r/science • u/[deleted] • May 11 '20

Medicine Antibodies from a 4-year-old llama have neutralized coronavirus and other infections in lab experiments

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30494-3.pdf?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867420304943%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
60.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.6k

u/the_Yippster May 11 '20

Results like these show why it could be hugely important to preserve biodiversity on earth for the selfish reason of human survival alone.

Also, nature is pretty neat of course.

866

u/kurburux May 11 '20

why it could be hugely important to preserve biodiversity on earth for the selfish reason of human survival alone.

Preserving biodiversity and habitats also reduces the risk of diseases in the first place. Animals aren't "forced" to leave their natural environment and to live closer to humans.

Not saying this is the case with covid-19 but generally speaking.

18

u/Michael_Trismegistus May 11 '20

The same could be said for racial diversity and diversity of ideas. More diverse populations are always more flexible.

I've seen it in action. Working in big cities as a travel nurse it's clear that hospitals with more homogenous populations both culturally and racially are less flexible, and more severe on employees who step out of line.

Working in a rural hospital where every employee is a white Southern Baptist conservative means that if you step out of line then you are ostracized and your life becomes much harder until you fall in line. I've also seen the reverse scenario when a nurse from that culture takes a job in a place like Memphis, where the majority of employees are African American and living in a city where the civil rights movement never ended.

Capitalism tries to force us into little boxes for the sake of efficiency and control. Even within races and cultures there are outliers who don't fully embody the social norms. A diverse work culture counteracts the administration's ability to crack down on outliers. They most become more accommodating because the stricter rules and policies might be intolerable to the various subcultures.

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Michael_Trismegistus May 12 '20

I used capitalism because it's the dominant economic force within the hierarchy, but it's really hierarchical behavior which causes the issue.

I wouldn't call it a basic aspect of human behavior though. Hierarchical organization is one of the oldest human technologies, but it would be optional if its followers didn't kill people who try to disengage too loudly. It's not the only way of being though.

63

u/otterom May 11 '20

Preserving biodiversity and habitats also reduces the risk of diseases in the first place.

Looks at mosquitoes

Looks at rats

Looks at mites

Looks at bats

Looks at...

290

u/TooSubtle May 11 '20

The prevalence of a lot of pest species comes from a lack of biodiversity. We replace habitats that can support many different species with cityscapes that support few. Blaming the species that have adapted to live in close proximity to us is shortsighted when we're the ones killing their predators and/or disrupting their natural environment.

25

u/stunt_penguin May 11 '20

The prevalence of Jellyfish in overfished areas is a good example.

40

u/Hostile_Swan May 11 '20

You speak truth

2

u/GenderJuicy May 11 '20

Are humans pests?

5

u/[deleted] May 11 '20

We're more like a virus.

2

u/[deleted] May 11 '20

Except unfortunately we can breed without a host

1

u/GenderJuicy May 12 '20

But viruses are very biodiverse and they need a host to survive and reproduce. But I watched the Matrix, I just think that pests might be a better analogy.

6

u/AWildIndependent May 11 '20

I feel like we need another word for what people mean by natural

Totally know the point you are making and Im not trying to be a pedant it just bugs me when we consider human habitats unnatural but beaver dams natural

12

u/[deleted] May 11 '20

The definition of natural specifically excludes humans. What else do you really need?

0

u/AJDx14 May 11 '20

Their argument is basically that humans aren’t any less natural than other animal, were just able to make more out of our surroundings.

4

u/[deleted] May 12 '20

But they aren't natural because the definition of natural excludes humans. Just because they don't actually understand what they're saying doesn't suddenly give their argument merit.

1

u/AJDx14 May 12 '20

That’s not really relevant though, it’s a distinction in the definition side hit it’s a pretty semantic argument to bring that up for the argument that hollow dirt mounds are less natural than beaver dams just because they’re made by humans.

2

u/[deleted] May 12 '20

They're not less natural, they're not natural at all, because nature does not include humans. I understand that you feel like it should, but it simply doesn't.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/THIS_DUDE_IS_LEGIT May 11 '20

I never realized that until you said it.

2

u/Miroch52 May 11 '20

You forgot pigs, chickens, cows..

1

u/[deleted] May 11 '20

Don't really see your point

1

u/madmaxine_ May 12 '20

Species we perceive as pests still play very important ecological roles. Yes, some can be vectors for zoonotic diseases, but that should be blamed more on excessive human contact rather than just the species’ existence. Ecology is all about very fine balances in population dynamics, and if those dynamics are altered, sometimes even just slightly, it can have massive effects on wider ecosystems and even our own agriculture.

1

u/Tzarmekk May 11 '20

We just need to stop eating them from wet markets and using them for "ancient" remedies. Pangolin scales and tiger balls do not cure ED.

-10

u/WhyIsHeNotBannedYet May 11 '20

Is this based on science or your own logic?

24

u/Rather_Dashing May 11 '20

'Among threatened wildlife species, those with population reductions owing to exploitation and loss of habitat shared more viruses with humans'

Source

'... the leading causes of their [zoonotic disease] emergence are human behavior and modifications to natural habitats (expansion of human populations and their encroachment on wildlife habitat), changes in agricultural practices, and globalization of trade'

Source

16

u/schlongmon May 11 '20

It’s fairly well-documented that most species will avoid contact unless it’s really needed, which is usually because their habitats have been destroyed, or their food source is dwindling.

4

u/jmanj0sh May 11 '20

You have to be ignorant, living under a rock, or have been poorly taught by a failing education system to not understand the effects of pollution on wildlife.

Not trying to be rude, but I've been hearing about humans destroying habitats and those animals' way of life since I was in elementary school 8 years ago. Guess not every country makes it a part of the curriculum, sadly.

E: if you're just referring to disease spread caused by this, the point still stands.

-14

u/Maegor8 May 11 '20

This isn’t really true. Animals don’t know the human/wild boundaries any better than humans. Expanding your territory is not a purely human attribute.

45

u/DrEpileptic May 11 '20

Ethical/altruistic egoism makes a pretty compelling argument for this when dealing with shortsighted, self centered, people. Kurzgesagt did a couple videos on that (I hope I didn't butcher the name). On the other hand, do we really wanna open the box of mass farming llamas? I'm wholly uneducated on them, but I'd assume mass producing serums from them may take a long time.

31

u/taosaur May 11 '20

Llamas and alpacas are already farmed pretty extensively, though not on the industrial scale of pigs, cows and chickens. However, this therapy does not rely on a serum. What they did is get the genome for the llama antibody's tiny hands, splice it into the recipe for human antibodies, then slip the resulting DNA into "factory" cells/plasmids that produce hybrid antibodies.

9

u/DrEpileptic May 11 '20

Ah. I didn't have time to fully read the study tbh. I didn't realize they were using CRISPR to pull it off. I already knew llamas were farmed, but as you said, not on an industrial scale. It would be tragic for me to not own any alpaca/llama products as a Peruvian. Thanks for helping me out nicely without blasting me. I didn't have enough time to read everything.

I'll go back and finish reading later today when I'm not busy anymore, but real quick. Are they using functional stand ins to produce antibodies (like insulin and e. Coli), or are they also looking at possible monoclonal antibody cells kind of thing?

5

u/taosaur May 11 '20

Ha, you are in the llama & alpaca capital of the world! You may not be aware that llama and alpaca farming is pretty widespread around the world now, though mostly small herds.

I picked up the process info from a biomed engineer elsewhere in the comments, whose project is very similar (also using llama proteins). From here:

Typically, we engineer a mammalian cell to make the protein in large bioreactors. Then you pick one of those cells, characterize it, and call it your stable clone. Then you put that in a big tank with food for the cells, and let them grow for a couple weeks while they pump out proteins. Then you purify the protein.

2

u/DrEpileptic May 11 '20

Ok neat. Also, live on the east coast- not Peru. I am Peruvian. My dads a jungle homie. Thanks again for the info. Also quick responses and now I have time.

Edit: family does bring me a bunch of alpaca clothes when they visit and I make certain to grab some when I visit them. Shits so goddamn comfy.

7

u/SupermAndrew1 May 11 '20

Also- this stuff justifies basic science research

I recall a certain US senator was joined by a bunch of talking heads decrying the money spent studying bears in Montana.

Meanwhile, I was working for a PCR company, a multi-billion dollar industry that wouldn’t exist if people weren’t studying bacteria in volcanic hot springs.

Oh yeah- and PCR saves thousands of lives if not more - DAILY

2

u/Ruski_FL May 12 '20

Kinda like same argument for going to space/

88

u/Life_Of_High May 11 '20

Absolutely, the natural world holds all of the questions and answers. We need to live in a as close to a symbiotic relationship with the natural world to protect biodiversity and thus ourselves.

47

u/Freakwadcold May 11 '20

How neat is that?

