Craig Baker-Austin gave a very interesting talk at PML this week, where
he described evidence for emerging Vibrio
risk at high latitudes in response to ocean warming. Several previous posts have
covered similar
topics: Oliver wrote about Vezzulli et al.’s (2012) paper in the blog ‘Evidence
from the Vibrios as to the effects that ocean warming has on the prokaryotic
community’, Sophie reviewed Schets et al.’s
paper (2011) in her blog ‘Potentially Human Pathogenic Vibrios in Marine and
Fresh Bathing Waters Related to Environmental Conditions and Disease Outcome’,
and finally Harri’s ‘Microbes on the March’ on Langer et al. (2013) describes shifts in distribution ranges due to
temperature increases. Together these papers illustrate how temperature changes
can influence distribution ranges of organisms with potential impacts on human
health.
Baker-Austin
et al. (2013) used multidecadal
long-term sea surface temperature data sets from the Baltic Sea in combination
with reports of Vibrio infections in
northern Europe to study the correlation between temperature increases and Vibrio diseases. In fact, vibrios grow
preferentially in warm (> 15°C), low-salinity (< 25 ppt NaCl) sea water,
which is why the Baltic Sea provides a particularly interesting regions to
study emerging Vibrio disease, as it
forms one of the largest low-salinity marine ecosystems on Earth as well as
having the fastest net SST warming trend of any large marine ecosystem between
1982 and 2007. They showed that maximum annual SST showed a very strong
association with the number of Vibrio
cases reported, as especially during years with extreme warm summers (1994,
2003, and 2006) an unusually high number of Vibrio-associated wound infections
and fatalities were reported. While not per se evidence for a causal link
between temperature and Vibrio infections,
some biologically plausible explanations support this idea: high temperatures
increase bacterial replication, Vibrio
vulnificus abundance peaks at > 19°C, regulation of pathogenic
competence of some Vibrio species may
be temperature mediated, and of course, the increased risk resulting from
higher use of coastal waters for leisure activities with higher temperatures
(during summer).
However,
models showed that SST alone could only predict about half of the reported Vibrio cases, while models including
both SST and time substantially improved the accuracy, predicting around 70% of
the cases from 2006. The time component could be the result of increased
awareness of Vibrio infection over time or increased exposure due to shifts in
population density along coastal areas. Overall it shows that sea surface temperature
can be used as predictor to identify areas at high risk, but additional unknown
factors still remain to be explained to increase accuracy of models.
Baker-Austin
et al., (2012). provide strong evidence that SST
can be used as a predictor of risk for high abundance of pathogenic vibrios. They
predict a northward shift of the areas of maximum risk of infection in the
Baltic according to the model and expected warming rates in the Baltic Sea. Personally
I find the proposition of an early warning system to forecast the health risks
of Vibrio disease by creating risk maps based on near-real-time remote sensing
data most interesting. These maps would then be made available to the public to
prevent infections and fatalities; maybe one day we will have a map showing
risk of Vibrio disease just after the
weather forecast!
Craig
Baker-Austin had some neat animations of those risk maps in his presentations,
but I couldn’t find them online. But the supplementary material for this article
shows some maps (3S) from remote sensing data in 2006 and risk maps for the
Baltic Sea (4S).
Supplementary material: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/extref/nclimate1628-s1.pdf
Also interesting: www.coastalWarming.com, a compilation
of temperature maps.
Anna - thanks for the great summary of this talk and linking of other posts on this topic. There is an international consortium Vibrionet - it is worth keeping an eye on their web page. http://www.vibrionet.de/en/vi_projects/index.html
ReplyDeleteHi all,
ReplyDeleteThanks for highlighting the links to other posts Anna, it’s hard to keep tabs on what’s being/been discussed sometimes, I’ve just had a quick re-read of all the blogs on this topic. I’m really interested in the somewhat multifaceted and complex topic of climate change and I was totally gutted I had to miss the talk at PML, so thanks for blogging about it to keep us all up to date.
I think one of the main conclusions of the work summarised so far is that climate change is complex! Climate change simply can’t be pinned down to one factor, for example, in Ollie’s review of Vezzulli et al. (2012) he highlights that only 45% of the community changes could be attributed to temperature. Anna you highlight that Baker-Austin et al. (2013) managed to predict 70% of distribution based on SST in 2006. Whilst it is clear that temperature is a driver of distribution, it is also apparent that this not the only factor. Anna I think you were alluding to this in one of your comments, climate per se is variable.
It sounds like Craig has put together some very convincing models based on correlations, which is a great step forward for climate change research. The work so far has also importantly made the link to human health which always helps for funding science. But as Anna has highlighted, it is a correlation, and not necessarily causation. Now we are starting to recognise patterns in distribution change, I think it is becoming increasingly important to get a more mechanistic understanding of what is driving the patterns in order to refine our prediction powers.
Does anybody know of any experimental work on Vibrios and climate change? Mesocosm studies or something like that? The only work I can think of is from the Collins group in Edinburgh which is a group of experimentalists who study microbial evolution in order to understand the responses of microbes to climate change as a whole. Müller et al., (2010) experimented with two species of coccolithophore to establish the effects of long-term high CO2 exposure on growth rate, they found that growth rate reduced in both species. Collins then published a review on the paper interpreting the wider significance of this primarily physiological finding. More recently Lohbeck et al. (2012) published a huge multigenerational (500 generations!) study looking at Emiliana huxleyi and ocean acidification and basically concurred with Muller et al., sustained increased CO2 resulted in lower growth rate and they also did some sort of fitness assay determine possible population affects. I would certainly be interested to see more work done like this but for Vibrios and other important species.
Anna I was very interested in one of your comments about how humans MIGHT be changing the temporal scale climate change… I think the whole point of anthropogenic “climate change” IS that we’re speeding it up too much! Obviously the climate changes tremendously in terms of geological history but surely human accelerated climate change coupled with global habitat destruction is cause for concern?
Thanks,
Vicky
Müller, M. N., Schulz, K. G., & Riebesell, U. (2010). Effects of long-term high CO2 exposure on two species of coccolithophores. Biogeosciences, 7(3), 10963–10982.
DeleteCollins, S. (2010). Comment on “Effects of long-term CO2 exposure on two species of coccolithophores” by Müller et al. (2010). Biogeosciences 7: 2199-2202.
Lohbeck, K. T., Riebesell, U., & Reusch, T. B. H. (2012). Adaptive evolution of a key phytoplankton species to ocean acidification. Nature Geoscience, 5(5), 346–351.
A website all fellow blogger may be interested in (The Collins group site): http://www.smallbutmighty.bio.ed.ac.uk/
Hi Vicky
ReplyDeleteYou are right I might have trivialised the impact of anthropogenic global warming in my comment. In no way do I suggest that humans should keep destroying the environment and studying potential impacts will help to make predictions, for example by having Vibrio risk maps. Still I think anthropogenic global warming is too often used as a convenient explanation for an event, because through all the media about it we all take it as a given without even going back to the primary literature. As soon as we see the words "increase in temperature" we think "global warming, coral bleaching, species range shifts, extinctions, catastrophy". While most of those associations are based on scientific facts, they often bias the way we interpret scientific literature... That said, I think both paper (Baker-Austin et al. (2013) and Langer et al. (2013) show the strong influence of temperature on organisms and how it can impact humans. Also here is a list of things all believed to be influenced by global warming http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm and I strongly doubt scientific evidence behind most of these...
All I ask is to be as critical with global warming as with any other causal agents ;)
Anna, I completely agree with you - the media need to learn that correlative data does not mean causative proof! For example the Daily Mail have published a list of every carcinogen "known to science" (of which there are over 100) which include 'Being Male', 'Being Female' and 'Riding a Bicycle'... Do I need to say more!
ReplyDeleteAnna and Harri, great come back to my comment, haha!
DeleteWe have all developed into critical thinkers, which is great, but I think sometimes it’s nice to focus on what HAS been contributed from studies, rather than what hasn’t. As we know from our dissertations, research isn't easy!! I think it’s easy to be too critical sometimes and miss the real significance of scientific work.
As for the effect of climate change on microbial populations, looks like there is another great talk happening in Plymouth this week:
The Seminar Series at Citadel Hill - Hosted by the MBA and SAHFOS
Ecology of Vibrio pathogens in the light of climate change by Luigi Vezzulli - Università di Genova and SAHFOS
Talk begins: 4 pm, Thursday 21st February 2013
Tea and biscuits: 3.45 pm in the MBA common room :+)
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteA few of us braved the artic winds and made it to the MBA seminar (the tea and biscuits were certainly appreciated once we got there). I just thought I’d give a brief update on what was covered in the talk.
Obviously Luigi covered pathogenic Vibrios in general and he briefly talked about the history of environmental pathogens which
I thought was interesting. He mentioned Koch (remember Koch’s postulates – same guy) and how he isolated V.cholera in 1883, also how John Snow linked environmental V.cholera to human disease for the first time in 1854. However, the concept of environmental pathogenic Vibrios wasn’t really accepted until the 1970s when techniques such as ELISA provided more solid evidence.
Luigi discussed the role of chitin in marine systems and in particular the link between copepods and Vibrios, he presented some evidence that filtering river water through a sari before drinking reduces the chances of getting cholera by 50% as it removes the copepods, a really neat example of environmental microbiology working to improve the health of humans I thought!
I felt one of the highlights of the talk was the presentation of some interesting findings about important attachment proteins in V.cholera, two proteins Gpba and MSHA, have been shown to be crucially important for the attachment of V.cholera to both chitin and the human intestine. This provides an important link between the pathogenic and environmental strains of this vibrio.
He then presented the work reviewed by Ollie so I won’t go over that, although I think it is important to note just how impressive the method they’re using is. I feel Luigi and colleagues at SAHFOS are really using the CPR record to its full potential, and the molecular methods they have developed to make use of 60 year old DNA are certainly commendable.
Finally the talk ended with a glimpse at some new non-published data showing similar (slightly less convincing) patterns to the paper reviewed by Ollie but for new geographic locations and he told us about a new project they are planning in South Africa to try and firm up the link between climate change and increased cholera outbreaks in human populations.
Overall we were left with a few questions but we weren’t brave enough to ask them. It would have been nice to discuss the questions we have raised in the blog RE: correlations vs causation and the need for more experimental work, but there were lots of other (more important looking people) with questions so we didn’t bring it up.
Can anybody else who attended the talk think of anything important I have missed out? Or make any of the points I have made more clear…
Thanks,
Vicky
Thanks Vicky for this great recapitulation of the talk for all those people that weren't psychrophilic enough to embrace the cold weather (...me.).
ReplyDeleteI have just finished reading a review paper on the hologenome theory (I posted a comment with the reference and some highlights on Matt's blog about this topic). The authors pointed out the involvement of microbes in the settlement and metamorphosis of many marine invertebrates. I think studies like Vezzulli's will be invaluable in future when assessing the ecological effect of microbial species shifts on the life history events of invertebrates!
Thanks
Anna
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteMuch to my delight, I've found a climate change related meso/microcosm experiment with bacterial communities! I'm currently reviewing it so look out on the blog.
Thanks,
Vicky