Influenza A viruses in bats

A/bat/Peru/10 H18It is well known that aquatic birds are a major reservoir of influenza A viruses, and that pandemic human influenza virus strains of the past century derive viral genes from this pool. The recent discovery of two new influenza A viruses in bats suggests that this species may constitute another reservoir with even greater genetic diversity.

A new influenza virus had previously been isolated from little yellow-shouldered bats (Sturnira lilium) in Guatemala. Three of 316 rectal swabs were positive when tested by a pan-influenza polymerase chain reaction assay. Viral sequences were also detected in liver, intestine, lung, and kidney tissues, suggestive of viral replication and not passage of ingested material through the intestinal tract. Analysis of the viral genome sequence revealed that A/little yellow-shouldered bat/Guatemala/164/2009 (H17N10) is significantly diverged from all known influenza viruses.

When the same PCR approach was used to screen 114 rectal swabs from 18 different species of bats captured in Peru, a single flat-faced fruit bat (Artibeus planirostris) was positive. Viral sequences were also detected in liver, intestine, and spleen tissues from the same bat. Comparison of the sequences of all 8 genome RNA segments with those of the H17N10 Guatemalan isolate revealed sufficient divergence to justify naming it a new HA and NA subtype, A/flat-faced bat/Peru/033/2010 (H18N11).

Comparison of the nucleotide sequences of bat influenza A viruses from Peru and Guatemala with other influenza viruses leads to two amazing conclusions. First, 7 of the 8 viral RNAs of the bat influenza A viruses group separately from the RNAs of all other known influenza viruses. Second, the RNA sequences encoding four proteins, PB2, PB1, PA and NA, display greater genetic diversity than in all non-bat influenza virus sequences combined. The implication is that New World bats harbor a diverse pool of influenza viruses.

The H17 and H18 HA RNA sequences are, in contrast, far more related to known influenza virus HA and NA sequences. The implication of this observation is clear: some time after the bat and non-bat influenza A viruses diverged, a reassortment event occurred that introduced the HA of a non-bat influenza A virus into the genome of a bat influenza A virus.

Serological studies have revealed widespread circulation of these two new influenza viruses in bats. Sera from 55 of 110 (50%) Peruvian bats representing 13 different species were positive for antibodies against the viral HA or NA proteins. Twenty-one of these samples were positive for antibodies against both viral glycoproteins, while 30 were positive only for anti-HA18 antibodies and 4 were positive for only anti-N11 antibodies. These observations suggest that some bats are infected with reassortant viruses carrying the H18 or N11 genes. A study of sera from 8 different species of Guatemalan bats revealed antibodies to the H17 HA protein in 86 of 228 sera (38%).

A number of human viruses, such as SARS-coronavirus and Nipah and Hendra viruses, are known to have originated in bats. Can bat influenza A viruses infect humans and serve as a source of future pandemic strains? The answer to this question is not known, but the two new bat viruses cannot infect human cell lines in culture. However, it is possible that acquisition of other (e.g. avian or swine) influenza virus genes by reassortment could produce a virus with bat influenza virus genes that is capable of infection humans. The pathogenic and pandemic potential of such viruses is unknown. A first step to answering this question would be to determine if human populations with contact with bats have antibodies to the two new bat influenza A viruses.

The cell receptor for all known influenza A viruses is the carbohydrate molecule known as sialic acid  The cell receptor for the two new bat influenza A viruses is not known, but it is clearly not sialic acid, a conclusion reached by studying the crystal structures and binding properties of the H17 (paper one and two) and H18 HA (illustrated) molecules. Furthermore, the crystal structures of the N10 (paper one and two) and N11 proteins reveal that their substrate cannot be sialic acid (the function of the influenza A virus NA is to remove sialic acids from the cell surface, allowing newly synthesized virions to move away from the cell). For this reason the N10 and N11 proteins are called ‘NA-like’.

Bats also harbor many other kinds of viruses, including hepatitis B viruses, Marburg virus, hepaciviruses, pegiviruses, paramyxoviruses, coronaviruses, and many more. They also contain parasites – specifically, malaria parasites. For more information, listen to these podcast episodes:

Hedging our bats (TWiV 258)
More bats out of hell (TWiP 62)
Hepaciviruses and pegiviruses in bats and rodents (TWiV 231)
Bats out of hell (TWiV 183)
Going to bat for flu research (TWiV 173)
Matt’s bats (TWiV 65)

TWiV 258: Hedging our bats

On episode #258 of the science show This Week in Virology, Matt joins the TWiV team to discuss the discovery of a SARS-like coronavirus in bats that can infect human cells, and what is going on with MERS-coronavirus.

