On Jupiter, lightning jerks and jolts a lot like it does on Earth.

Jovian lightning emits radio wave pulses that are typically separated by about one millisecond, researchers report May 23 in Nature Communications. The energetic prestissimo, the scientists say, is a sign that the gas giant’s lightning propagates in pulses, at a pace comparable to that of the bolts that cavort through our own planet’s thunderclouds. The similarities between the two world’s electrical phenomena could have implications for the search for alien life.
Arcs of lightning on both worlds appear to move somewhat like a winded hiker going up a mountain, pausing after each step to catch their breath, says Ivana Kolmašová, an atmospheric physicist at the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague. “One step, another step, then another step … and so on.”

Here on Earth, lightning forms as turbulent winds within thunderclouds cause many ice crystals and water droplets to rub together, become charged and then move to opposite sides of the clouds, progressively generating static electrical charges. When the charges grow big enough to overcome the air’s ability to insulate them, electrons are released — the lightning takes its first step. From there, the surging electrons will repeatedly ionize the air and rush into it, lurching the bolt forward at an average of hundreds of thousands of meters per second.

Scientists have suggested that superbolts observed in Jovian clouds might also form by collisions between ice crystals and water droplets (SN: 8/5/20). But no one knew whether the alien bolts extended and branched in increments, as they do on Earth, or if they took some other form.

For the new study, Kolmašová and her colleagues used five years of radio wave data collected by NASA’s Juno spacecraft (SN: 12/15/22). Analyzing hundreds of thousands of radio wave snapshots, the team found radio wave emissions from Jovian lightning appeared to pulse at a rate comparable to that of Earth’s intracloud lightning — arcs of electricity that never strike ground.

If bolts extend through Jupiter’s water clouds at a similar velocity as they do in Earth’s clouds, then Jovian lightning might branch and extend in steps that are hundreds to thousands of meters long. That’s comparable in length to the jolted strides of Earth’s intracloud lightning, the researchers say.

“That’s a perfectly reasonable explanation,” says atmospheric physicist Richard Sonnenfeld of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro, who wasn’t involved in the study. Alternatively, he says, the signals could be produced as pulses of electrical current propagate back and forth along tendrils of lightning that have already formed, rather than from the stop-and-go advancements of a new bolt. On Earth, such currents cause some bolts to appear to flicker.

But stop and go seems like a sound interpretation, says atmospheric physicist Yoav Yair of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel. Kolmašová and her colleagues “show that if you’re discharging a cloud … the physics remains basically the same [on Jupiter as on Earth], and the current will behave the same.”

If that universality is real, it could have implications for the search for life elsewhere. Experiments have shown that lightning strikes on Earth could have smelted some of the chemical ingredients needed to form the building blocks of life (SN: 3/16/21). If lightning is discharging in a similar way on alien worlds, Yair says, then it could be producing similar ingredients in those places too.

Planetary scientists now know how thick the Martian crust is, thanks to the strongest Marsquake ever observed.

On average, the crust is between 42 and 56 kilometers thick, researchers report in a paper to appear in Geophysical Research Letters. That’s roughly 70 percent thicker than the average continental crust on Earth.

The measurement was based on data from NASA’s InSight lander, a stationary seismometer that recorded waves rippling through Mars’ interior for four Earth years. Last May, the entire planet shook with a magnitude 4.7 quake that lasted more than six hours (SN: 5/13/22). “We were really fortunate that we got this quake,” says seismologist Doyeon Kim of ETH Zurich.
InSight recorded seismic waves from the quake that circled Mars up to three times. That let Kim and colleagues infer the crust thickness over the whole planet.

Not only is the crust thicker than that of the Earth and the moon, but it’s also inconsistent across the Red Planet, the team found. And that might explain a known north-south elevation difference on Mars.

Topological and gravity data from Mars orbiters have shown that the planet’s northern hemisphere is substantially lower than the southern one. Researchers had suspected that density might play a part: Perhaps the rocks that make up northern Mars have a different density than those of southern Mars.

But the crust is thinner in the northern hemisphere, Kim and colleagues found, so the rocks in both hemispheres probably have the same average densities. That finding helps scientists narrow down the explanations for why the difference exists in the first place.

Knowing the crust’s depth, the team also calculated that much of Mars’ internal heat probably originates in the crust. Most of this heat comes from radioactive elements such as potassium, uranium and thorium. An estimated 50 to 70 percent of those elements are probably in the crust rather than the underlying mantle, computer simulations suggest. That supports the idea that parts of Mars still have volcanic activity, contrary to a long-held belief that the Red Planet is dead (SN: 11/3/22).

An ancient vegetarian dinosaur from the French countryside has given paleontologists something to sink their teeth into.

The most striking feature of a new species of rhabdodontid that lived from 84 million to 72 million years ago is its oversized, scissorslike teeth, paleontologist Pascal Godefroit, of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in Brussels, and his colleagues report October 26 in Scientific Reports. Compared with other dinos of its kind, Matheronodon provincialis’ teeth were at least twice as large but fewer in number. Some teeth reached up to 6 centimeters long, while others grew up to 5 centimeters wide. They looked like a caricature of normal rhabdodontid teeth, Godefroit says.
Of hundreds of fossils unearthed over the last two decades at a site called Velaux-La Bastide Neuve in the French countryside, a handful of jaw bones and teeth now have been linked to this new species, Matheronodon provincialis. The toothy dino belongs to a group of herbivorous, bipedal dinosaurs common in the Cretaceous Period. Rhabdodontids sported bladelike teeth, and likely noshed on the tough woody tissue parts of plants. Palm trees, common in Europe at the time, might have been on the menu.

Rhabdodontid teeth have ridges covered by a thick layer of enamel on one side and little to no ridges or enamel on the other. Teeth in the upper jaw have more ridges and enamel on the outer edge, while the reverse is true for bottom teeth. A closer look at the microstructure of M. provincialis’ teeth revealed an exaggerated version of this — many more ridges and lopsided enamel coating. Enamel typically protects from wear and tear, so chewing would have sharpened the dino’s teeth. “They operated like self-sharpening serrated scissors,” Godefroit says.

Light-sensitive cells in the eyes of some fish do double-duty. In pearlsides, cells that look like rods — the stars of low-light vision — actually act more like cones, which only respond to brighter light, researchers report November 8 in Science Advances. It’s probably an adaptation to give the deep-sea fish acute vision at dawn and dusk, when they come to the surface of the water to feed.

Rods and cones studding the retina can work in tandem to give an animal good vision in a wide variety of light conditions. Some species that live in dark environments, like many deep-sea fish, have dropped cones entirely. But pearlside eyes have confused scientists: The shimmery fish snack at the water’s surface at dusk and dawn, catching more sun than fish that feed at night. Most animals active at these times of day use a mixture of rods and cones to see, but pearlside eyes appear to contain only rods.
“That’s actually not the case when you look at it in more detail,” says study coauthor Fanny de Busserolles, a sensory biologist at the University of Queensland in Australia.

She and her colleagues investigated which light-responsive genes those rod-shaped cells were turning on. The cells were making light-sensitive proteins usually found in cones, the researchers found, rather than the rod-specific versions of those proteins.

These rodlike cones still have the more elongated shape of a rod. And like regular rods, they are sensitive to even small amounts of light. But the light-absorbing proteins inside match those found in cones, and are specifically tuned to respond to the blue wavelengths of light that dominate at dawn and dusk, the researchers found. The fish don’t have color vision, though, which relies on having different cones sensitive to different wavelengths of light.

“Pearlsides found a more economical and efficient way of seeing in these particular light conditions by combining the best characteristics of both cell types into a single cell,” de Busserolles says.
A few other animals have also been found to have photoreceptors that fall somewhere between traditional rods and cones, says Belinda Chang, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Toronto who wasn’t involved in the study. Chang’s lab recently identified similar cells in the eyes of garter snakes. “These are thought to be really cool and unusual receptors,” she says.

Together, finds like these begin to challenge the idea that rods and cones are two separate visual systems, de Busserolles says. “We usually classify photoreceptors into rods or cones only,” she says. “Our results clearly show that the reality is more complex than that.”

Thousands of years ago, hunter-gatherers native to Europe and incoming farmers from what’s now Turkey got up close and personal for a surprisingly long time, researchers say. This mixing reshaped the continent’s genetic profile differently from one region to another.

Ancient DNA from foragers and farmers in eastern, central and western Europe indicates that they increasingly mated with each other from around 8,000 to nearly 4,000 years ago, a team led by geneticist Mark Lipson of Harvard Medical School in Boston reports online November 8 in Nature. That time range covers much of Europe’s Neolithic period, which was characterized by the spread of farming, animal domestication and polished stone tools.
The new findings lend support to the idea that Europe and western Asia witnessed substantial human population growth and migrations during the Neolithic, says archaeologist Peter Bellwood of Australian National University in Canberra. So much mating occurred over such a long time that “geneticists can no longer assume that living people across Europe are a precise reflection of European genetic history,” he says.
Previous studies of ancient DNA indicated that farmers in Anatolia (modern Turkey) migrated into Europe roughly 8,000 years ago. Researchers generally assumed that newcomers and native hunter-gatherers interbred at first, perhaps as a single wave of farmers moved through Europe to the Atlantic coast, Lipson says. From this perspective, foragers either joined farming cultures or abandoned their home territories and scattered elsewhere. But it now appears that, after a major migration of farmers into Europe, many groups of farmers and hunter-gatherers living in particular regions mingled to varying extents for many centuries, the researchers say.
“Even though there weren’t any major new migrations into Europe after the arrival of farmers, there were ongoing ancestry changes throughout the Neolithic due to interactions between farmers and hunter-gatherers,” Lipson says. Central and northern Europeans next experienced large DNA changes at the start of the Bronze Age around 5,000 years ago, with the arrival of nomadic herders from western Asia (SN: 7/11/15, p. 11).

Lipson’s team analyzed DNA extracted from the skeletons of 154 farmers from Hungary, Germany and Spain, dating to around 8,000 to 4,200 years ago. The farmers’ DNA was compared with DNA from three Neolithic hunter-gatherers found in Hungary, Luxembourg and Spain; a fourth hunter-gatherer from Italy dating to about 14,000 years ago; and 25 Anatolian farmers from as early as 8,500 years ago.

Farmers in each European region displayed increasing amounts of hunter-gatherer ancestry over time, with highs of about 10 percent in Hungary and 20 percent in Germany by around 5,000 years ago, and about 30 percent in Spain by 4,200 years ago. Three farmers from a 6,000-year-old site in Germany fell outside the general trend for that part of Neolithic Europe, displaying 40 to 50 percent hunter-gatherer ancestry.

Genes got passed from farmers to hunter-gatherers as well, although skeletal remains of Neolithic hunter-gatherers are much scarcer than those of their cultivating contemporaries. A hunter-gatherer from the 6,000-year-old German site, identified via chemical markers of diet in the bones, carried around 27 percent ancestry from farmers. A hunter-gatherer discovered at a Hungarian farming site dating to roughly 7,700 years ago possessed about 20 percent ancestry from farmers. Still, previous work has shown neighboring European farmers and hunter-gatherers sometimes kept their distance (SN: 11/16/13, p. 13).

Despite this unexpected evidence of long-term mating among communities with different cultures and styles, the tempo of genetic change and the population sizes of farmers and hunter-gatherers remain poorly understood, says archaeologist Alasdair Whittle of Cardiff University in Wales.

A doctor explains to a young couple that he has screened the pair’s in vitro fertilized embryos and selected those that had no major inheritable diseases. The couple had specified they want a son with hazel eyes, dark hair and fair skin. Then the doctor announces that he has also taken the liberty of eliminating the “burden” of genetic propensities for baldness, nearsightedness, alcoholism, obesity and domestic violence.

The prospective mother replies that they didn’t want those revisions. “I mean diseases, yes, but …” Her husband jumps in to say, “We were just wondering if it’s good to leave a few things to chance.”
But the doctor reminds the would-be parents why they came to him in the first place. They want to give their child “the best possible start.”

That’s a scene from the movie Gattaca, which premiered 20 years ago in October. But thanks to recent advances in gene-editing tools such as CRISPR/Cas9, genetic manipulation of human embryos is becoming reality.

Soon, designer babies like those described in the film may even become morally mandatory, some ethicists say.

Gattaca’s narrator tells us that such genetic manipulation of in vitro fertilized embryos has become “the natural way of giving birth” in the near future portrayed in the film. It has also created an underclass of people whose parents didn’t buy those genetic advantages for their children.
Until recently, that sort of fiddling with human DNA was only science fiction and allegory, a warning against a new kind of eugenics that could pit the genetic haves and have-nots against each other. At a symposium sponsored by the Hastings Center on October 26 before the World Conference of Science Journalists in San Francisco, ethicists and journalists explored the flip side of that discussion: whether parents have a moral obligation to make “better” babies through genetic engineering. Technology that can precisely change a baby’s genes is quickly becoming reality. This year, scientists reported using CRISPR/Cas9 in viable human embryos to fix mutations that cause heart and blood disorders. CRISPR/Cas9 acts as a molecular scissors that relatively easily and precisely manipulates DNA. Scientists have honed and developed the tool in the roughly five years it has been around, creating myriad “CRISPR” mice, fish, pigs, cows, plants and other creatures. Its use in human embryos has been hotly debated. Should we or shouldn’t we?

For many people, the fear of a class of genetically enhanced people is reason enough not to tinker with the DNA of the human germline — eggs, sperm, embryos and the cells that give rise to eggs and sperm. By all means, correct diseases, these folks say, but don’t add extras or meddle with characteristics that don’t have anything to do with health. A panel of ethicists convened by the U.S. National Academies of Medicine and Science also staked out that position in February, ruling that human germline engineering might someday be permissible for correcting diseases, but only if there are no alternatives and not for enhancements.

But the question “should we?” may not matter much longer, predicted the Hastings Center’s Josephine Johnston at the symposium. As science advances and people become more comfortable with gene editing, laws prohibiting tinkering with embryos will fall, she said, and it will be up to prospective moms and dads to decide for themselves. “Will editing a baby’s genes be mandatory, the kind of thing you’re supposed to do?”

For Julian Savulescu, an ethicist at the University of Oxford, the answer is yes. Parents are morally obligated to take steps to keep their children healthy, he says. That includes vaccinating them and giving them medicine when they’re ill. Genetic technologies are no different, he argues. If these techniques could make children resistant to infections, cancer or diabetes, then parents have an obligation to use them, he says.

For now, he cautions, CRISPR’s safety and efficacy haven’t been established, so parents shouldn’t subject their children to the risks. He also points out that this sort of editing would also require in vitro fertilization, which is prohibitively costly for many people. (And couples could pretty much forget about having the perfect baby through sexual intercourse. Designer darlings would have to be created in the lab.)

But someday, possibly soon, gene editing could become a viable medical intervention. “If CRISPR were safe and not excessively costly, we have a moral obligation to use it to prevent and treat disease,” Savulescu says.

Using gene editing to cure genetic diseases is something retired bioethicist Ronald Green of Dartmouth College can get behind. “I fully support the reproductive use of gene-editing technology for the prevention and elimination of serious genetic diseases,” Green said at the symposium. “If we could use gene editing to remove the sequences in an embryo that cause sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis, I would say not only that we may do so, but in the case of such severe diseases, we have a moral obligation to do so.”

But that’s where a parent’s obligation stops, Green said. Parents and medical professionals aren’t required to enhance health “to make people who are better than well,” he said.

Savulescu, however, would extend the obligation to other nondisease conditions that could prevent a kid from having a full set of opportunities in life. For instance, children with poor impulse control may have difficulty succeeding in school and life. The drug Ritalin is sometimes prescribed to such kids. “If CRISPR could do what Ritalin does and improve impulse control and give a child a greater range of opportunities,” he says, “then I’d have to say we have the same moral obligation to use CRISPR as we do to provide education, to provide an adequate diet or to provide Ritalin.”

Green rejected the idea that parents should, or even could, secure a better life for their kids through genetic manipulation. Scientists haven’t identified all the genes that contribute to good lives — and there are plenty of factors beyond genetics that go into making someone happy and successful. Already, Green said, “the healthy natural human genome has enough variety in it to let any child successfully navigate the world and fulfill his or her own vision of happiness.” (A version of his remarks was posted on the Hastings Center’s Bioethics Forum.)

Many traits that would help a person make more money or have an easier life are associated with social prejudices and discrimination, says Marcy Darnovsky, the executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, Calif. People who are taller and fair-skinned tend to make more money. If parents were to engineer their children to have such traits, “I think we would be inscribing those kinds of social prejudices in biology,” she says. “We get to very troubled waters very quickly as a society once we start down that road.”

Creating a class of “genobility,” as Green calls genetically enhanced people, would increase already staggering levels of inequality, Darnovsky says. That, says Savulescu, “is the Gattaca objection I often get.”

Yes, he acknowledges, “it could create even greater inequalities, there’s no doubt about that.” Whenever money is involved, people who have more of it can afford better treatments, diets and healthier lifestyles — and disparities will exist. “However, this is not inevitable,” Savulescu says. Countries with national health care systems could provide such services for free. Such measures could even correct natural inequalities, he argues.

Johnston worries that genetic manipulation could change family dynamics. Parents might be disappointed if their designer baby doesn’t turn out as desired. That’s a variation of the old problem of unfulfilled parental expectations, Savulescu says. “It’s a problem that deserves attention, but it’s not a problem that deserves banning CRISPR,” he says.

Deep in the Bale Mountains of Ethiopia, wildlife workers trek up above 9,800 feet to save some of the world’s most rare carnivores, Ethiopian wolves.

“It’s cold, tough work,” says Eric Bedin, who leads the field monitoring team in its uphill battle.

In this sparse, sometimes snowy landscape, the lanky and ginger-colored wolves (Canis simensis) reign as the region’s apex predators. Yet the combined threats of rabies, canine distemper and habitat reduction have the animals cornered.

Bedin and his colleagues, traveling by horse and on foot through dramatically shifting temperatures and weather, track these solitary hunters for weeks at a time. Team members know every wolf in most packs in these mountains. The team has vaccinated some wolves against rabies, only to have hopes dashed when the animals died of distemper months later.
“These guys work their asses off to protect these wolves,” says Claudio Sillero, a conservation biologist at the University of Oxford who heads up the Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme, of which the field monitoring team is an integral part. Down the line, humans stand to benefit from all this work too.

Sillero and his colleagues have been at this for 30 years. They’ve seen four major outbreaks of rabies alone, each leaving dozens of carcasses across the highlands and cutting some populations by as much as 75 percent.

Today, fewer than 500 Ethiopian wolves exist — around half of them in the Bale Mountains. A new oral rabies vaccine program aims to give the endangered animals a fighting chance. It may be their best hope for survival, Sillero says.

Later this year, if all goes well, oral vaccines hidden in hunks of goat meat will be scattered across wolf ranges and eaten by the animals. One dose every two years should bolster immunity against rabies among these iconic animals immortalized on several of their country’s postage stamps.
One Health
Vaccinating endangered animals en masse in the wild is rarely attempted. Making the case for vaccination takes years of testing. And even when the case is strong for stepping in, the tools needed to vaccinate wildlife aren’t often available, says Tonie Rocke, an epizootiologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Madison, Wis. On the opposite side of the globe from Bale, on North America’s Great Plains, Rocke’s lab is testing an oral vaccine to protect prairie dogs and endangered ferrets from plague.
A recent synergy has made these new oral vaccine efforts possible: improvements in vaccine technology (developed for humans and domesticated animals) and growing public and scientific interest in “One Health.” The conservation buzzword refers to efforts to help one species that also benefit others, including humans.

The researchers pushing for a green light in Ethiopia point to the one shining success in oral vaccines for wild animals, and to its One Health benefits. From 1978 to 2010, oral vaccines sprinkled across parts of Europe eliminated rabies in red foxes. Europe’s rabies cases in humans and other animals dropped by 80 percent from 1984 to 2014. But rabies is still common in certain parts of the world, including Ethiopia. Worldwide, more than 59,000 people die from the disease each year.

Successes on the plateaus of Bale and the prairies of North America could open the door for other vaccines to protect threatened species. Vaccines against Ebola in great apes and white-nose syndrome in bats are in the works.

But introducing vaccines into natural environments is a hard sell and can come with controversy and unexpected consequences.
A last resort
To the average U.S. vet or dog owner, vaccination is a no-brainer. But for endangered species, the stakes are high. Some conservationists are reluctant to intervene with disease-preventing vaccines in the wild, says Karen Laurenson, an epidemiologist and veterinarian with the Frankfurt Zoological Society.

Disease has its place in ecosystems. It can control population levels and put pressure on species to develop natural resistance, says Laurenson, who started working with the wolf project in the mid-1990s. Using a vaccine to take a disease out of the mix could leave a population vulnerable to future outbreaks should the vaccine become ineffective or stop being used. In an ecosystem with multiple power players, one vaccinated predator could gain an unnatural advantage over its competitors.

Some vaccines also bring direct risks. Injectable vaccines often require trapping the animal — a costly endeavor that’s stressful and dangerous for both wild animals and the humans doing the vaccinating. Oral vaccines could be scooped up and eaten by other animals. Plus, for an oral or injectable attenuated vaccine, which contains a living but harmless version of a virus, there’s a slim possibility that evolutionary pressure could eventually drive the virus, now distributed through the population, to become lethal again.

Because room for error is slim for a species on the brink of extinction, most instances of vaccine use have been limited to emergency responses during ongoing outbreaks.

Projects that don’t go well can have lasting repercussions. In 1990, researchers tried to vaccinate some packs of endangered African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in Tanzania and Kenya against rabies, assuming the disease was behind a recent dip in numbers. Every dog in the study died. The stress of getting vaccinated, shot by dart from a distance, may have made the dogs more susceptible to disease, though that theory was never proven. The incident increased skepticism about vaccines and caused some African countries to tighten vaccine regulations. “It left a terrible legacy,” says veterinarian Richard Kock of the University of London.

The long game
The uphill battle faced by Sillero’s team involves more than the challenges of canvassing the Ethiopian highlands. Making a case to government officials that oral vaccines are necessary conservation tools took decades of fieldwork, genetic testing and meetings upon meetings. “The credit really goes to Claudio and the others for persisting,” Laurenson says. “Even when the doors have been shut, sometimes they’ve kept banging.”

Sillero arrived in Ethiopia in 1987 to study the wolves. A rabies outbreak hit in late 1989. Just as it does in dogs and humans, the disease attacks a wolf’s brain, causing aggressive behavior and, eventually, death. Canine distemper appeared in 1992. Marked by severe diarrhea, vomiting and coughing, the disease appears to hit wolves harder than dogs, Sillero says. The Ethiopian packs have faced four more major flare-ups of rabies and two of distemper. Two of the eight populations of wolves he came to study have gone extinct in that time.

“This is a human-caused problem, not a natural dynamic,” Laurenson says. Each year, shepherds and farmers move higher up into the wolves’ habitat, bringing grazing livestock. These people also bring domesticated dogs — the primary carriers of rabies and canine distemper (SN Online: 9/30/16). In one area of Ethiopia, wolf habitat shrunk by 34 percent from 1985 to 2003. Islands of wolf populations persist in remote highland areas surrounded by oceans of free-ranging dogs.

