Interestingly, I saw an article that actually ended up startling me than giving me the confidence I had hoped. According to a survey, most Americans are skeptic of evolution rather than having confidence in it as a concept. 31% of respondents said they were very confident that “life on earth, including human beings, evolved through a process of natural selection” whereas 42% said they were not at all confident. These results are surprising to me as I had largely hoped that Evolutionary medicine would be a part of undergraduate education. I had always known that evolution was a controversial topic, especially growing up in the South, but it surprised me just how much of a majority of Americans have no confidence at all. This makes it tough in the trajectory of Darwinian Medicine being implemented into medical practice, as the essential framework of the practice could contradict the beliefs of a large portion of Americans.

The article continues to highlight that these numbers are due to politics and religion, where once more science seems to be at odds with faith. Further, it also highlights that the implications of this rift are that many children will not be vaccinated and spread diseases because of the generalized distrust of certain scientific concepts. In the same survey, 15 % of Americans said they were not at all confident that childhood vaccines were safe and effective and 30% were not sure. 15% may not seem like a lot, but considering the number of Americans that amounts to it is a much larger number than I expected.

These sorts of differing views on evolutionary concepts may make it much tougher for evolutionary biologists and supporters of Darwinian Medicine to see their visions implemented in American education.

References:

Poll shows Americans not confident Big Bang, climate change or evolution is real. (n.d.). CBSNews. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-big-bang-evolution-ap-poll/

For my last blog post, I thought it would be appropriate to reflect on this course and the significance of evolution in the broader context of medicine and drug development. In his Huffington Post article, Steven Newton briefly explains five reasons as to why evolution is an essential component of modern medicine. The five areas of medicine where evolution plays a critical role (in Newton’s list) are: H1N1 and emerging diseases, HIV, vaccines, antibiotic resistance, and drug development. While the notion of evolution may conjure an image of a slow process, this article demonstrates otherwise. Four of the five topics that Newton mentions emphasize how rapidly evolution can occur and how it mandates the development of new treatments, vaccines, and antibiotics.

On a deeper level, however, this article is particularly relevant to this course as many seemingly ‘obvious’ statements that Newton mentions now carry a deeper evolutionary meaning and context with them. For example, when Newton mentions how ‘rapid evolution combined with rapid travel’ can lead to the spread of a disease, I am reminded of our class discussion on how human behavior and rapid transportation have facilitated the transmission of many infectious diseases. Furthermore, Newton’s reference to how a ‘multi-drug’ approach is better suited for HIV treatment (due to the virus’ rapid evolution) reminds me of Dr. Goldberg’s lecture on cystic fibrosis (CF) and how drug cocktails have been used to treat patients with CF. The article’s discussion of the importance of vaccines and the mechanisms behind how they work serves as a reminder of Dr. Mina’s lecture on LAIVs and the common misconceptions associated with vaccines. Additionally, Newton’s discussion of how antibiotics can “[wipe] out almost all [of an individual’s] bacteria” reminds me of Justine Garcia’s lecture on the critical role that the microbiome plays in health and disease outcomes. And lastly, Newton’s reference to drug development and the use of animal models serves as a reminder of our discussion on personalized medicine and the inaccuracies associated with animal model testing. Thus, by fortifying our understanding of fundamental evolutionary principles and by providing us with a plethora of examples of how evolution shapes modern medicine, this class has equipped us with a deeper insight and appreciation for Evolutionary Medicine and its wide applicability to the past, present, and future of medicine.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-newton/five-reasons-why-evolutio_b_459636.html

