Chlamydia
infection rate, by country (WHO 2004, Wikicommons). Sub-Saharan Africa has been a
natural laboratory for the evolution of sexually transmitted pathogens,
including strains that can manipulate their hosts.
Are
we being manipulated by microbes? The idea is not so whacky. We know that a
wide range of microscopic parasites have evolved the ability to manipulate
their hosts, even to the point of making the host behave in strange ways. A
well-known example is Toxoplasma gondii,
a protozoan whose life cycle begins inside a cat. After being excreted in the
cat's feces, it is picked up by a mouse and enters the new host's brain, where
it neutralizes the fear response to the smell of cat urine. The mouse lets
itself be eaten by a cat, and the protozoan returns to a cat's gut—the only
place where it can reproduce (Flegr, 2013).
T. gondii can also infect
us and alter our behavior. Infected individuals have longer reaction times,
higher testosterone levels, and a greater risk of developing severe forms of
schizophrenia (Flegr, 2013). But there is no reason to believe that T. gondii is the only such parasite we
need to worry about. We study it in humans simply because we already know what
it does in a non-human species.
Researchers
are starting to look at manipulation by another human parasite, a sexually
transmitted bacterium called Chlamydia
trachomatis. Zhong et al. (2011) have found that it synthesizes proteins
that manipulate the signalling pathways of its human host. These proteins seem
to facilitate reinfection, although there may be other effects:
Despite
the significant progresses made in the past decade, the precise mechanisms on
what and how chlamydia-secreted proteins interact with host cells remain
largely unknown, and will therefore still represent major research directions
of the chlamydial field in the foreseeable future. (Zhong et al., 2011)
What
else would a sexually transmitted pathogen do to its host? For one thing, it
could cause infertility:
While
several nonsexually transmitted infections can also cause infertility (e.g.,
schistosomiasis, tuberculosis, leprosy), these infections are typically
associated with high overall virulence. In contrast, STIs tend to cause little
mortality and morbidity; thus, the effect on fertility seems to be more
"targeted" and specific. In addition, several STI pathogens are also
associated with an increased risk of miscarriage and infant mortality (Apari et al., 2014)
Chlamydia
is a major cause of infertility, and this effect seems to be no accident. Its
outer membrane contains a heat shock protein that induces cell death
(apoptosis) in placenta cells that are vital for normal fetal development. The
same protein exists in other bacteria but is located within the cytoplasm,
where it can less easily affect the host's tissues. Furthermore, via this
protein, Chlamydia triggers an autoimmune response that can damage the
fallopian tubes and induce abortion. This response is not triggered by the common
bacterium Escherichia coli. Finally,
Chlamydia selectively up-regulates the expression of this protein while
down-regulating the expression of most other proteins (Apari et al., 2014).
But
how would infertility benefit Chlamydia and other sexually transmitted
pathogens? Apari et al. (2011) argue that infertility causes the host and her
partner to break up and seek new partners, thus multiplying the opportunities
for the pathogen to spread to other hosts. A barren woman may pair up with a
succession of partners in a desperate attempt to prove her fertility and,
eventually, turn to prostitution as a means to support herself (Caldwell et al., 1989). This is not a minor phenomenon. STI-induced infertility has
exceeded 40% in parts of sub-Saharan Africa (Apari et al., 2011).
It gets kinkier
and kinkier
Does
the manipulation stop there? We know, for instance, that sexual promiscuity
correlates with the risk of contracting different STIs, but is this a simple
relationship of cause and effect? Could an STI actually promote infidelity by
stimulating sexual fantasizing about people other than one's current partner?
Let's
look at another pathogen, Candida
albicans, commonly known as vaginal yeast, which can cause an itchy rash
called vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC). Reed et al. (2003) found no significant
association between VVC and the woman's frequency of vaginal sex, lifetime
number of partners, or duration of current relationship. Nor was there any
association with presence of C. albicans
in her male partner. But there were significant associations with the woman
masturbating or practicing cunnilingus in the past month.
VVC
is thus more strongly associated with increased sexual fantasizing, as
indicated by masturbation rate, than with a higher frequency of vaginal
intercourse. This does look like host manipulation, although one might wonder
why it doesn't translate into more sex with other men, this being presumably
what the pathogen wants. Perhaps the development of masturbation as a lifestyle
(through use of vibrators and pornography) is making this outcome harder to
achieve.
A
sexually transmitted pathogen can also increase its chances of transmission by
disrupting mate guarding. This is the tendency of one mate, usually the male,
to keep watch over the other mate. If mate guarding can be disabled or, better
yet, reversed, the pathogen can spread more easily to other hosts. This kind of
host manipulation has been shown in a non-human species (Mormann, 2010).
Do
we see reversal of mate guarding in humans? Yes, it's called cuckold envy—the
desire to see another man have sex with your wife—and it's become a common fetish.
Yet it seems relatively recent. Greco-Roman texts don't mention it, despite
abundant references to other forms of alternate sexual behavior, e.g.,
pedophilia, cunnilingus, fellatio, bestiality, etc. The earliest mentions
appear in 17th century England (Kuchar, 2011, pp. 18-19). This was when England
was opening up to world trade and, in particular, to the West African slave
trade.
Sub-Saharan
Africa has been especially conducive to sexually transmitted pathogens evolving
a capacity for host manipulation. Polygyny rates are high, in the range of 20
to 40% of all adult males, and the polygynous male is typically an older man
who cannot sexually satisfy all of his wives. There is thus an inevitable
tendency toward multi-partner sex by both men and women, which sexually
transmitted pathogens can exploit ... and manipulate.
What about
sexual orientation?
A
pathogen can also become more transmissible by giving its host a new sexual
orientation. This strategy would disrupt the existing pair bond while opening
up modes of transmission that may be more efficient than the penis/vagina one.
Some vaginal strains of Candida albicans
have adapted to oral sex by becoming better at adhering to saliva-coated
surfaces (Schmid et al., 1995). Certain species that cause bacterial vaginosis,
notably Gardnerella vaginalis and Prevotella, seem to specialize in
female-female transmission (Muzny et al., 2013; Sobel, 2012).
Finally,
there is the hypothesis that exclusive male homosexuality has a microbial origin
(Cochran et al., 2000). Its main shortcomings are that (a) there is no
candidate pathogen and that (b) exclusive male homosexuality has been observed
in social environments with limited opportunities for pathogen transmission,
such as small bands of hunter-gatherers across pre-Columbian North America
(Callender & Kochems, 1983). On the other hand, there seems to have been a
relatively recent shift in European societies from facultative to exclusive
male homosexuality, so something may have happened in the environment, perhaps
the introduction of a new pathogen (Frost, 2009).
Both
male and female homosexuality seem to have multiple causes, but it’s likely
that various pathogens have exploited this means of spreading to other hosts.
Conclusion
This
is a fun subject when it concerns silly mice or zombie ants. But now it
concerns us. And that's not so funny. Can microbes really develop such demonic
abilities to change our private thoughts and feelings?
It
does seem hard to believe. Perhaps this is an argument for intelligent design.
After all, only an all-knowing designer could have made creatures that are so
small and yet capable of so much ... things like inducing abortion, breaking up
marriages, and altering normal sexual desires. Yes, such an argument could be
made.
But
I don't think anyone will bother.
References
Apari,
P., J. Dinis de Sousa, and V. Muller. (2014). Why Sexually Transmitted
Infections Tend to Cause Infertility: An Evolutionary Hypothesis. PLoS Pathog 10(8):
e1004111.
http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1004111
Caldwell,
J.C., P. Caldwell, and P. Quiggin. (1989). The social context of AIDS in
sub-Saharan Africa, Population and
Development Review, 15, 185-234.
https://www.soc.umn.edu/~meierann/Teaching/Population/Readings/Feb%209%20Caldwell.pdf
Callender,
C. and L.M. Kochems. (1983). The North American Berdache, Current Anthropology, 24,
443-470.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2742448?uid=3739448&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21104311299061
Cochran,
G.M., P.W. Ewald, and K.D. Cochran. (2000). Infection causation of disease: an
evolutionary perspective, Perspectives in
Biology and Medicine, 43,
406-448.
http://www.isteve.com/infectious_causation_of_disease.pdf
Flegr,
J. (2013). Influence of latent Toxoplasma infection on human personality,
physiology and morphology: pros and cons of the Toxoplasma-human model in
studying the manipulation hypothesis, The
Journal of Experimental Biology, 216,
127-133. http://jeb.biologists.org/content/216/1/127.full
Frost,
P. (2009). Has male homosexuality changed over time, Evo and Proud, March 5
http://evoandproud.blogspot.ca/2009/03/has-male-homosexuality-changed-over.html
Kuchar,
G. (2001). Rhetoric, Anxiety, and the Pleasures of Cuckoldry in the Drama of
Ben Jonson and Thomas Middleton, Journal
of Narrative Theory, 31 (1),
Winter, pp. 1-30.
Mormann,
K. (2010). Factors influencing
parasite-related suppression of mating behavior in the isopod Caecidotea
intermedius, Theses and Disserations, paper 48
http://via.library.depaul.edu/etd/48
Muzny,
C.A., I.R. Sunesara, R. Kumar, L.A. Mena, M.E. Griswold, et al. (2013).
Correction: Characterization of the vaginal microbiota among sexual risk
behavior groups of women with bacterial vaginosis. PLoS ONE 8(12):
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0080254
Reed,
B.D., P. Zazove, C.L. Pierson, D.W. Gorenflo, and J. Horrocks. (2003). Candida
transmission and sexual behaviors as risks for a repeat episode of Candida
vulvovaginitis, Journal of Women's Health,
12, 979-989.
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/154099903322643901
Schmid,
J., P.R. Hunter, G.C. White, A.K. Nand, and R.D. Cannon. (1995). Physiological
traits associated with success of Candida albicans strains as commensal
colonizers and pathogens, Journal of
Clinical Microbiology, 33,
2920-2926.
http://jcm.asm.org/content/33/11/2920.short
Sobel,
J.D. (2012). Bacterial vaginosis, Wolters Kluwer, UpToDate
http://www.uptodate.com/contents/bacterial-vaginosis
Zhong,
G., L. Lei, S. Gong, C. Lu, M. Qi, and D. Chen. (2011). Chlamydia-Secreted
Proteins in Chlamydial Interactions with Host Cells, Current Chemical Biology, 5,
29-37
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/ccb/2011/00000005/00000001/art00004