Fun­go­ma­nia II. Singing Frogs

by Roberto

Like many oth­ers, I am hav­ing trou­ble fo­cus­ing on work these days. I ad­mit it, I've had dif­fi­cul­ties sit­ting down to write this post; the mind keeps wan­der­ing off, imag­in­ing the likely sce­nar­ios of the com­ing months. Af­ter all, we are in the midst of the COVID-19 pan­demic. In an ef­fort to over­come my anx­i­ety, I find so­lace in think­ing that, truly, I am quite for­tu­nate. My home is lo­cated in cen­tral Colom­bia, some 2600 me­ters (8600 ft) above sea level, in the midst of a small patch of pre­served An­dean for­est. These forests are well-known for their high hu­mid­ity, foggy morn­ings and, though threat­ened, high bio­di­ver­sity. I am for­tu­nate be­cause, since I built my house two years ago, I have no­ticed a large in­crease in the lo­cal pop­u­la­tion of frogs. I bal­ance the sur­prise of some­times find­ing them as com­pan­ions in my morn­ing shower with the joy of lis­ten­ing to their songs every eve­ning as I fall asleep. What makes me feel so very for­tu­nate is the priv­i­lege of hav­ing a grow­ing po­pulation of frogs in my back­yard. Why is that? You prob­a­bly know that frog po­pulations, along with those of other am­phib­ians, suf­fered cat­a­strophic de­clines dur­ing the last seven decades. The fact that I con­tin­u­ally hear and see frogs is an in­di­ca­tion that, at least in some places, these popu­lations are mak­ing a come­back. I con­sider it a small mir­a­cle to be lulled to sleep by their lovely se­renades.

Fig­ure 1. A Hypsi­boas punc­ta­tus frog from the low­land Pe­ru­vian Ama­zon, one of the species found to be in­fected with chytrid fun­gus. Credit: Con­suelo Alar­cón Ro­dri­guez. Source

For many years, her­petol­o­gists around the world had no­ticed am­phib­ian pop­u­la­tions de­clined but the ev­i­dence re­mained largely anec­do­tal. It was not un­til the end of the last cen­tury that a quan­ti­ta­tive as­sess­ment con­firmed the neg­a­tive pop­u­la­tion trends. This pretty much co­in­cid­ed with the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the dis­ease – chytri­diomy­cos­is – caus­ing wide­spread am­phib­ian mor­tal­ity in Aus­tralia and Cen­tral Amer­ica. Thus a fun­gal pathogen, a mem­ber of the phy­lum Chytrid­iomy­cota (in­for­mally cal­led chytrid fungi), came to oc­cupy cen­ter stage in the stud­ies of am­phibian demise. [The word Chytrid­iomy­cota de­rives from the Greek word chytrid­ion, mean­ing "lit­tle pot," in refer­ence to the struc­ture that houses the fla­gel­lated motile zoospores of these fungi.] The causative agent of am­phib­ian chytrid­iomy­co­sis is Ba­tra­chochytrium den­dro­ba­tidis. Lovely name in­deed (click on the species link if in­ter­ested on its et­y­mol­ogy) but, like many oth­ers, I will re­fer to it sim­ply as "Bd." The story of Bd as a ter­ri­fy­ing pa­thogen had not es­caped STC's at­ten­tion. Six years ago, Gemma Reguera de­scribed Bd as "The Fun­gus That Killed Darwin's Frog." I felt it was time for an up­date, as much has been learned about this fun­gus and the dis­ease since then. A very re­cent re­view cov­ers the sub­ject ex­tremely well and makes for ex­tre­mely good read­ing these days.

Fig­ure 2. Ba­tra­chochytrium den­dro­ba­tidis. Dia­gram of the life cy­cle in cul­ture. Af­ter a pe­riod of motil­ity (usu­ally < 24 h), zo­ospores en­cyst, re­sorb their fla­gella and form germ­lings. Rhi­zoids ap­pear from one or more ar­eas. The thalli grow larger and be­come ma­ture spo­rangia over 4 to 5 d. Con­tents of the en­larged thal­lus be­come mult­i­n­u­cle­ate by mi­totic di­vi­sions and the en­ti­re con­tents cleave into zoospores while the dis­charge tubes form. The dis­charge tube is closed by a plug that ab­sorbs wa­ter and del­i­quesces when zoo­spores are ready to re­lease. Some thalli de­velop colo­nially with thin septa di­vid­ing the con­tents into mul­ti­ple spor­angia each with their own dis­charge tube. A = zoospore, B = germling, C = de­vel­op­ing zoospo­rangium, D = mono­centric zo­ospor­angium, E = colo­nial thal­lus. Source

Bd's life­cy­cle in­volves the set­tling of a motile spore through the for­ma­tion of rhi­zoids to help at­tach­ment. In a mat­ter of days, the "lit­tle pot" forms and therein new zoospores de­velop that are even­tu­ally re­leased. In cul­ture there are, of course, no ma­jor con­se­quences. But prob­lems can arise when the zoospores in­vade and set­tle on frogs' skin. In­fec­tion can have var­ied out­comes de­pend­ing on a num­ber of ge­netic and en­vi­ron­men­tal fac­tors. I felt a bit of a chill when I read, in the re­view cit­ed above, that in­fec­tion "is a re­mark­ably com­plex pro­cess that can have markedly dif­fer­ent out­comes, rang­ing from mild or no symp­toms to death." Sounded so famil­iar, and I won­dered if the age and any un­der­ly­ing chronic dis­ease of each frog in­flu­enced the out­come. Compa­ra­ti­ve ge­nomics be­tween Bd and sapro­phytic Chytridio­my­co­ta re­vealed some dif­fer­ences sug­gest­ing that cer­tain se­creted pro­teins might be vir­u­lence fac­tors. Specif­i­cally, Bd en­codes and pro­duces a greater num­ber and increas­ed amounts of met­al­lo­pro­teases of the fun­galysin fam­ily. The end re­sult is that Bd has evolved into an ef­fec­tive pa­thogen.

This pathogen is re­spon­si­ble for what is per­haps the largest pan­zootic (the word for a pan­demic in­volv­ing an an­i­mal dis­ease) in his­tory. Bd has an ex­tremely broad host range. It in­fects "50% of tested frog species (or­der Anura), 55% of sala­man­der and newt species (clade Cau­data) and 29% of cae­cil­ian species (Gymnophiona)." And it is broadly dis­trib­uted such that is has been found in 3,705 of 9,503 field sites tested (39%). Its ef­fects have been dev­as­tat­ing. In the au­thors' words: "Chytrid­iomy­co­sis has con­tributed to the de­cline of at least 501 species (6.5% of all am­phib­ian species), lead­ing to 90 pre­sumed ex­tinc­tions and de­creases in abun­dance ex­ceed­ing 90% in an­other 124 species." It's no won­der Ed Yong dubbed Bd the "dooms­day fun­gus" in an ar­ti­cle in The At­lantic.

Fig­ure 3. Global spread of Batra­cho­chy­trium de­n­dro­batidis and the am­phib­ian trade. In­ter­continental move­ments of B. den­dro­ba­tidis (Bd) have been in­ferred from the genome sequen­ces of geo­graph­ically sep­a­rated iso­lates that form closely re­lated phy­lo­ge­netic clades, with high boot­strap sup­port (≥90%). Num­bers show where iso­lates of Bd have been re­cov­ered from traded am­phib­ians, with pic­tures of the species in­volved shown at the bot­tom of the fig­ure. Al­so shown are the move­ments of traded, CITES-listed am­phib­ians, show­ing the global connec­tivity of the am­phibian trade, which in­volved over 15 mil­lion spec­i­mens dur­ing the pe­riod 2000–2010. Data are from TRAFFIC (a global net­work that mon­i­tors wildlife trade). Source