Vaccinating the wolves was plan B, after the lower-risk approach of vaccinating domestic dogs didn’t cut it. Because the dogs roam far and wide, dog vaccination programs didn’t reach enough animals to generate prolonged protection and prevent outbreaks in wolves. “I’m sure we were improving the situation and reducing the chance of spillovers in wild carnivores, but we weren’t preventing them altogether,” Sillero says.

Going with oral vaccines was plan C. In 2003, the government approved use of an injectable vaccine only in response to outbreaks. Sillero’s team first had to collect samples and send them to international labs to confirm that an outbreak was happening. The researchers were always behind. An oral option that proactively protects the animals started to sound like a smart way to go.

Deliver the dose
On paper, the wolves look like good candidates for an oral vaccine intervention. Few other animals brave the highlands habitat, so the odds are low that a vaccine distributed in bait would get eaten by the wrong creatures. And not vaccinating is arguably riskier than making the effort. Consecutive rabies and distemper outbreaks recently cut one of the smallest known wolf populations down to two individuals, Sillero’s team reported in December in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

The Ethiopian team chose to test an oral rabies vaccine, called SAG2, that had been used successfully in red foxes. Twenty million baits had been dropped across Europe with no vaccine-induced rabies cases or reported deaths. SAG2 also passed safety tests in a slew of different species, including African wild dogs. “That work was absolutely fundamental,” Laurenson says.
Getting the vaccine into the animals is the trickiest part. Animals have to bite into the bait to puncture an internal packet that contains the vaccine, rather than swallow the bait whole. “You’ve got to make the bait such that the [wolf] would chew it,” says Anthony Fooks, a vaccine researcher who runs a U.K. government lab that handles sample tests for the wolf project.

So Sillero and his team launched a series of pilot studies of an oral SAG2. “We set up cafeteria-type experiments, with different baits and delivery methods,” Sillero says. The researchers dropped 445 baits in locations around Bale. Hiding the vaccine in goat meat and distributing the goods at night worked better than other options, the team reported in 2016 in Vaccine. Of 21 wolves trapped a couple of weeks later, 14, or 67 percent, carried a biomarker showing the vaccine was in the wolf’s system. Of those, 86 percent had developed immunity against rabies. The impact on other wildlife was low: Only a few raptors snatched up vaccines meant for the wolves.

With all that data in hand, Sillero’s team finally won over Ethiopia’s Wildlife Conservation Authority in December, receiving an official thumbs-up to move forward. This month, 4,000 vaccines arrived; the mass vaccination program could get off the ground this summer.

It’ll be the first mass oral vaccination program to target an endangered species in the wild. The basic plan: Distribute the oral vaccines at night once every two years, vaccinate at least 40 percent of a chosen wolf population and use motion-sensing cameras to see if each pack’s high-ranking males and females — the primary pup producers — take the bait. It’s important to keep the top producers healthy.
Drones and peanut butter
Having a readily available oral vaccine for the wolves was a lucky break for the researchers in Ethiopia. A research team in the United States had no such luck. Tonie Rocke and her colleagues had to develop their own oral plague vaccine for prairie dogs. The team devised a raccoon poxvirus that produces plague proteins once inside the prairie dog body. The proteins train the immune system to fight the plague-causing Yersinia bacteria.

Saving plague-ridden prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) is an indirect way to protect the real target: an endangered predator, black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) of the Great Plains. The ferrets survive on a diet of mostly prairie dogs and had nearly gone extinct in the 1970s due to centuries of habitat loss, prey declines and plague.
On top of captive breeding and reintroduction programs to keep the ferret species afloat, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service traps and vaccinates wild ferrets directly. But it’s not enough.

Rocke and her colleagues went ahead and developed a peanut butter–flavored oral plague vaccine. They distributed it by drones and four-wheelers in small test plots in seven states to limit prairie dog carriers. (Plague can threaten prairie dog populations too, so everybody wins.)

Last June, the researchers published the results of these successful small-scale field trials in EcoHealth. A prairie dog’s odds of surviving in plague-ridden areas just about doubled. And the peanut butter pellets were as good at reducing plague levels as traditional insecticides that kill plague-carrying fleas. It’s unclear just how many prairie dogs in colonies need to be vaccinated to protect the ferrets from plague.

Getting the vaccine approved wasn’t as tortuous as it has been in Ethiopia. Collaborators at Colorado Parks and Wildlife already had a cheap way to make the baits, and in 2017, Colorado Serum Company licensed the product through the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

This year, Rocke hopes to conduct larger-scale field trials to determine the levels of immunity required for success in a mass vaccination. Ultimately, the application will be limited — just selected populations of prairie dogs that are either in ferret territory or endangered themselves, such as the Utah prairie dog (C. parvidens). Plague infects a handful of humans and domesticated animals each year as well, and the team is looking into using the vaccine in areas where humans spend time, like national parks.
Encouraging others
Success for one species could be good news for others. Similar preventative strategies might work in other threatened animals, including other members of the dog family dealing with rabies and ungulates like zebras at risk of catching anthrax while grazing. Researchers are testing preventative vaccines to protect wild Hawaiian monk seals from a seal-specific distemper virus.

Oral vaccines aren’t the only nontraditional delivery method. Rocke’s lab is working on a topical vaccine against white-nose syndrome, which threatens bats (SN Online: 3/31/16), and one to combat rabies in common vampire bats (Desmodus rotundus). Vampire bats in particular nuzzle each other during social grooming. “It’s an easy way to get the vaccine distributed amongst members of the colony,” Rocke says.

In October in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, her lab reported that the vaccine works in captured big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), but it still hasn’t been tested in vampire bats, key rabies carriers in South America. Rocke and colleagues hope to start trials in vampire bats this year in Mexico and Peru.

Great apes can fall victim to some of the same pathogens as humans, such as measles and Ebola. In March 2017 in Scientific Reports, a research team published successful lab tests of an oral vaccine against Ebola in captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). The vaccine relies on the rabies virus to deliver Ebola proteins that elicit an immune response in chimps, but it hasn’t been tested in the field yet.

Such a vaccine should be used selectively, Kock says. Vaccinating great apes against Ebola in preserves where the animals might encounter human carriers makes sense. But vaccinating gorillas across large forests in the Congo “is just silly,” he says.

Protecting isolated species on the brink of extinction is where vaccines could do the most good. Endangered Amur tigers (Panthera tigris altaica) have been hit hard by canine distemper, their numbers falling to around 500 individuals in their Siberian habitat. Vaccines have been debated as a potential option and injectables have been tested in captive tigers.

Sillero doesn’t expect to see any oral options developed against distemper in the future, because there’s not a big economic incentive. Unlike rabies, the disease doesn’t cause problems in humans. So he’s working with the shots available. Genetic analyses of locally circulating distemper strains published in July 2017 suggest the injectable distemper vaccines should work for the Ethiopian wolves, Fooks says. Sillero’s team is testing one in the field now. Preliminary data suggest the shot elicits a good immune response.
What’s good for the wildlife
Greater awareness about the overlap of human, livestock and wildlife health on shared lands underlies many of these projects. Ethiopia has one of the highest rabies death rates among humans in the world, and lowering the disease prevalence in any animals that humans come in contact with has benefit.

“This will have positive impacts for the threatened animals, for the welfare of domestic dogs and livestock, and for the health and finance of the human community,” Sillero argues. The One Health mind-set is also behind programs run in a few areas of Ethiopia’s northern highlands, to teach local farmers how to build more efficient stoves that require less firewood, and thus, less foraging in wolf territory.

“Vaccination and eradication of things like rabies … needs a whole of society approach,” Kock says. “It cannot be done piecemeal.”

For Ethiopia’s impending oral vaccine launch that has been so many years in the making, Sillero is optimistic. But he’s still holding his breath.

“I have to see the wolves taking up the baits before I can congratulate the team,” he says. “But I think we’re nearly there.”

In the United States, cartoon characters are a no-no in cigarette ads, and candy- or fruit-flavored cigarettes can’t be sold. But that’s not the case for e-cigarettes, and these youth-appealing tactics are luring teens who have never used tobacco products to give e-cigs and even cigarettes a try, a new study suggests.

Researchers analyzed surveys of nearly 7,000 kids ages 12 to 17 who had never used a tobacco product as of 2013 to 2014. Teens who recalled seeing or liking e-cigarette ads were 1.6 times as likely to be open to trying e-cigs or to actually try them the next year as kids who didn’t remember the ads, researchers report online March 26 in JAMA Pediatrics. E-cig ads often feature celebrities, cartoons (one product shows a unicorn vomiting a rainbow) or references to sweet flavors, such as Skittles.
Past research has shown a link between traditional cigarette advertisements and receptive nonsmoking adolescents going on to light up. Nearly nine out of 10 smokers tried their first cigarette by age 18. Gearing traditional cigarette ads toward teens has been restricted since 1998.

In 2016, more than 2.1 million U.S. middle and high school students reported using e-cigarettes. That same year, an estimated 20.5 million — or four in five — were exposed to e-cigarette ads.

But e-cigarette ads are doing more than hyping vaping, the study suggests. The ads also appeared to nudge some teens and young adults to take up cigarette smoking. Of a larger group of about 10,500 kids ages 12 to 21 who had never used tobacco products, 18 percent recalled seeing or liking e-cigarette ads but not cigarette ads. Five percent of those teens had started to smoke by the next year.

Extrapolating to the U.S. population, “105,000 12- to 21- year olds appear to have smoked their first cigarette because of the influence of e-cigarette advertising,” says John Pierce, a behavioral epidemiologist at the University of California, San Diego.
Previous research has found that teens who use e-cigarettes are more likely to smoke traditional cigarettes (SN: 9/19/15, p. 14). The fact that e-cigarette ads may up the risk of smoking “raises an unprecedented concern for adolescent tobacco control,” addiction psychologist Adam Leventhal and epidemiologist Jessica L. Barrington-Trimis, both of the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine in Los Angeles, write in an accompanying editorial in the journal.

In an interview, Leventhal adds that restricting such advertising is an important target for public health campaigns and policies to limit youth use of tobacco products.

Birds can sense Earth’s magnetic field, and this uncanny ability may help them fly home from unfamiliar places or navigate migrations that span tens of thousands of kilometers.

For decades, researchers thought iron-rich cells in birds’ beaks acted as microscopic compasses (SN: 5/19/12, p. 8). But in recent years, scientists have found increasing evidence that certain proteins in birds’ eyes might be what allows them to see magnetic fields (SN: 10/28/09, p. 12).

Scientists have now pinpointed a possible protein behind this “sixth sense.” Two new studies — one examining zebra finches published March 28 in Journal of the Royal Society Interface, the other looking at European robins published January 22 in Current Biology — both single out Cry4, a light-sensitive protein found in the retina. If the researchers are correct, this would be the first time a specific molecule responsible for the detection of magnetic fields has been identified in animals.
“This is an exciting advance — we need more papers like these,” says Peter Hore, a chemist at the University of Oxford who has studied chemical reactions involved in bird navigation.

Cry4 is part of a class of proteins called cryptochromes, which are known to be involved in circadian rhythms, or biological sleep cycles (SN: 10/02/17, p. 6). But at least some of these proteins are also thought to react to Earth’s magnetic field thanks to the weirdness of quantum mechanics (SN: 7/23/16, p. 8). The protein’s quantum interactions could help birds sense this field, says Atticus Pinzon-Rodriguez, a biologist at the University of Lund in Sweden who was involved with the zebra finch study.

To figure out which of three cryptochromes is responsible for this quantum compass, Pinzon-Rodriguez and his colleagues examined the retinas, muscles and brains of 39 zebra finches for the presence of the three proteins Cry1, Cry2 and Cry4.
The team found that while levels of Cry1 and Cry2 followed a rhythmic pattern that rose and fell over the day, Cry4 levels remained constant, indicating the protein was being produced steadily.

“We assume that birds use magnetic compasses any time of day or night,” says Lund biologist Rachel Muheim, a coauthor on the zebra finch study.

European robins also showed constant levels of Cry4 during a 24-hour cycle, and higher levels during their migratory season. And the researchers in that study found Cry4 in an area of the robin’s retina that receives a lot of light — a position that would help it work as a compass, the study says.

“We have quite a lot of evidence, but [Cry4] is not proven,” says Henrik Mouritsen, an animal navigation expert at the Institute of Biology and Environmental Sciences in Oldenburg, Germany, who participated in the robin study. More definitive evidence might come from observing birds without a functioning Cry4 protein, to see if they still seem to have an internal compass.

Even then, Hore says, we still may not understand how birds actually perceive magnetic fields. To know, you’d have to be a bird.

There’s a fine line between immersive and unnerving when it comes to touch sensation in virtual reality.

More realistic tactile feedback in VR can ruin a user’s feeling of immersion, researchers report online April 18 in Science Robotics. The finding suggests that the “uncanny valley” — a term that describes how humanoid robots that look almost but not quite human are creepier than their more cartoonish counterparts — also applies to virtual touch (SN Online: 11/22/13).
Experiment participants wearing VR headsets and gripping a controller in each hand embodied a virtual avatar holding the two ends of a stick. At first, users felt no touch sensation. Then, the hand controllers gave equally strong vibrations every half-second. Finally, the vibrations were finely tuned to create the illusion that the virtual stick was being touched in different spots. For instance, stronger vibrations in the right controller gave the impression that the stick was nudged on that side.

Compared with scenarios in which users received either no touch or even buzzing sensations, participants reported feeling far less immersed in the virtual environment when they received the realistic, localized touch. This result demonstrates the existence of a tactile uncanny valley, says study coauthor Mar Gonzalez-Franco, a human-computer interaction researcher at Microsoft Research in Redmond, Washington.

But when users were shown a marble touching the virtual stick wherever they felt the localized touch, the participants found this realistic tactile feedback highly immersive rather than bothersome. The finding indicates that rich tactile feedback in VR may need to be paired with other sensory cues that explain the source of the sensation to avoid spooking users, Gonzalez-Franco says.

Better understanding how realistic touch sensations can break the VR illusion may help developers create more engaging virtual environments for games and virtual reality therapy, says Sean Follmer, a human-computer interaction researcher at Stanford University not involved in the study.