To: virology@net.bio.net
From: dyanega@denr1.igis.uiuc.edu (Doug Yanega)
Subject: My Candidate for the Ebola Reservoir Organism (was Re: Chimpanzee Ebola outbreak)
Date sent: 26 May 1995 18:40:07 GMT
In article <00990CC9.364DAE7A@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 5lr6schumach@vms.csd.mu.edu
wrote:
> The newest issue of science (19 May 1995, Vol 268, Pgs974-975) has a
short article on an outbreak of ebola in chimpanzees that occurred last
November. This is the one on the Ivory Coast's tai Forest. Also, this is
the one where the swiss researcher contracted ebola from the chimp while
doing the autopsy (she did recover). They say that this strain is
different than any other one. The complete article will be in this weeks
issue of The Lancet. They make the interesting observation and suggestion
that since t
> his outbreak occurred after the rainy season that it may be insect born.
Also, they have found cases of ebola in poachers and villagers who kill
and eat monkeys. the outbreak killed 12 out of 40 chimps. Interesting
article in a scientifically sound journal...........
I'm staggered to see how, for something so prominent as Ebola, the "left
hand doesn't know what the right is doing" - all the evidence suggests
that the reservoir of the virus is something the chimpanzees eat,
something people who eat monkeys eat, and (logically) is probably a
mammal, most likely a primate. There have, however, been several
recently-published studies on the diet of wild chimps, and their main prey
are *Red Colobus monkeys*. How come with all the high-profile activity, no
one has ever bothered to LOOK at the literature on chimp behavior, put two
and two together, and suggested that the Red Colobus monkey might be the
reservoir species??!! No, instead we get some half-baked suggestion that
it "might be insect-borne"...mark my words, it'll take them several years
and several million dollars to find the reservoir, and I'll bet my bottom
dollar that it will turn out to be the Colobus after all that (and whoever
publishes it first will become an instant celebrity). Is this what comes
of ultra-specialization in science? I can't imagine how else a major
article in a major journal could overlook something so obvious.
Sincerely,
--
Doug Yanega
Illinois Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity
607 E. Peabody Dr. Champaign, IL 61820 USA
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness is
the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick
To: virology@net.bio.net
From: "Patrick O'Neil"
Subject: Re: My Candidate for the Ebola Reservoir Organism (was Re: Chimpanzee Ebola outbreak)
Date sent: Sat, 27 May 1995 22:39:58 -0600
On 28 May 1995 salamon@notmendel.Berkeley.EDU wrote:
> : recently-published studies on the diet of wild chimps, and their main prey
> : are *Red Colobus monkeys*. How come with all the high-profile activity, no
This could well turn out to be true but other human cases have had
(apparently) nothing to do with monkeys or chimps. In any case, though
Red Colobus monkeys are a major prey of chimps, it is still not the only
prey. Chimps have been known to bring down small deer and related
animals too. Considering the rarity of Ebola infections, I would also
tend to think that it might be linked, following your logic, to a
relatively rare prey of the chimps. They occassionally kill prey X and
prey X is sometimes infected with Ebola.
Patrick
To: virology@net.bio.net
From: dyanega@denr1.igis.uiuc.edu (Doug Yanega)
Subject: Re: My Candidate for the Ebola Reservoir Organism (was Re: Chimpanzee Ebola outbreak)
Date sent: 28 May 1995 17:06:37 GMT
I don't question that there are a few points not entirely explained by the
hypothesis. My point was that there are certainly more things *pointing*
to the Colobus monkeys than any other possibilities, as per the list
above. The Science article specified that there have been many cases among
people who eat monkeys, and I've seen other articles specifically
proposing that there must be "some as-yet unidentified primate serving as
reservoir" - but which then go on to essentially propose that the virus
"must be transferred by insect vectors," because they saw that as the only
way for chimps to be affected. This clearly suggests to me that those
authors were unaware that chimps ate other primates. Colobus are not the
main item in the chimps' *diet*, which is largely vegetarian, but when
they *do* catch prey, it is mostly Colobus monkeys. This could indeed be a
relatively rare occurrence, for chimps to catch a Colobus that happens to
harbor the virus. Yes, conceivably it could be bush pigs or deer, but I
was following the suggestion by others that a *primate* reservoir was the
most likely scenario.
Given all the logical reasons to suspect Colobus monkeys, then, why has
no one ever suggested that they should be a primary target, especially
those folks *investigating* the disease? It would seem to be a sorry
excuse for detective work if an entomologist (which is what I happen to
be) can come up with a better lead by reading semi-popular literature
(Natural History, Science, and Nature) than the folks who are presently
directly responsible for solving the problem. I was posting here
essentially in hope of provoking either (a) someone who can indicate to me
that this is NOT a new hypothesis (the most likely event, we can only
hope!) or (b) someone well-versed enough and intimately placed enough to
recognize this *is* something that's been overlooked and act on it.
Sincerely,
--
Doug Yanega
Illinois Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity
607 E. Peabody Dr. Champaign, IL 61820 USA
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness is
the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick