Tetanus

I recently had a trip to the ER for a puncture wound on my finger. I couldn't recall my last Tetanus booster, so I got another. That of course got me pondering if I should have received another booster and I decided to delve into the disease a bit more.

Chances are that they have caught tetanus.

Anyway what's so big deal about tetanus?

Tetanus is caused by a species of bacteria that infests on the surface of rusty metal, in areas with hot, damp climate and soil rich in organic matter.



The bacteria enters the body via puncture wounds and it takes 8-15 days to incubate. The further the wound from the central nervous system, the longer it takes to incubate. In my case the wound is on my toe, so I figure I might experience some symptoms of tetanus in a weeks' time.



The bacteria releases tetanospasmin, a neurotoxin that affects skeletal muscle. As a result, the victim would suffer from facial spasms, followed by stiffness of the neck, difficulty in swallowing, and rigidity of pectoral and calf muscles. Other symptoms include elevated temperature, sweating, elevated blood pressure, and episodic rapid heart rate.

Spasms may occur frequently and last for several minutes with the body shaped into a characteristic form. Spasms continue for up to 4 weeks, and complete recovery may take months. Mortality rates reported vary from 40% to 78%, and it affects not only human, but also horses, dogs and other animals.




Anyway I should've got myself an injection to prevent tetanus but... miss me if I do get infected



So all in all my arm was sore for 12 hours and the odds of me contracting tetanus are now slim to none.  I'll call it a win.
info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetanus

Rapid Tissue Necrosis- A New Understanding.

Rapid Tissue Necrosis- A New Understanding.

by Jonathan Lowrie

Rapid Tissue Necrosis is a term coined by the aquarium populace to describe a common malady of corals kept in captivity.  It is present predominantly in members of the coral families Pocilloporidae (Pocillopora, Seriatopora, Stylophora, Madracis) and Acroporidae (Acropora, Anacropora, Montipora, etc.).  The condition is characterized by the rapid sloughing of tissue from the base of the skeleton outward which, if left unchecked, can result in coral death in a period of hours to days.  There has been much talk and writing on the subject over the past several years in magazines, Internet groups, and at conferences, regarding this affliction.  However, despite numerous theories and remedies put forth, the lack of cohesive methodology, including observable and inexplicable pathophysiology, prevented our willingness to accept much of the available information.  As coral pathology is an evolving field of research, there will be continual advances in the understanding of the etiology of these conditions and how they afflict corals.

After observing the deaths of many specimens to rapid tissue sloughing, we were a bit surprised and hesitant to accept the current model of Rapid Tissue Necrosis (henceforth "RTN") as being pathogenically causative.  Based on many years of observations, we had both seen numerous cases of RTN which were not explainable by these models, nor were they likely to be so in the future.  This series of observations has been corroborated by many others keeping these families of corals, through personal observation and interview.  Furthermore, we had observed individual cases where the pattern of tissue necrosis did not fit the common base-up loss.  We had experienced corals which did not respond to the now accepted treatment method involving the use of the antibiotic, chloramphenicol.  We had data to suggest that other inducements of a non-pathogenic nature existed.  We had observations and data of unusual morphologic and physiologic changes immediately prior to and concurrent with extant "disease."  We had surveyed the literature in depth and found that there were many seemingly similar or possibly same- symptom diseases that had been reported for over twenty years.  We also had a working hypothesis.  Through subsequent conversations and sharing of experiences and research, we have delved into a dimly lit area of marine science; Cnidarian immunology. 

Coral pathology is a relatively seldom studied aspect of the Cnidarian group.  Some of the early works on this topic, are strictly descriptions of conditions noticed in wild corals on reefs.  In the late 1970’s Arnfried Antonius first described a natural coral disease called White Band Disease (WBD).  Coral propagation and collection for home aquaria was not commonplace at this time.  As the work continues, a multitude of natural diseases have been found, many with as yet to be determined etiologies.  This broadly classifies a multitude of maladies in which various rates of tissue sloughing may be present.   Years later, other researches like Esther Peters determined that many of these disease seem to have a component in which environmental stress has a role.  She has further classified the diseases into appropriate categories.  In some cases, a specific pathogenic causative agent has been discovered.  In the case of RTN, the results of such a search have yielded a potential pathogen for some tested corals.