You can find TWiV #258 at www.microbe.tv/twiv.

Bat SARS-like coronavirus that infects human cells

Rhinolophus sinicusThe SARS pandemic of 2002-2003 is believed to have been caused by a bat coronavirus (CoV) that first infected a civet and then was passed on to humans. The isolation of a new SARS-like coronavirus from bats suggests that the virus could have directly infected humans.

A single colony of horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus sinicus) in Kunming, Yunnan Province, China, was sampled for CoV sequences over a one year period. Of a total of 117 anal swabs or fecal samples collected, 27 (23%) were positive for CoV sequences by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Seven different SARS-like CoV sequences were identified, including two new ones. For the latter the complete genome sequence was determined, which showed a higher nucleotide sequence identity (95%) with SARS-CoV than had been previously observed before among bat viruses.

One of these new viruses was recovered by infecting monkey cell cultures with one of the PCR-positive samples. This virus could infect human cells and could utilize human angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as an entry receptor. The infectivity of this virus could also be neutralized with sera collected from seven different SARS patients.

None of the SARS-like coronaviruses previously isolated from bats are able to infect human cells. The reason for this block in replication is that the spike glycoprotein of these bat viruses do not recognize ACE2, the cell receptor for SARS-CoV. SARs-like CoVs isolated from palm civets during the 2002-2003 outbreak have amino acid changes in the viral spike glycoprotein that improve its interaction with ACE2. The civet was therefore believed to be an intermediate host for adaptation of SARS-CoV to humans. The isolation of bat SARS-like CoVs that can bind human ACE2 and replicate in human cells suggests that the virus might have spread directly from bats to humans.

This finding has implications for public health: if SARS-like CoVs that can infect human cells are currently circulating in bats, they have the potential to infect humans and cause another outbreak of disease. The authors believe that the diversity of bat CoVs is higher than we previously knew:

It would therefore not be surprising if further surveillance reveals a broad diversity of bat SL-CoVs that are able to use ACE2, some of which may have even closer homology to SARS-CoV than SL-CoV-WIV1.

Is there any implication of this work for the recently emerged MERS-CoV? Sequences related to MERS-CoV have been found in bats, and given that bats are known to be hosts of a number of viruses that infect humans, it is reasonable to postulate that MERS-CoV originated in bats. So far a 190 fragment of MERS-CoV nucleic acid has been found in a single bat from Saudi Arabia. Identification of the reservoir of MERS-CoV will require duplicating the methods reported in this paper: finding the complete viral genome, and infectious virus, in bats.

Hepatitis B viruses in bats

hepadnaviridae virionHepatitis B virus (HBV, illustrated) is a substantial human pathogen. WHO estimates that there are now 240,000,000 individuals chronically infected with HBV worldwide, of which 25% will die from chronic liver disease or hepatocellular carcinoma. The hepatitis B virus vaccine is highly effective at preventing infection. Because there are no known animal reservoirs of the virus, it is believed that HBV could be globally eradicated. The recent finding of HBV in bats raises the possibility of zoonotic introduction of the virus.

Serum and liver samples from 3,080 bats from Panama, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, Germany, Papua New Guinea, and Australia were screened for HBV-like sequences by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Ten positive specimens were found from three bat species: Uroderma bilobatum from Panama, and Hipposideros cf. ruber and Rhinolophus alcyone from Gabon. The complete viral genome sequence was determined for 9 of the positive specimens. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that the bat viruses form three different lineages, and that each virus differs by at least 35% from known hepadnaviruses.

The virus from Hipposideros cf. ruber has been named roundleaf bat HBV, while those from Rhinolophus and Uroderma have been named horshoe bat HBV, and tent-making bat HBV.

Viral DNA in the liver of Hipposideros bats was found to be higher than in other organs or serum. Some lymphocyte infiltration was observed in the liver of these animals, as well as deposits of viral DNA within hepatocytes. These observations indicate that the bat HBV viruses likely replicate in the bat liver and cause hepatitis.