Where did this pathogen come from? Ini­tially, investi­ga­tors pro­posed two com­pet­ing ar­gu­ments. On the one side was the 'novel pathogen hy­poth­e­sis' (NPH) which stated that chytrid­iomy­co­sis emerged at var­i­ous loca­tions af­ter it had been seeded by in­ter­con­ti­nen­tal trade routes into naive ecosys­tems. On the other side was the ar­gu­ment known as the 'en­demic pathogen hy­poth­e­sis' (EPH), stat­ing that Bd was a wide­spread en­demic com­men­sal of am­phib­ians that be­came more vir­u­lent as a re­sult of global en­vi­ron­men­tal change. Through com­pa­ra­tive ge­nomics and other analy­ses, it now seems that Bd emerged in Asia. There, it ap­pears to have been in­fect­ing am­phib­ians for mil­lions of years. As such there has been am­ple time for the evo­lu­tion of sta­ble host–pathogen dy­namics. How did the pathogen be­come so wide­spread? All of the ev­i­dence points at the in­ter­na­tional am­phib­ian trade that was greatly ac­cel­er­ated through­out the twen­tieth cen­tury (Fig­ure 3). Lend­ing ad­di­tional sup­port to these con­clu­sions, in 2010 a sec­ond species of Chytri­dio­mycota, Ba­tra­chochytrium sala­man­drivo­rans (Bsal) of Asian ori­gin, caused the lo­cal ex­tinc­tion of fire sala­man­ders in the Nether­lands.

What does the fu­ture hold for the am­phib­ians? Re­search in mul­ti­ple dis­ci­plines sug­gests there might be ways to mit­i­gate the global ef­fects of chytrid­iomy­co­sis. A promis­ing av­enue is the re­cog­nition that in­ter­ac­tions be­tween com­men­sal fungi and bac­te­ria of the am­phib­ian skin mi­cro­biota may limit the dis­ease. But sci­ence alone will cer­tainly not do the trick, it will re­quire the mu­tual work of sci­en­tists and pol­icy mak­ers. In the words of the au­thors: "It is heart­en­ing to see that ra­pid pol­icy mea­sures en­acted fol­low­ing sci­en­tific ad­vances are on the rise, now that the con­se­quen­ces of fail­ing to pre­vent ba­tra­chochytrid in­tro­duc­tions are more widely re­al­ized. Al­though we be­lieve that re­search will even­tu­ally yield the means to mit­i­gate the emer­gence of wildlife dis­eases, for re­search to have its full im­pact, re­in­forc­ing the links be­tween sci­ence, pol­icy and the pub­lic will be key to suc­cess." How timely a mes­sage for hu­man dis­eases as well. And so, I hope you will un­der­stand why these days I find so­lace in the singing of the frogs.

[Please note: Af­ter this ar­ti­cle posted, Max Lam­bert (@MaxRLambert) brought to my at­ten­tion two Tech­ni­cal Com­ments that ap­peared in Sci­ence on March 20, 2020 (see here and here) show­ing that the re­sults in­di­cat­ing the ex­tent of am­phib­ian de­cline are con­tro­ver­sial. –Roberto]

 

 

Other Posts

  • A Mi­cro­bial Utopia: Cheese

    by Nathan Jayne, Amanda Alker, and Nathalie Del­herbe — Over the past decade, there have been many large scale at­tempts to char­ac­ter­ize bac­te­r­ial com­mu­ni­ties, from soil and ocean mi­cro­bio­mes to hu­man mi­cro­bio­mes. There is even a col­lec­tive ef­fort to pro­file the Earth's mi­cro­biome. Sci­en­tists are not only in­ter­ested in know­ing who is there and what they are do­ing, but also how...

  • In a Cav­ern, in a Canyon….

    by Elio — Cer­tain large un­der­ground cav­erns owe their majesty to the bio­chem­i­cal ac­tion of tiny bac­te­ria. In many parts of the world, cav­erns are formed by the dis­so­lu­tion of cal­cium car­bon­ate de­posits by sul­fu­ric acid (this is known in the trade as "sul­fu­ric acid speleo­ge­n­e­sis"). Such mi­cro­bial min­ing formed the...

  • On the Source of the Black Death

    by Roberto — Yersinia pestis. How im­me­di­ate our re­ac­tion can be to the species name of this bac­terium, mak­ing us con­jure up im­ages of pesti­lence. As its dis­cov­erer, Alexan­der Yersin, wrote in 1894 of an out­break of bubonic plague in Hong Kong, this is the "bacille de la peste." (Work­ing in­de­pen­dently, Ki­tasato Shibasaburo also char­ac­ter­ized the plague bac­terium at nearly the ex­act same time.)