Dr. Craig Bingman, a biochemist at Columbia University, found evidence of large numbers of Vibrio vulnificus colonies present in tissue from RTN afflicted corals.  He also showed that the gram-negative antibiotic, chloramphenicol has been successful in arresting the progression of RTN in these and other samples.

Some have said that a marine Vibrio- vibrio vulvinificus is the caustitive agent of RTN. Based on studies that show Vibrio in large numbers in affected tanks, this conclusion may seem valid.  When one understands more about Vibrio- it becomes less clear  Vibrio are gram negatice, comma shaped bacteria.  They are found worldwide.  Most are marine spoecies.  These bacteria are extremely hard to differentiate from one another.  Many Vibrio are pathogentic to certain species, but usually only one species per bacteria.  Meaning Vibrio chlolera is pathogenic to humans, while Vibrio vulvinificus is pathogenic to Atlantic Oysters (crassostrea virginicata).  It is unlikely that one coudl accurately tell if a Vibrio is the causitive agent to RTN in corals.

Unfortunately, other gram-negative antibiotics have little effect over the Vibrio within the tissue.  Because other antibiotics fail to achieve a similar level of success, one must investigate the nature of chlormaphenicol as a pharmacologic agent.  This compound is sometimes attributed with a form of bone marrow anemia, and may cause other immunity suppression.  We feel that this may be why the drug has a more pronounced affect on RTN affected corals than equally competent gram-negative antibiotics.  A  downside of this medication is that it is a prescriptive, requiring a medical doctor or veterinarian to dispense.  It also has been implicated as a potential hazard to humans.  Furthermore, as of 1998, chloramphenicol is NOT approved for aquaculture use in the United States.

Another form of treatment for RTN involves dipping the afflicted coral into a solution of iodine. Lugol’s solution (.5% iodine, and 1% potassium iodide) is commonly used as a bacteriostatic or sterilizing agent in many aquaculture applications. While some assert it is effective through the theoretical explanation of reducing surface bacterial populations, other aquarists have noted that certain sources of wild corals are prone to more frequent RTN outbreaks following a preventive Lugol’s dip.  A possible explanation lies with the oxidative nature of the iodine solution.  During the dipping, a large portion of the mucosal layer is stripped off, potentially lessening the effectiveness of the protective mucus. 

There has also been a perceived increase in the incidence of RTN within the hobby.  Imports to the US have steadily grown over the past 5 years, and captive propagation has grown considerably with advances in husbandry and technique. Some of the perceived increase may be attributable to the increased demand of RTN-susceptible corals by aquarists as methodologies of maintaining these animals successfully has improved.  Of course, with increased demand comes lowered prices, and the concurrent lowering of care for collected specimens to preserve profit margins.  It is not a new revelation that most of those who have theorized about the causes of RTN have come to the almost incontrovertible conclusion that this syndrome is related to stress. Captive raised RTN-susceptible corals have a decreased report of showing signs of the affliction.   Their tissue has already had time to acclimate to the environment of a home system, and they are normally subjected to a much less traumatic shipping procedure.  It is notable that most of the cases of RTN are arising from specimens collected from the wild which are often stressed to an extreme in their shipments and holdings.  

Through our investigations, we proposed that the corals afflicted with RTN were responding in a way that did not correlate well with models of any pathogen.  The rate of infection (pathogenecity) was too quick, and the spread of disease occurred faster than what seemed likely with any viral or bacterial agent.  But, we had also observed incidences of RTN that occurred after specific instances of sedimentation, lowered oxygen levels, temperature changes, etc.  All  of these causes are environmental stressors. Whether stressed by environmental conditions, or infection, death of these corals was consistent with RTN.  This was not all together acceptable.  Certainly it was possible that increased stress would allow for the introduction of an infectious agent.  But why?  Stress in humans decreases our immunity...and decreased immunity had been purported as part of the reason these corals became "sick."  We began to look at Cnidarian immunity to ascertain what was occurring. We then developed a hypothesis.  RTN is not necessarily exclusively bacterial in nature, but can be likened to an allergic reaction.  Allergies are a heightened immune response that results in the appearance of disease, though no pathogen is necessarily present.  In fact, only an antigen must be present, and antigens can be as insignificant as a particle of pollen.  Founded in no small part by his earlier graduate work in assessing natural damage to reef populations, Jonathan contributed the data to this paper.  We proposed that corals were possibly reacting to any number of stressors in an auto-immune fashion, effectively causing their own deaths.  We are tentatively calling this reaction, the immune-response hypothesis.  As we have conducted a variety of related and ancillary studies to draw these conclusions, it is beyond the scope of this publication to detail the data and experimental method. A modicum of understanding by the reader will allow for the presentation of our data in a readable form.

Phylum Cnidaria, of which corals are a member, possess a relatively unstudied immune system. Cnidarians are primitive organisms that have one of the most ancient immune systems in nature.  It is an effective one, owing to their long term success over millions of years.  However, it is also a primitive one that is adept at coping with the relatively stable conditions of the ocean over time.  It was never evolved to deal with the stresses inherent to collection for aquariums, and it was not evolved to deal with the stressors being placed on wild communities today by human action.  Hence, there is a measurable increase in the incidence of diseases by both field observations and aquarists.  One of the features of the Cnidarian immune response is that they are inherently capable of releasing all the known cell types and enzymes that are capable of eliciting self-digestion.  Furthermore, the time it takes for non-RTN affected corals to "contract" RTN fits in well with the amount of time required for immune responses.  And it has already been found that Cnidarians, and even corals, participate in autoimmune behavior under other circumstances. Recently, Jonathan injected a non-pathogenic Vibrio species into a cold water anemone.  He found a dramatically increased number of immunoresponsive cells at the injections siste, which was later followed by the host-mediated local digestion of its own tissues.  In other words, an autoimmune response was found that caused tissue necrosis.  As this is a onetime observation, it requires further study.  We plan to extend this experimental protocol to tropical species and corals. 

Coral mucus is important in the immune response of corals to potential invaders.  It is not merely a protective coating, but also hosts immunodefensive cell types from the interstitial layers that are responsible for action against potentially dangerous environmental stresses and antigens such as sediments, bacteria, and chemicals.  Many other animals of the ocean realm have developed the use of a skin coating or mucus as a mechanism to prevent disease or infection.  Fish have a highly specialized ‘slime’ coat that allows for rough scrapes and prevents many parasites from getting an internal start. Under normal circumstances of active water flow, oxygen levels, and pH ranges, the corals' immune system can effectively deal with such antigens.  They produce immune responses that are normal to these levels.  When  exposed  to non-natural levels, their immune response is not coordinated.  They may over or underreact, and related and/or nearby corals may even counterreact to the immunoreactive corals because of  substances the "stressed" corals release.  Cnidarians  release chemicals known as histocompatibility factors into the water through their mucus. These factors are involved both in recognition of self and in the immune response, and they confer a natural immunity to antigens normally encountered in a population.  

So why Acropora?  Or at least, why is Acropora so often affected?  This coral is one of the fastest growing corals and is running at a brisk metabolic rate.  Therefore, it must be able to elicit quick action against invaders.  It is also a relatively recent coral from an evolutionary standpoint, and has unique or specialized physiologic attributes.  Immunity may to be one of them.  They are voracious consumers of plankton, and consume a large portion of bacterioplankton and bacteria they culture in their mucus (many of which are potentially pathogenic species). In a marine system, the majority of microfauna have pathogenic tendencies. Acroporids, et al. are also prolific mucus shedders.  This is not only as a physical and immune related protection against the normally high stress environments in which they are found, but also because they depend on mucus capture of nutrients to a larger degree that many corals.  Such mucosal secretions would mean that the factors which would stimulate an autoimmune response (especially in closed systems) would also more easily trigger an RTN outbreak.  Not coincidentally, the other frequently RTN affected coral family, Pocilloporidae, shares many characteristics with Acroporidae. 

Fortunately, many observations, experiments, and available information already support our hypothesis. Further research will hopefully close any gaps in our research and methodology. Previously collected field observations and data in 1992 showed that stressed corals had an increased number of phagocytic and granular type cells in their mucus.  It was later found that RTN could be induced in healthy corals by environmental stressors alone. By using methods that would affect the incidence of RTN if caused by either chemical (immune) mediators or pathogenic organisms, the results showed that a causative organisms was either not present, or not necessarily involved.  The implications of this work is truly fascinating and detailed, as they represent many years of study.  After we had combined our research, we did some preliminary exposure of RTN-affected corals to various steroidal and non-steroidal antihistamines and anti-inflammatory agents. Several of them halted the spread of RTN.  Unfortunately, the agents, or their dosages proved to be cytotoxic and resulted in the death of the previously affected specimens.  Nonetheless, this was hopefully a harbinger of possible treatment protocol in the future.

Although our work thus far has been exciting and novel, it is not without implications for the future and for the hobby.  We plan on continuing our research into immune responses in Cnidarians.  As we begin to understand more and more of the immune response, perhaps we will better understand the levels of stress required to bring about an autoimmune response and the role of pathogens in this and other diseases.  While this hypothesis is promising, we hold no allusions about the immensity of the challenge ahead; not only in providing sufficient evidence that such behavior is responsible for at least some forms of RTN, but also in beginning to assess possible ways to prevent the damage it causes to both captive and wild corals.  Hopefully, the results will see the decreased mortality of corals and other Cnidaria, and the increased success and longevity of specimens in the care of aquarists; in whom the future survival of many corals may rest.

This entire article was written without reference to any source save our own understanding, experiences, and work.  Any readers who wish to see the specific exerimental and literature references for the information contained herein may feel free to write to either of us for said information, or may consult with the in-depth paper we have authored. 

People Who Doodle Learn Faster

New research published recently shows that doodling helps you learn. In fact, say scientists, students should be encouraged to doodle while they take notes in class.

"A doodle is an unfocused drawing made while a person's attention is otherwise occupied. Doodles are simple drawings that can have concrete representational meaning or may just be abstract shapes."

Our first encounter with doodling often begins at an early age, and most often with crayons.  Some scribbles on a page. But it is a great time to explore how colors combine, the cause and effect of drawing outside the lines, and some basic hand eye coordination. 

As we age we are able to draw better.  Simple copying becomes common place.  Hand sketches and creative drawings soon follow.  If you have caught the doodle bug then you will find yourself doodling in the margins of your notes, papers, and even books.

I recently did some spring cleaning and found a bunch of old notebooks from school.  I had a rather large quantity of doodles in my margins.  This of course tells me a few things. I was bored and I like to keep my mind, or at least hands busy, especially when bored.

Some grouos of people tend to doodle more than others, at least in my experience. I noticed that physicists doodle a lot; movement of planets, objects, propagation of light, etc. My notes are littered with funny diagrams, phrases and questions so it would be hilarious if it somehow got into someone else's possession.

Image: exampaper.com.sg

Another group that doodles alot are naturalists.  The study of live and animals and plants often requires a basic understanding of how they work and look.  Doodling can help a budding scientist begin to learn these things.

The thing is, our brain loves diagrams, or any funny and entertaining jokes, stories. So by doodling (about the topic at hand, mind you),  you can engage people who might otherwise not pay attention; it helps them learn how information is presented; it inspires learning and retention of information; and it can assist people in communicating that information later.

So, go ahead and draw in the margins. It's helping you get the most out of that boring meeting — science says so!

Snakes

Snakes

A herpetologist at heart, a marine biologist by education, and a semi-professional animal keeper,  I'm interested in snakes, spiders, insects, and amphibians. Snakes are to me, particularly intriguing. The way they move, they slither through bushes and the final strike that numbs their prey. I also like the mystique associated with these serpents, and many of the myths surrounding them (They are NOT slimy).


Constrictors



Generally there are two types of snake; one that kills by using venom produced by their body, and the other using sheer strength to strangle their prey to death. You also have some that are a bit in between and instead of venom use teeth and tackle smaller prey, like Garter Snakes.

Anaconda, for example, is a constrictor. They have teeth that points backward to provide an even tighter grip on the victim. Once bitten, they would immediately wrap themselves around their prey. Once imprisoned in the embrace of death, it is very unlikely for the prey to escape.




A constrictor tightens its constriction every time the prey exhale, and with every breath the prey takes, it becomes harder to breathe. And finally you cant even expand your chest to breathe at all, and you die from suffocation.

Note that constrictors do not have venomous fangs. They rely purely on their muscle strength and stealth. Like their venomous counterpart, they also have infrared or heat detection pit near their mouth to help detect the body heat of their prey.

Apart from that, they also have a weapon in their tongue. The tongue is sensitive enough to detect the most minute change in chemical content of their environment.

Venomous Snakes

How to differentiate a venomous snake and a nonvenomous snake?
You do this by looking at the shape of their head - MOST OF THE TIME. Venomous snakes usually have a triangular-shaped head, meaning it's wider at the neck and narrower at the mouth. Nonvenomous snakes have a rather round-shaped head, which provides a firmer grip and more room more muscle. That said,  if in doubt, consider it venomous!



Apart from that, venomous snakes are usually smaller in size. The largest venomous snake, the King Cobra, is merely 3 meters in length. In the contrary, constrictors such as the Anaconda and Reticulated Python could grow up to 30 feet long(approximately 10 meters).

Constrictors grow to that length because they need enormous muscle and lengthy body to constrict their victims(It's not easy to constrict a deer you see....), while venomous snakes tackle smaller, faster mammals such as rats and squirrels. They do not need huge muscle mass as the venom could do the job for them.

The King Cobra, the largest venomous snake in the world, is hailed as god in India, despite hundreds of people being bitten by the species every year. One drop of King Cobra venom could kill up to 160 people.

The most venomous snake in the world, the sea snake, lives in waters off Indonesia and Sulawesi, though they can be found in other parts of the world too, mostly in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. They are relatively small, and their venom is almost 100 times more lethal than any other snakes. The reason why their venom is so potent is because they hunt fish for food.

And unlike land animals, fish could get away really fast. Land snakes can track their bitten prey through scent, but fish doesn't leave scent trails for sea snakes, so the sea snake need a venom potent enough to paralyze their victims before the prey gets too far.

Snakes are equipped with complicated senses to look out for their prey even in the darkest night. Once bitten, the venom would start to digest the prey from within.




There are four distinct types of venom; namely neurotoxin, hemotoxin, cytotoxin, and alsoproteolytic venom.
Each reacts differently based on the type of prey the snake consume.
But they all kill.

The only way to treat a snake bite is by using antivenom.

To produce antivenom, we need the venom from the snake.
First the snake will be milked, ie you often see in documentaries where the snake is forced to bite on a plastic sheet to release its venom into the jar. Then the yellowish venom would be diluted and injected into a large mammals' body, normally a horse. A horse immune system would develop antibody to counter the venom in say, two weeks time. Then the horse will undergo blood transfusion to draw out the blood, and within the blood lies the precious antibody we call antivenom to treat snake bite.

Unfortunately, snakes are threatened by extinction too. Snake skin is used to make bags and leather products, and there are also demands for snake bladder from the Chinese black market, as it believed that it could enhance their blood circulation.

Snake bladder

Snake wine

Deforestation, too, is killing snakes on a large scale. People also destroy snakes' nests and steal their eggs.



Although baby snakes are equipped with the essential survival tool  i.e venom and muscle, they are easy meal for birds and mongoose. Survival rate of young snakes is very low.



Religion, too is playing a part in the snakes' demise. In the bible, the snake is linked with the devil, and early missionaries condemned the worship of snake in India, and that eroded the protection of snake as well.




We should do something before this wonderful creature follows the path of other extincted animals. In general snakes are not a threat.  Around the farm they control rodents, which is a good thing. As long as a venomous snakes has not taken up residence in your garden, under the porch or in your shed, they will gladly leave us alone if we do the same for them.  Just be cautious of animals if you have a known venomous snake on the property as dogs and cats can get overly curious and end up bitten.

Some common snake myths:

Myth #1

Snakes are slimy and clammy to the touch.

Truth

This is incorrect. No snake is slimy. Their scales are actually quite smooth, and glides easily over skin; not an ounce of slime present. Likewise, snakes are not clammy. Depending on where you find one at, it will be either warm or cool to the touch. This is because snakes cannot create their own body heat. Therefore, they are the temperature of the environment where you find them.

Myth #2

All snakes have fangs, and a bite from one will hurt severely and lead to death.

