolution.

This is a validation of the concept set forth in the first post of this series:

Living in harmony may also require us to do "remedial rehabilitation of the unseen", as the title of today's post suggests.

By that I mean to rehabilitate the microbes that have experienced past mass extinction events that utterly upended their world.

Which may have caused some of them to thereby end up going rogue and to then eventually become ill behaved parasites (Are Microbes The Origin of PTSD?).

Perhaps by learning to communicate with the rogues among them we will thereby be able to talk sense into some of the microbes that have become killers, maimers, or otherwise harmful?

(Microbial Languages: Rehabilitation of the Unseen). Who knows, perhaps "talking" to the pathogens as has been hypothesized will one day be the most efficient way to deal with diseases?

The previous post in this series is here.

---

This scientist be knowin' :

---