Serological studies revealed that hepadnaviruses are widespread in Old World bats: antibodies against bat hepadnaviruses were detected in 18% of hipposiderid bats and 6.3% of rhinolophid bats.

An important question is whether these three bat hepadnaviruses can infect human cells. Only tent-making bat HBV could infect primary human hepatocytes, which occurred via the human HBV cell receptor, sodium taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide. However serum from humans that had been immunized with HBV vaccine did not block infection of human hepatocytes with this virus.

These observations show that viruses related to human HBV are replicating in the liver of bats. Earlier this year another hepadnavirus was identified in long-fingered bats (Miniopterus fuliginosus) in Myanmar. The complete genome sequence was obtained and virus particles were observed in bat liver tissues.

The finding of hepadnaviruses in bats raise many interesting questions. The first is whether human HBV originated by infection with bat HBV, either by consumption of bat meat or another mode of transmission. How long ago this occurred is not known. It has been suggested that HBV has been in humans for at least 15,000 years. Some avian species contain avihepadnaviral sequences integrated into their genome, indicating that these viruses originated at least 19 million years ago.

These findings also raise many questions about the pathogenesis of hepadnaviral infection in bats, including the mode of transmission (in humans, the virus is transmitted by exposure to blood, e.g. by injection or during childbirth), and whether chronic infections can occur as they do in humans.

Finally it is interesting to consider the zoonotic potential of tent-making bat HBV, which can infect human cells. Because bat hepadnaviruses are genetically distinct from HBV, current serological and nucleic acid screening programs would not detect human infections. The authors suggest that human and non-human primate sera from areas in which these bat viruses were isolated should be screened using assays that detect the bat hepadnaviruses. Without such information we do not know if these viruses currently infect humans.

TWiV 249: An inordinate fondness for viruses

On episode #249 of the science show This Week in Virology, Vincent, Dickson, Alan and Rich discuss an estimate of the number of different mammalian viruses on Earth.

You can find TWiV #249 at www.microbe.tv/twiv.

How many viruses on Earth?

EarthHow many different viruses are there on planet Earth? Twenty years ago Stephen Morse suggested that there were about one million viruses of vertebrates (he arrived at this calculation by assuming ~20 different viruses in each of the 50,000 vertebrates on the planet). The results of a new study suggest that at least 320,000 different viruses infect mammals.

To estimate unknown viral diversity in mammals, 1,897 samples (urine, throat swabs, feces, roost urine) were collected from the Indian flying fox, Pteropus giganteus, and analyzed for viral sequences by consensus polymerase chain reaction. This bat species was selected for the study because it is known to harbor zoonotic pathogens such as Nipah virus. PCR assays were designed to detect viruses from nine viral families. A total of 985 viral sequences from members of 7 viral families were obtained. These included 11 paramyxoviruses (including Nipah virus and 10 new viruses), 14 adenoviruses (13 novel), 8 novel astroviruses, 4 distinct coronaviruses, 3 novel polyomaviruses, 2 bocaviruses, and many new herpesviruses.

Statistical methods were then used to estimate that P. giganteus likely harbor 58 different viruses, of which 55 were identified in this study. If the 5,486 known mammalian species each harbor 58 viruses, there would be ~320,000 unknown viruses that infect mammals. This is likely to be un under-estimate as only 9 viral families were targeted by the study. In addition, the PCR approach only detects viruses similar to those that we already know. Unbiased approaches, such as deep DNA sequencing, would likely detect more.

Let’s extend this analysis to additional species, even though it might not be correct to do so. If we assume that the 62,305 known vertebrate species each harbor 58 viruses, the number of unknown viruses rises to 3,613,690 – over three times more than Dr. Morse’s estimate. The number rises to 100,939,140 viruses if we include the 1,740,330 known species of vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, lichens, mushrooms, and brown algae. This number does not include viruses of bacteria, archaea, and other single-celled organisms. Considering that there are 1031 virus particles in the oceans – mostly bacteriophages – the number is likely to be substantially higher.