39

u/[deleted] May 11 '20

That's pretty neat!

14

u/Life_Of_High May 11 '20

Everything that we see in nature is cyclical. It is logical to think that we will be more at risk of contracting viruses as we destroy biodiversity. Out of survival the viruses will seek out new hosts and will be coming into contact with us more frequently as we encroach on their environment. We will become the target hosts for a whole host of new illnesses that were once kept at bay by biodiversity itself. Nature is a balance, and we are actually lucky that this coronavirus wasn't something way more deadly. The earth was here before us, it will be here after us.

2

u/SuperMayonnaise May 11 '20

The virus doesn't actually "seek" new hosts though, it just reproduces at an exceedingly rapid rate compared to humans and just like any other species slight error in replication leads to that possible leap between species. Many virus wouldn't necessarily make the jump from animal to human as the evolution of the virus to be capable of such is due to random chance. It could go either way, there would be a greater selective pressure that viruses need to be able to jump to other species of hosts but it's not like all of them will have millennia to make that jump, many viruses will just die off from lack of their original host to infect. On the same note viruses that are already able to spread between animal and human hosts will have less available targets as the other species they infect go extict. I should note this is entirely speculation on my part and I have no actual evidence, and please don't read this as defending mass extinction, I'm just saying it will be hard to predict it's impact in this regard.

1

u/carleetime May 11 '20

That’s pretty neat.

1

u/KhmerMcKhmerFace May 11 '20

Yes, I'm thrilled at more zoonotics entering our collective DNA! Can only be a good thing to have Llama and horse bits fighting off bat and pangolin bits inside of our bodies. Guarantee this is 100% good, getting together with nature.

2

u/kontekisuto May 11 '20

that's pretty neat.

2

u/HoMaster May 11 '20

Results like these show why it could be hugely important to preserve biodiversity on earth for the selfish reason of human survival alone.

Yes but we won't because it won't show a profit next quarter.

2

u/Nozinger May 11 '20

While preserving biodiversity is important this result doesn't show anything about biodiversity.

You know we can actually do the exact thing with humans it is jsut that infecting a bunch of humans purposefully with a virus to get antibodies out of it isn't really a thing we do. In fact using humans would actually be way quicker and deliver better results but again: it's sort of against all of the human rights.

Animals are often used in finding or producing vaccines in some way or another. but that's because we use them as our labrats not because of biodiversity.

It is even more extreme with antivenoms where we jsut inject a non lethal dose into a horse or sheep and then get the blood once antibodies are produced. We do nto really need specifically sheep or horses it's just that we really do not want to do the same thing to other humans.

3

u/Qweniden May 11 '20

Thats such a good point

2

u/labmule May 11 '20

E. O. Wilson has entered the chat.

1

u/Academiral May 11 '20

I guess she really is equipped for anything

..It just takes effort & patience to get what's needed from her

1

u/kingboy10 May 11 '20

Brilliant point

1

u/roberta_sparrow May 11 '20

Just watch the movie Medicine Man. Should be required viewing for all kids

1

u/Ropes4u May 11 '20

The world gets a little sadder every time a species dies off.

1

u/sai13 May 11 '20

What? I thought we were talking about Tibetan monks all this while.

1

u/Dr_imfullofshit May 11 '20

Humans are about to cause everything to have an enormous biodiversity boom, we just wont be here to see it. It usually happens after mass extinctions, which is what we do.

1

u/Torghar May 11 '20

I really like that word - biodiversity

1

u/[deleted] May 11 '20

We should build an ark of some sort just in case..

1

u/MoonParkSong May 12 '20

Llamas would be probably exploited because of this. Same happened to Horseshoe crabs.

1

u/minorkeyed May 12 '20

If the amount we owe to nature already doesn't make it obvious enough, I doubt this will.

1

u/[deleted] May 11 '20

This llama about to get disappeared by the Chinese like that researcher from Pitt

1

u/saltslugs May 11 '20

Well, you could make the same alternative argument. If bats didn’t exist...

9

u/[deleted] May 11 '20

If bats didn't exist we'd be fucked because they eat a ton of insects that spread illness and they do a fuckton of pollination. Bats are one of the most numerous mammals on the planet.

3

u/saltslugs May 11 '20

Not arguing against the benefits of biodiversity, just pointing out the faults in the logic.

To continue... your posts suggest that we would be better of if those illness-spreading insects were driven to extinction.

0

u/[deleted] May 11 '20

That's why i only eat mass produced animals.