Animal Diseases Leapt To Humans When We Started Keeping Livestock (nature.com) 49
Researchers analyzing DNA from 1,313 ancient humans across Eurasia found that zoonotic pathogens first appeared in human populations around 6,500 years ago, coinciding with the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to livestock farming.
The genomic study, published in Nature, identified 5,486 DNA sequences from bacteria, viruses and parasites in blood remnants from bones and teeth spanning 37,000 years. Zoonotic pathogens were detected only in remains 6,500 years old or younger, peaking around 5,000 years ago when pastoralist communities from the Steppe region migrated into Europe with large herds. The plague bacterium Yersinia pestis first appears in the dataset between 5,700-5,300 years ago.
The genomic study, published in Nature, identified 5,486 DNA sequences from bacteria, viruses and parasites in blood remnants from bones and teeth spanning 37,000 years. Zoonotic pathogens were detected only in remains 6,500 years old or younger, peaking around 5,000 years ago when pastoralist communities from the Steppe region migrated into Europe with large herds. The plague bacterium Yersinia pestis first appears in the dataset between 5,700-5,300 years ago.
Common knowledge (Score:5, Informative)
This has been common knowledge at least since Jared Diamond published Guns, Germs, and Steel in 1997.
Maybe DNA tests have confirmed, but we have known this for a while.
Re: (Score:3)
And you'd think it'd be common knowledge in that we should all know some basics about genetics and evolution and if we share a common ancestor and like 80-99% of our DNA with other mammals and like over 30% with all other life on Earth that viral infections could adapt, like it logically follows if you understand and believe those things are true.
But of course that's the rub ain't it, to say animal to human transmission is possible is implicitly acknowledging all those other things are true as we know them
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, for some reason, zoonoses didn't happen before livestock farming. Or at least, it was not significant enough to leave genetic traces. It means that there is more to it than "life can adapt, duh".
To support this theory, when Europeans arrived in America, they brought a whole lot of devastating diseases with them, but the natives didn't return the favor. The difference: Europeans have been living with livestock for centuries suffered the plagues that went with it, and developed immunities, the native
Re: (Score:2)
Yes this all tracks inside the same idea, it's called evolution, evolution doesn't just "happen" it requires pressure for genes to express themselves, thus just having common genetics won't do it, you need the pressure of having high concentrations in close proximity to each other.
Why am I getting political? Because part of anyone who studies these things is doing it because of politics, to re-affirm things scientists already know but for political reasons not we need to "prove it" all over again. We alre
Re: (Score:2)
Considering Jesus created natural selection and DNA I would say this is all 100% intended. God's plan in full effect.
Re:Common knowledge (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been reading "The Dawn of Everything" by Graeber and Wengrow and it's basically a long list of things we thought we knew about prehistory and are finding out we were wrong now that we have better tools and fewer biases. It's always worthwhile to make sure the narratives we've made up actually align with hard evidence and alter them if they don't.
Re: (Score:1)
The article states that this is not a new idea, but that they now have data to help prove it.
Know vs. Suspect (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe DNA tests have confirmed, but we have known this for a while.
There is a difference between knowing something is true and suspecting something is true. This is why we invented science: it let's us test our ideas to see whether the data support or refure them. This is why it is always important to check what you think you know against reality: you don't know something until you have the data to support it and there is always a chance that you may learn something new and surprising.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between evidence and proof.
The difference being that evidence is something we can find, while proof doesn't exist outside of abstract realms like mathematics, so there's no point in trying to find it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between evidence and proof.
Yes, evidence provides proof. However, proof comes in different degrees. In science we go for "proof beyond a reasonable scientific doubt" because, outside of abstract logical frameworks like mathematics there can be no absolute "100%" proof and so it is pointless to use that as a standard for anything that deals with the physical world. While that does leave it to subjective judgement about what constitutes a "reasonable scientific doubt", although standards can be quanified in some cases, the nature of o
Re: Common knowledge (Score:1)
Did someone actually spend money for such an obvious thing?
If it werent for sheep (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Um. The cliche has always been about the Welsh, not the Scottish
Re: If it werent for sheep (Score:2)
Logic quiz?
A man is driving through Montana.
On the side of the road there is a sheep stuck in a fence.
What time is it?
It's Mountain Time!
Re: (Score:3)
Serves the sheep right for trying to eat my dental floss bushes.
OMG logic people (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying this happened "when pastoralist communities from the Steppe region migrated into Europe with large herds" means that that's when they notice it in the DNA of European fossilized remains, NOT when it started in the Steppe region!!!
Good Lord...
Re:OMG logic people (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd say their research was pretty thorough and pretty compelling.
They searched for signs of microbial genomes in DNA sequences extracted from remnants of blood in bones and teeth of 1,313 ancient humans found across Eurasia, covering a period of 37,000 years
The zoonotic pathogens were detected only from remains that were around 6,500 years old or less, peaking in those that were about 5,000 years old.
What is your alternate theory?
Re: (Score:1)
All of these dates for early human development have got to be as wrong as the delusional "Dark Matter" (which is complete BS and will never be discovered and don't tell me it's just a "placeholder" in their model, many of them believe it's actually a different form of matter/type of particle(s)).
Regarding how to know when humans REALLY started raising animals for food: How about the time when they started to domesticate wolves (to create dogs). The only good reason for humans to domesticate the wolf is to
Re: (Score:2)
There are certainly questions about dark matter, and about when exactly humans started to domesticate wolves and raise crops. But the one thing that's least in doubt in this study, is the timeline of when zoonotic pathogens began to appear in the genetic record. Carbon dating is well-established and proven accurate through thousands of separate studies. Likewise, genetic analysis is highly accurate.
So while we might not know exactly *why* zoonotic pathogens began to appear at this time in history, we can be
Re: (Score:1)
For one thing, it's possible that it took thousands of years of exposure to humans for those pathogens to make the leap to actually being able to infect them.
Next researchers will study offspring of survivors (Score:2)
live stock (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Jiiihna!
Nonsense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps. The Latin adjective vaccinus means "of or from the cow".
Exposure to cows (cowpox) conveyed immunity from the related smallpox virus to humans.
Fleas (Score:3)
Re:Fleas (Score:4, Interesting)
The Nature article is okay, although the title could be better. The Slashdot summary is crap. The Nature subtitle is "When hunter-gatherers began living close to animals, the pathogens that cause the plague and leprosy got closer too."
Zoonotic infection didn't start with animal herding. Herpes simplex type 2 likely jumped to our ancestors from chimps more than a million years ago. Zoonotic infection became much more common, i.e. "the pathogens got closer" with herding.
Plague might or might not be due to herding. It could be: humans tend to put their food scraps in dumps away from their living space but throw things like chicken or horse feed on the ground where mice can get it. Agriculture in general also lets us live in higher concentrations, which makes successful crossover, i.e. it infects enough people to notice, more likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Hijinx ensue!
This could be a good comedy movie. Chang should have some amusing [mis]adventures along the way!
I would at least pirate this movie, and then eventually watch it too.
Sad (Score:2)
What's sad is that someone had to spend a considerable amount of money and time to determine the obvious fact that viruses and bacterias don't discriminate against their hosts.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sad at all. There are many, many things we "know" that are false. It's the very job of science, to help us disentangle truth from supposition.
People used to "know" that the sun traveled around the earth, but it took science, and many years, to convince them otherwise.
This isn't said, it's how science works.
So what? (Score:1)
Humans developed immunity. What this tells you is that cultures that didn't keep livestock, i.e. hunter/gatherers, didn't which is why they had no defense against disease when Europeans came to the new world. Another way to look at that is that Europeans were more advanced biologically.
Re: So what? (Score:2, Troll)