Based on the cost to study viruses in P. giganteus ($1.2 million), it would require $6.4 billion to discover all mammalian viruses, or $1.4 billion to discover 85% of them. I believe this would be money well spent, as the information would allow unprecedented study on the diversity and origins of viruses and their evolution. The authors justify this expenditure solely in terms of human health; they note that the cost “would represent a small fraction of the cost of many pandemic zoonoses”. However it is not at all clear that knowing all the viruses that could potentially infect humans would have an impact on our ability to prevent disease. Even the authors note that “these programs will not themselves prevent the emergence of new zoonotic viruses”. We have known for some time that P. giganteus harbors Nipah virus, yet outbreaks of infection continue to occur each year. While it is not inconceivable that such information could be useful in responding to zoonotic outbreaks, the knowledge of all the viruses on Earth would likely impact human health in ways that cannot be currently imagined.

Update 1: I neglected to point out an assumption made in this study, that detection of a PCR product in a bat indicates that the virus is replicating in that animal. As discussed for MERS-CoV, conclusive evidence that a virus is present in a given host requires isolation of infectious virus, or if that is not possible, isolation of full length viral genomes from multiple hosts, together with detection of anti-viral antibodies. Obviously these measures cannot be taken for a study such as the one described above whose aim is to estimate the number of unknown viruses.

Update 2: We discussed this estimate of mammalian viruses on TWiV #249.

TWiV 239 – Filterable camels

On episode #239 of the science show This Week in Virology, Matt joins Vincent, Alan, and Rich to summarize what we know and what we do not know about the MERS coronavirus.

You can find TWiV #239 at www.microbe.tv/twiv.

Avian influenza H7N9 viruses isolated from humans: What do the gene sequences mean?

Influenza A virionThere have been over 60 human infections with avian influenza virus H7N9 in China, and cases have been detected outside of Shanghai, including Beijing, Zhejiang, Henan, and Anhui Provinces. Information on the first three cases has now been published, allowing a more detailed consideration of the properties of the viral isolates.

The first genome sequences reported were from the initial three H7N9 isolates: A/Shanghai/1/2013, A/Shanghai/2/2013, and A/Anhui/1/2013. These were followed by genome sequences from A/Hongzhou/1/2013 (from a male patient), A/pigeon/Shanghai/S1069/2013), A/chicken/Shanghai/S1053/2013), and A/environment/Shanghai/S1088/2013, the latter three from a Shanghai market.

Analysis of the viral genome sequences reveals that all 8 RNA segments of influenza A/Shanghai/1/2013 virus are phylogenetically distinct from A/Anhui/1/2013 and A/Shanghai/2/2013, suggesting that the virus passed from an animal into humans at least twice. Similar viruses have been isolated from pigeons and chickens, but the source of the human infections is not known. There is as yet no evidence for human to human transmission of the H7N9 viruses, and it seems likely that all of the human infections are zoonotic – transmission of animal viruses to humans. Since the H7N9 viruses are of low pathogenicity in poultry, infected animals may not display disease symptoms, further facilitating transmission to humans.

The RNA sequences reveal that the H7N9 viruses isolated from humans are all triple reassortants, which means that they contain RNA segments derived from three parental viruses. The gene encoding the hemagglutinin protein (HA) is most closely related to the HA from A/duck/Zhejiang/12/2011 (H7N3), while the NA gene is most similar to the NA gene from A/wild bird/Korea/A14/2011 (H7N9). The remaining 6 RNA segments are most related to genes from A/brambling/Beijing/16/2012-like viruses (H9N2). The type of animal(s) in which the mixed infections took place is unknown.

Some observations on the relatedness of these sequences:

  • A/Shanghai/2/2013, A/Anhui/1/2013, and A/Hangzhou/1/2013 were isolated in distant cities yet have over 99% identity. The pigeon, chicken, and environmental isolates are also very similar except for one gene of A/pigeon/Shanghai/S1069/2013. Long-range shipping of infected poultry might explain these similarities.
  • There are 53 nucleotide differences between A/Shanghai/1/2013 and A/Shanghai/2/2013. Perhaps A/Shanghai/1/2013 and the remaining viruses originated from different sources.

When the gene sequences of these human viral isolates are compared with closely related avian strains, numerous differences are revealed. The locations of the proteins in the influenza virion are shown on the diagram; click for a larger version (figure credit: ViralZone).

  • All seven H7N9 viruses do not have multiple basic amino acids at the HA cleavage site. The presence of a basic peptide in this location allows the viral HA to be cleaved by proteases that are present in most cells, enabling the virus to replicate in many organs. Without this basic peptide, the HA is cleaved only by proteases present in the respiratory tract, limiting replication to that site. This is one reason why the H7N9 viruses  have low pathogenicity in poultry.
  • All seven viruses have a change at HA amino acid 226 (Q226L) which could improve binding of the viruses to alpha-2,6 sialic receptors, which are found throughout the human respiratory tract. Avian influenza viruses prefer to bind to alpha-2,3 sialic acid receptors. This observation suggests that the H7N9 isolates should be able to infect the human upper respiratory tract (alpha-2,3 sialic acid receptors are mainly located in the lower tract of humans). However, viruses which bind better to alpha-2,3 sialic acids still bind to alpha-2,6 receptors and can infect humans.
  • All seven viruses have a change at HA amino acid 160 from threonine to alanine (T160A). This change, which has been identified in other circulating H7N9 viruses, prevents attachment of a sugar to the HA protein and could lead to better recognition of human (alpha-2,6 sialic acid) receptors.
  • Five amino acids are deleted from the neuraminidase (NA), the second viral glycoprotein, in all seven viruses. In avian H5N1 influenza virus this change may influence tropism for the respiratory tract and enhance viral replication, and might regulate transmission in domestic poultry. This change is believed to be selected upon viral replication in terrestrial birds.
  • One of the viruses (A/Shanghai/1/2013) has an amino acid change in the NA glycoprotein associated with oseltamivir resistance (R294K).
  • An amino acid change in the PB1 gene, I368V, is known to confer aerosol transmission to H5N1 virus in ferrets.
  • An amino acid change in the PB2 gene, E627K, is associated with increased virulence in mice, higher replication of avian influenza viruses in mammals, and respiratory droplet transmission in ferrets.
  • Changes of P42S in NS1 protein, and N30D and T215A in M1 are associated with increased virulence in mice, but these changes are also observed in circulating avian viruses.
  • All seven viruses have an amino acid change in the M2 protein known to confer resistance to the antiviral drug amantadine.
  • All seven viruses lack a C-terminal PDZ domain-binding motif which may reduce the virulence of these viruses in mammals.

For the most part we do not know the significance of any of the amino acid changes for viral replication and virulence in humans.

I believe that these H7N9 viruses might take one of two pathways. If they are widespread in birds, they could spread globally and cause sporadic zoonotic infections, as does avian influenza H5N1 virus. Alternatively, the H7N9 viruses could cause a pandemic. Influenza H7N9 virus infections have not occurred before in humans, so nearly everyone on the planet is likely susceptible to infection. Global spread of the virus would require human to human transmission, which has not been observed so far. Some human to human transmission of avian H7N7 influenza viruses was observed during an outbreak in 2003 in the Netherlands, but those viruses were different from the ones isolated recently in China. Whether or not these viruses will acquire the ability to transmit among humans by aerosol is unknown and cannot be predicted. If a variant of H7N9 virus that can spread among humans arises during replication in birds or humans, it might not have a chance encounter with a human, or if it did, it might not have the fitness to spread extensively.

What also tempers my concern about these H7N9 viruses is the fact that the last influenza pandemic (H1N1 virus) took place in 2009.  No influenza pandemics in modern history are known to have taken place 4 years apart, although only 11 years separated the 1957 (H2N2) and 1968 (H3N2) pandemics. I suppose that is not much consolation, as there are always exceptions, especially when it comes to viruses.

Meanwhile a vaccine against this H7N9 strain is being prepared (it will be months before it is ready), surveillance for the virus continues in China and elsewhere, and health agencies ready for a more extensive outbreak. These are not objectionable courses of action. But should this be our response to every zoonotic influenza virus infection of less than 100 cases?

Sources

Human Infection with a Novel Avian-Origin Influenza A (H7N9) Virus.

Genetic analysis of novel avian A(H7N9) influenza viruses isolated from patients in China, February to April 2013.

Did hepatitis C virus originate in horses?

Dog and horseAbout 2% of the world’s population is chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV). This enveloped, positive-strand RNA virus was discovered in 1989, but serological and phylogenetic evidence indicates that it has been infecting humans for hundreds of years, perhaps as long ago as the 14th century. All human viral infections most likely originated in non-human species, but the progenitor of HCV is not known. Recent evidence suggests that horses might have been the source of HCV in humans.