This Scientific American article delves into the genetic engineering of malaria-resistant mosquitoes in an effort to reduce malaria transmission between vectors and hosts. By injecting an engineered gene into the Anopeheles stephensi mosquitoes’ eggs, Dr. Anthony James and his colleagues were able to breed malaria-resistant mosquitoes that were incapable of transmitting the malaria parasite to humans with a bite. Intriguingly, the engineered gene has been shown to be dominant; consequently, Dr. James and his colleagues believe that releasing the malaria-resistant mosquitoes in strategic locations could potentially reduce transmission rates significantly. This novel development in the field of infectious diseases is particularly significant as many scientists predict that climate change (and increased rainfall) may increase the prevalence of malaria by providing mosquitoes with more breeding sites through puddles. One obstacle to this transmission-reducing method, however, is that researchers would have to generate millions of malaria-resistant mosquitoes and subsequently release them into specific locations at strategic times. While this novel method for reducing transmission rates does face certain obstacles, it could potentially be used to reduce the prevalence of other vector-borne diseases such as dengue fever and the West Nile virus. Consequently, Dr. James’ study has significant implications for the prevention of vector-borne diseases, particularly in areas where access to medical resources may be scarce. This Scientific American article is relevant to the nature of our malaria discussion as we briefly mentioned how scientists have genetically engineered malaria-resistant mosquitoes; as a result, it was interesting to gain a deeper understanding of how researchers have actually accomplished this.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/malaria-resistant-mosquitoes-lab-bred-first-time/

The article delves into the evolutionary selection pressures that have shaped the vectorial capacity and competence of Anopheles mosquitoes. Cohuet et al. begin by addressing the impact of parasite virulence on a host’s fitness; in particular, the team narrows down the infection-induced costs to fitness to a reduction in survival or the ability to reproduce. To explain a possible reduction in longevity from Plasmodium infections, Cohuet et al. proposed four hypothesis: cell damage, a costly immune response, competition between the host and parasite for resources, and parasite-induced behavioral changes that increase mortality. Cohuet et al., however, reasoned that a reduction in fecundity is a more commonly observed fitness cost of infections as it minimally affects transmission rates in comparison to a reduction in longevity. The article also delves into the length of the sporogonic cycle as a determinant of vectorial capacity; specifically, Cohuet et al. suggest that a longer time for sporogonic development favors producing higher number of sporozoites. The group further suggests that carrying out the sporogonic cycle at an optimal temperature yields a high number of sporozoites while decreasing the length of the sporogonic cycle. Intriguingly, a study revealed that Plasmodium­-infected flies demonstrated a greater attraction to higher temperatures than non-infected flies. Additionally, Cohuet et al. present a hypothesis suggesting that anthropophilic behavior plays a role in vectorial capacity. I find this hypothesis particularly appealing as it provides an evolutionary and historical context for the adaptation of high vectorial capacity in the Anopheles species. While the article delves into many studies and biological processes, I feel that Cohuet et al. do an excellent job of emphasizing the underlying evolutionary theme throughout the article. The notion that there is a constantly evolutionary ‘race’ between parasites and their hosts is rather intriguing; in particular, the fact that this adaptations ‘race’ often leads to rapid evolution is particularly interesting as the theory of evolution generally evokes the connotation of a slow process that occurs over thousands and thousands of years.

The main question of this article is: “What are the evolutionary features of human neurodegenerative disease genes with respect to non-disease genes?” Through analysis of gene expression level, number of regulatory miRNAs, protein connectivity, intrinsic disorder content, and relative aggregation propensity, Panda et al. observed that human neurodegenerative disease genes are evolutionary conserved relative to non-disease genes. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v.13. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the average values of different variables between two classes of genes. For correlation analysis, the Spearman’s Rank correlation co- efficient was performed. They also observed that human neurodegenerative disease genes have higher number of different regulatory miRNAs target sites and also have higher interaction partners than the non-disease genes. Overall, results showing higher gene expression level, higher protein connectivity along with greater miRNA regulation of neurodegenerative disease genes compared to non-disease genes support the conserved nature of neurodegenerative disease genes. In particular, highest (P=0.0001) expression of neurodegenerative disease genes were found near nervous system related tissues. In addition, it was found that non-disease genes on average show uniform gene expression level within the range of 25–60 whereas, for neurodegenerative disease genes the inhomogeneous expression level often fluctuates within the range of 25–150. Not only have the evolutionary features of human neurological disorders have been identified, but the complicated relationships between protein disorder content and RAP have been clarified. An implication of this study is that these results can be used in order to diagnose, prevent, and treat neurological disorders.

Link to article: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.emory.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=ca4e29eb-500c-4354-94de-cc3144e48bd3%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4204