Truth

Not all snakes have fangs, nor do they all have venom, and contrary to popular belief, many snake bites do not hurt.

Only venomous snakes have fangs: copperheads, cottonmouths, vipers, etc. Snakes such as boas and pythons do not possess fangs. A few species of snakes possess 'rear' fangs, such as a Hognose. However, these fangs are far back in the mouth, hence their name, and even if the snake does bite, you aren't likely to get caught by those rear fangs.

Usually, a snake bite does not hurt. Small colubrids, such as corn snakes and garters, rarely ever bite, and when they do, it is hardly painful. Even a larger snake will not hurt nearly like one would expect. The level of pain you feel comes down to what the snake wants you to feel. If it wants it to hurt, it will, no matter its size. Luckily, most are nothing more than pricks on the flesh.

Myth #3

Pet boas and pythons can eat you.

Truth

Not true. Most pet pythons and boas will never reach a size where that even becomes a possibility. Ball Pythons, Jungle Carpet Pythons, Red Tail Boas...none of these get anywhere near the size to eat their master.

Likewise, for those who keep Burmese, Reticulated Pythons, and Anacondas, the odds of being eaten by their snake are non-existent. Burmese have been known to kill their owners, usually because of the keepers' lack of knowledge and caution, but never has it been recorded of a pet snake eating its master.

Myth #4

Snakes carry large amounts of Salmonella, and will make you sick.

Truth

While snakes do carry Salmonella, the odds of becoming infected by it are very small, if properly cared for. One must use common sense when handling a snake. Never allow it in your mouth (I'm not aware of anyone who actually does this), and always wash your hands after handling the snake. Using an antibacterial gel works fine.

Always remove feces and urine from a snake's cage as soon as it happens, as the feces are where Salmonella is contracted. If your snake happens to slither through it, give the snake a warm bath to clean it, clean the bedding, and then replace the snake. Be sure to wash your hands.

Finally, be sure to scrub the cage once a month. Completely remove all objects, scrub the cage with a light bleach solution, rinse thoroughly, and after it has dried and has no fumes, replace everything. As long as the cage and snake are properly maintained, and you wash your hands, the odds of becoming sick from a snake are very slim.

Myth #5

Snakes can hypnotize humans and animals with their eyes.

Truth

This is not true. A snake cannot hypnotize a person or animal in any way.

Myth #6

Hoop snakes. This is by far my favorite myth, as I almost wish it was true. The myth goes that whenever a hoop snake is scared, it will bite its tail, form a circle-or hoop-shape, and then roll away like a wheel. Another version of the myth says that it will form a hoop shape and then chase the offender.

Truth

Unfortunately, this myth is just that-a myth. There is no such thing as a hoop snake. No snake will bite its tail and form a hoop; it is an anatomical impossibility for their body structure. If a snake is frightened, no matter the type, it will slither away on its belly, not roll away like a wheel.

Myth #7

Hognose snakes (also called Hoggies and Puff adders) can breathe out vaporous venom that is fatal up to a distance of about 20 - 25 feet.

Truth

Hoggies don't have vaporous venom-in fact, they don't have any venom. This myth likely originated because Hoggies, when threatened, will puff up their necks like that of a cobra, and hiss wildly. However, if you were to continue bothering it, it would eventually stop with the faux cobra act and flip over onto its back, becoming limp and lifeless. They are not poisonous, they are simply cowards.

Myth #8

A snake can only bite you if it is in a springing, coiled position.

Truth

I can speak from experience that this is indeed a myth. The scar between my right index finger and thumb from a very angry Ribbon snake attests to the fact that they can strike from any position, including from the feet of an over-anxious 11-year-old.

Myth #9

Milksnakes like to sneak up on cows and suck the milk right from its source.

Truth

Wrong! They may be called Milksnakes, but they are like any other snake. Try to give it milk, and you will get a very confused, possibly amused, Milksnake.

Myth #10

Last is the myth that there are cottonmouth snakes in the New England area.

Truth

This is false. There are no cottonmouth snakes in New England. They are very prominent in the Southeaster states, but are not found in the north. What most people assume is a cottonmouth is most likely a North Water snake. These snakes look nearly identical to a cottonmouth.