For many years there were no known non-human relatives of HCV until canine hepacivirus was discovered in dogs (we discussed this virus on TWiV #137). However two subsequent studies failed to reveal additional evidence for CHV infection of dogs. In one study, no antibodies to CHV were found in sera from 80 dogs in New York State, and in a second study, PCR failed to detect CHV nucleic acid sequences in 190 samples from dogs in Scotland. Samples from rabbits, deer, cows, cats, mice, and pigs were also negative for CHV. However both groups found evidence for infection of horses. These viruses have been called non-primate hepaciviruses (NPHV).

In one study carried out on horses in New York State, 8 of 103 samples were found to contain antibodies to NPHV. Complete viral genomes were identified from all 8 horses. Most are genetically distinct from CHV, but one viral sequence, obtained from a pool of sera from New Zealand horses, is nearly identical to CHV. NPHV was also detected by PCR in sera from 3 of 175 Scottish horses. Separate serum samples obtained from one horse 5 months apart were positive for viral RNA, indicating persistent infection. None of the horses had any evidence of clinical hepatitis or any other illness.

These results from geographically distinct areas suggest that horses are a reservoir of NPHV. It seems likely that dogs might acquire NPHV infection from horses, as there are opportunities for contact between the two animals on farms or in kennels. Additional NPHV isolates from horses must be studied to confirm this hypothesis.

It will be important to determine if horse NPHV was the source of human HCV. This is theoretically possible because horse products, such as serum containing antibodies to pathogens or toxins, have been injected into humans. There are six genotypes of HCV, each of which is believed to have emerged at different times and geographic locations. Whether their emergence represent different cross-species transmissions, as is the case with the different groups of HIV-1, remains to be determined.

I also wonder how horses originally acquired NPHV. Perhaps it was transmitted to them from another species via a vector bite, such as a mosquito – but from what species?

Spillover and science communication

Spillover by David QuammenDavid Quammen, whose book Spillover was recently published, has been the recipient of a good deal of publicity in the past week. Last Wednesday he participated in a New York Academy of Sciences Symposium called ‘Wrath Goes Viral‘; on Saturday he was profiled in the New York Times (The Subject is Science, the Style is Faulkner), and yesterday Spillover was reviewed in the Sunday Book Review by Sonia Shah. Publicity for science is always good, but Shah identifies a key shortcoming of the book.

Shah notes that Spillover describes the “unfolding convergence between veterinary science and human medicine, and how veterinary-­minded medical experts discover and track diseases that spread across species”, detailing “Quammen’s prodigious, globe-trotting adventures with microbe hunters in the field, trapping bats in southern China and hysterical monkeys in Bangladesh”. But Quammen shies away from explanation, saying that he “would rather dazzle us with the difficulty of the science than help us comprehend it”:

He practically apologizes for having to describe fundamental concepts like the basic reproduction rate, or “R0” (the number of new infections caused by an initial case), critical community size (the number of susceptible individuals required to sustain transmission of an infectious disease) and the high mutation rate of RNA viruses. C’mon. Kate Winslet explained R0 in Steven Soderbergh’s film “Contagion” in 20 seconds. As “Spillover” so richly details, we’re talking about the potential end of the human race here. We can take it.

On page 305, before presenting an equation for R0, Quammen writes “There will be no math questions in the quiz at the end of this book, but I thought you might like to cast your eyes upon it. Ready? Don’t flinch, don’t worry, don’t blink”. I’m not fond of this approach. If you have read this blog or listened to any of my science podcasts, you know that I don’t believe that science needs to be dumbed down for a lay audience.

I’m not sure why Quammen shies away from the details. Perhaps he doesn’t feel qualified to explain science (he was an English major in college), or did not believe it was within the scope of the book (Walter Isaacson calls it a ‘masterpiece of science reporting’.) Fortunately, there are many other places online where you can learn the details of virology (see the sidebar of this blog for some examples), or for that matter, any type of science. Sadly, Quammen does not appear to be aware of any of these sources of good science.

I have a copy of Spillover on my desk and when I’m finished reading I’ll have more to say here, and perhaps also on TWiV. The good news is that he had a number of scientists read over the manuscript. At least Quammen doesn’t shy away from fact checking.