Foot Odor and Malaria Prevention: Who Knew?

Scientific advances and discoveries are often made serendipitously. However, in some cases they occur when passionate scientists are willing or crazy enough to use themselves as “guinea pigs” in experiments to unravel a mystery. This was the case for a Dutch scientist named Bart Knols who first discovered 15 years ago that mosquitoes were attracted to foot odor by standing in a dark room naked and examining where he was bitten the most. But, it was difficult for scientists to figure out a way to put this knowledge to use.

Enter Dr. Fredros Okumu of Tanzania’s Ifakara Health Institute who put the knowledge to good use in a recent study that showed that mosquito traps scented with human foot odor attracted four times as many mosquitoes as human volunteers. The mosquitoes that fly into the traps are subsequently killed by poisoning. 

Okumu mixed eight chemical compounds together to perfect the “foot odor” attractant and then experimented with several poisons that killed up to 95 percent of the trapped insects Okumu believes that he can use the traps as a possible cost-effective way to reduce the incidence of malaria. The disease is caused by four species of Plasmodium parasite and is primarily transmitted to humans after being bitten by Plasmodium-infected Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes.

His research was originally funded by a $100,000 research grant but he recently was awarded $775,000 by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Grand Challenges Canada to create an affordable mosquito trap that could be used outside of homes. Determining the correct location of the traps is one of the major hurdles that must be overcome to commercialize the product. 

According to Okumo, if the devices are placed too close to people it would increase the risk of mosquito bites (malaria) whereas if placed too far away they would be ineffective as malarial control devices. He is currently developing commercial traps that will cost between $4 and $27 per trap.

While worldwide malaria infection rates continue to decline (mainly because of bed nets and indoor insecticide spraying) there are more than 220 million new cases of malaria each year. According to UN statistics almost 800,000 of the infected persons die—most of them are children in Africa. 

Sometimes, low tech solutions to complex problems can make a world of difference!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

 

A Troubling Trend: Genital Herpes Infections are on the Rise

While studying the pathogenesis of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in Portland, OR in the early 1980s, genital herpes had replace gonorrhea as the scourge of the sexually transmitted disease community. To help to combat the spread of genital herpes, my labmates and I joined the Portland Venereal Disease Action Committee, a grass roots organization that provided public outreach and education about sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). A few years later, the Regan Administration finally admitted to the American public that HIV/AIDS was real and that HIV infections were likely to reach epidemic proportions. While genital herpes can be painful, uncomfortable and often emotionally debilitating, the unprecedented morbidity and mortality of HIV/AIDS almost pushed genital herpes into infectious diseases obscurity. Now that HIV/AIDS is more treatable than ever before, epidemiologists and sexually transmitted diseases experts have begun to reexamine the infection rates and incidence of other STDs (including herpes, gonorrhea, Chlamydia and syphilis) among Americans. To that end, I read today a very troubling article about the infection rates and incidence of genital herpes among sexually active Americans. Here are some of the facts gleaned from a recent CDC report on genital herpes:

  1. One in six Americans aged 14 to 49 are infected with genital herpes, making the virus — herpes simplex 2 — one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases in the United States
  2. Research shows that people with genital herpes are two to three times as likely to acquire H.I.V. as those without herpes
  3. H.I.V.-infected individuals also infected with genital herpes are more likely to transmit H.I.V. to others
  4. Infection rates for women are almost twice the rate of men
  5. Blacks are three times as likely to be infected as whites
  6. Black women have the highest rates of infection, with almost half infected

Looking back, it is understandable why HIV/AIDS took precedent over genital herpes infections. After all, most people usually don’t die from genital herpes. However, the rising infection rates of the disease suggest that the American public needs to be better educated the spread and prevention of genital herpes infections. There is no question that discussions about STDs are embarrassing and often difficult. However, these days, they can be the difference between live and death!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!

 

MRSA in the News Again: Another Misleading Report

Last week, I took a group of Seattle researchers to task about issuing a press release about isolating methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from sand samples taken from public beaches in Washington State. Their findings were neither remarkable nor news worthy and likely did more harm than good. Sadly, another article about MRSA—designed to alarm rather than inform and educate the American public—appeared in today’s Science section of the NY Times.

The article, “Ties to Pets Has Germ Jumping To and Fro” in which the word “germ” appeared several times, reports on the possible transmission of MRSA between humans and their pets, most notably dogs and cats. Much of the article focuses on the “strong link between animal to human transmission,” offers several frightening examples of serious zoonotic cases that have been recently reported and suggests that cats are eight times more likely than other pets to transmit MRSA to their owners. After reading the first part of the article, readers would rightfully believe that we are in the midst of a massive zoonotic MRSA epidemic with family pets at its epicenter.  However, on the second page of the article the author mentions an epidemiological survey study conducted by Dr. J. Scott Weese, a veterinarian from the University of Guelph in Ontario Canada which showed  that only “two to three percent of pets carry MRSA on their fur or skin or in their saliva.” Further, the study suggests that healthy animals that are transiently colonized by MRSA eliminate them “in a manner of weeks.” Compare the 2 to 3 per cent carrier rate in pets with an almost 70% human carriage rate of MRSA. While I am a PhD-trained infectious disease microbiologist, I don’t think it requires a PhD to quickly realize that pets really aren’t a major source or cause of MRSA infections for humans. That said, raising awareness among veterinarians about MRSA might aid in the development of appropriate disease surveillance, diagnostic testing, andinfection control to lessen the impact of MRSA on smallanimals.

I have no doubt that many people will look at and possibly treat their pets differently after reading the Times article. Further, many will unnecessarily spend money to have their pets tested for the presence or absence of MRSA. While informing the American public that pets (like humans) might unknowingly transmit MRSA is a good thing, turning the rare transmission of MRSA from animals to humans into a major epidemiological brou-ha-ha is misleading, scientifically disingenuous and reckless. Good journalism should inform and educate, not alarm and frighten people by presenting misleading and wrong-headed information. 

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good petting your pets (it will do more good than harm)

 SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Educating the American Public: Enough with the "Germs" Already

The media frenzy surrounding the impending H1N1 swine flu pandemic has spawned a recent spate of articles and television news segments on “germs.” In the last 48 hours, articles on germs have appeared in the New York Times, my local paper (The Trenton Times via the Chicago Tribune), on news channels and most recently this morning on the Today Show on MSNBC. Most of these have focused on where “germs” are found, how they are spread and ways to minimize or prevent their transmission. For those of you who may be interested, the word germ was first coined in 1664 and is defined as a “small mass of living substance capable of developing into an organism or one of its parts” or more conventionally, as a “microorganism that causes disease.” While these media pieces are intended to inform the public about infectious agents and their transmission, most people who read or see these reports don’t understand that the word germ can encompass viruses, bacteria and fungi. And, to make matters worse, most Americans don’t know that viruses, bacteria and fungi are different microorganisms.

Unfortunately, after reading newspaper articles and seeing reports on television about so-called germs, many consumers rush out to their local groceries and purchase a variety of antibacterial soaps and detergents—erroneously believing that these products will protect their families from infection by the dreaded H1N1 virus and other pathogens. Although frequent hand washing and the appropriate use of viricidal disinfectants can help to reduce transmission of H1N1 and other viruses, antibacterial products are generally less effective (or ineffective) against viruses and overuse can result in emergence of multi-drug resistant bacteria.

To that end, I think it is high time that the news media eschew the use of the anachronistic term germ in favor of bacteria, virus or fungi when referring to causative agents of infectious diseases. Promulgating the use of the word germ will continue to keep the lay public in the dark about infectious agents and the diseases they cause and hinder people from making informed decisions about treatment and preventing their transmission.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

 SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend