Showing posts with label ape. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ape. Show all posts

Tuesday 20 November 2012

Great apes may have 'mid-life crisis', a study suggests


Great apes may have 'mid-life crisis', a study suggests


Portrait of a chimpanzeeDo chimpanzees experience a midlife low in happiness?

Related Stories

Chimpanzees and orangutans may experience a "mid-life crisis" like humans, a study suggests.
An international team of researchers assessed the well-being and happiness of the great apes.
They found well-being was high in youth, fell to a low in midlife and rose again in old age, similar to the "U-shape curve" of happiness in humans.
The study brought together experts such as psychologists, primatologists and economists.
Results are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"What we are testing is whether the U-shaped curve can describe the association between age and well-being in non-human primates as it does in humans," psychologist and lead author Dr Alexander Weiss of the University of Edinburgh told BBC Nature.
Dr Weiss hoped the results would show a similar curve because of the close relationship between humans, chimpanzees and orangutans.

Close relatives

Chimpanzee looking forward
The study showed that male and female humans, chimpanzees and orangutans have the same U-shaped curve despite differences in social roles, and the phenomenon is therefore not uniquely human.
Testing times
The sample subjects included 508 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and orangutans (Pongo sp.) of varying ages, from zoos, sanctuaries and research centres.
They were assessed by zoo keepers, volunteers, researchers and caretakers who had worked with the primate subject for at least two years and knew its behaviour.
The animals were numerically scored for well-being and happiness on a short questionnaire, which was based on a human well-being model but modified for use in non-human primates.
Dr Weiss said that the similarities between humans, chimps and orangutans go beyond genetics and physiology.

Start Quote

It was quite mind-blowing... to find it in apes”
Prof Andrew OswaldEconomist
For example, chimpanzees face similar social pressures and stress factors to humans.
"You don't have the chimpanzee hitting mid-life and suddenly they want a bright red sports car," explained Dr Weiss.
"But there may be other things that they want like mating with more females or gaining access to more resources."
Co-author Andrew Oswald, professor of economics at the University of Warwick, has researched human happiness for 20 years.
"One of the reasons we decided to look at ape data was that when you study humans, that U-shape is exactly the same when you adjust statistically for things like education, income and marriage.
For Prof Oswald it was "quite mind-blowing... to find it in apes".
Bornean orangutan with hand on headThe study showed that orangutans may experience a midlife dip in well-being and happiness
He concluded that "the mid-life crisis is real and it exists in... our closest biological relatives, suggesting that it is probably explained by biology and physiology".
The bigger picture
Psychologist Dr Weiss said that this research opens a lot of doors.
He explained that for a long time this kind of mid-life crisis was considered something specific to human society and human lives.
"And what [this study] says is that it may be a part of the picture, but it's clearly not all of the picture.
"We have to look deeper into our evolutionary past and that of the common ancestors that we share with chimpanzees, orangutans and other apes."
Join BBC Nature on Facebook and Twitter @BBCNature.

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Monday 3 September 2012

scientists really do not read their own words


Gorillas and chimps are threatened by human disease

Eastern gorilla (Arup Shah / NPL)

Related Stories

In a bid to save wild apes from extinction, people may be unwittingly infecting them with potentially deadly diseases, new research shows.
Humans and great apes are closely related, creating the potential for diseases to jump between them.
Isolated incidents have been documented of apes and monkeys contracting measles, pneumonia, and influenza from people, as well as a range of other bacteria, viruses and parasites.
But the problem may be greater than even that, as highlighted by five recently published academic studies.

Your close cousins

Chimpanzees
The close contact between animals and humans in research centres and sanctuaries is facilitating the spread of pathogens to apes, say scientists.
A newly published study by researchers in Japan examined blood serum from 14 captive chimpanzees in Japanese primate research institutes.
Takanori Kooriyama of the Rakuno Gakuen University in Ebetsu, and colleagues across Japan, tested for antibodies against 62 human pathogens.
The chimps had antibodies against 29 of these pathogens, showing they had been exposed to them.
"Captive chimpanzees are highly susceptible to human pathogens," the researchers write in the journal Primates.
Bad bugs
Earlier this month, Frieder Schaumberg of the Institute of Medical Microbiology in Munster, Germany, and colleagues in Germany, the US and Uganda, published a revealing study in the American Journal of Primatology.
They found a high prevalence of drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureusbacteria in sanctuary chimpanzees in Zambia and Uganda.
Chimp and humanHelping hand or health risk?
These bacteria were likely passed to the apes by the veterinarians and staff caring for them.
The bugs are difficult to eradicate and can cause skin and tissue infections as well as severe bouts of pneumonia and septicaemia.
The study shows specifically that human pathogens can be passed to apes that are destined for release in the wild.
Researchers say that plans to reintroduce apes into the wild need to be re-evaluated to prevent drug-resistant diseases being spread through populations of rare animals.
Knowing the risks
Steve Unwin of the Animal Health Centre at Chester Zoo, UK and colleagues in the UK and US, agree that the development is "worrying".
But in the same issue of the journal, they argue that it is too soon to consider stopping reintroductions.

Past ills

  • Humans, possibly ecotourists, are thought to have passed the skin disease scabies and intestinal worms to gorillas living in Biwindi National Park, Uganda
  • Human metapneumovirus is suspected to have killed mountain gorillas in Rwanda, and been responsible for chimpanzee die offs in Tai National Park in Cote D'Ivoire.
The problem has been known for a while, they say, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has developed a set of guidelines governing the release of animals and rare species back into the wild.
These guidelines recommend screening animals for health issues prior to their release and potentially placing them in quarantine.
By testing for human-borne diseases, and preventing the release of infected animals, the problem may be averted, they say.
Two researchers, Charles Nunn of Harvard University, Massachusetts, US and Brian Hare of Duke University, North Carolina, US, who are experts in the evolutionary biology of humans and other apes, also comment in the same journal.
They recommend a number of areas for future research.
For example, to better understand the risks, we need to know more about how antibiotic-strains of bacteria spread between individual apes, and whether they actually cause any greater sickness or death in these animals.
It may be that other pathogens we are unaware of can spread between humans and apes too. And young animals are more prone to infection, as they spend more time in physical contact with sanctuary workers.
Scratched and bitten
Solving the problem is difficult, in part because passing diseases to primates is a practical as well as an ethical issue.
As Prof Nunn and Prof Hare point out in their paper, the release of apes back into the wild remains an art form.

Gorilla marvels

Gorilla
Sanctuary managers face a range of political, time and financial pressures that limit their ability to take in new apes, care for them, and then release them.
Between 2000 and 2006, for example, the chimp population living at Pan African Sanctuary Alliance sanctuaries grew 15% a year, driven by the adoption of an average of 56 new apes each year - animals that had been orphaned by the bushmeat trade.
Reintroducing these animals is important, argue Unwin and colleagues.
Not only does it help rehabilitate the lives of individual apes, and boost numbers of rare species in the wild, but the process can help educate local people about the importance of conservation.
Diseases can spread of course from primates to people: the group of HIV viruses that cause AIDS has jumped from monkeys and chimpanzees into people, seeding a global human health crisis. Ebola meanwhile is harboured by gorillas.
A study published late last year by George Engel and Lisa-Jones Engel of the University of Washington, Seattle, US, in the American Journal of Primatology, presented the results of a survey of 116 primatologists who had worked closely with non-human primate species.
Of those surveyed, almost 60% said they had been scratched by a primate and 40% had been bitten, highlighting the risk of disease transmission.
But our ability to pass novel diseases back into ape and monkey species is less well known.

Monkey malaise

  • A study presented at the 35th Meeting of the American Society of Primatologists in Sacremento, California, US in June, showed that macaques had antibodies to both human and avian influenza viruses in areas where high densities of people live.
  • That reveals the macaques had been exposed to the viruses and may be susceptible to them.
  • Drs Engle and Engle sampled blood serum from more than 200 macaques at sites in Singapore, Bangladesh, Gibraltar, Cambodia and Indonesia.
Wild apes are also exposed to human pathogens through a number of different routes, including when apes raid crops, when tourists encounter apes in their natural habitat and when workers go into forests to exploit resources, such as mining, logging and the hunting of bushmeat.
At the heart of the issue is a painful dilemma. Contact between humans and apes often occurs because conservationists and researchers have to get close to the apes to save them.
Scientists themselves can pass diseases to the apes they study.
In recent years, primatologists have debated the extent to which they might be threatening the wild apes they research, and what to do about it.
Many research groups now wear face masks when close to their subjects, to avoid transmitting airborne diseases.
Disinfecting boots before heading into the forest, and observing apes from predetermined safe distances, are other safeguards, ones that many feel ecotourists should also follow.
For many primatologists, it seems, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Sir David Attenborough meets a gorilla family
Populations of great apes; gorilla, chimp and orang-utan species, and the small apes, or gibbons, are dwindling around the world, and everything possible must be done to save them, they say.
Researchers must study the animals in the wild to understand them, and find better ways to protect them.
The benefits of such research far outweighs the costs, many experts argue.
As well as providing valuable information about the size and behaviour of great ape populations, the presence of researchers can deter poachers, encourage politicians to take an interest in primate conservation and directly save or protect the lives of many rare apes.
Sanctuaries take in apes as a last resort, and their reintroduction is considered to be an important conservation tool.
However, as the latest research shows, the difficult part is finding ways to save these closest relatives of ours, without unwittingly harming them in the process.

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Monday 19 December 2011


U.S. Will Not Finance New Research on Chimps


Tim Mueller for The New York Times
A chimpanzee at the New Iberia Research Center of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, where hepatitis C research is done.

In making the announcement, Dr. Francis S. Collins, the director of the N.I.H., said that chimps, as the closest human relatives, deserve “special consideration and respect” and that the agency was accepting the recommendations released earlier in the day by an expert committee of the Institute of Medicine, which concluded that most research on chimpanzees was unnecessary.
The report and the quick response by the N.I.H. do not put an end to research on chimps, but they were claimed as victories by animal welfare groups that have long been fighting for a ban on such research, arguing that chimps should not be subjected to experimental use. They said that the move was a step toward eventually ending chimp research, already a tiny segment of federal research.
Jeffrey Kahn, chairman of the Institute of Medicine committee that produced the report and a professor of bioethics and public policy at Johns Hopkins University, said the group’s recommendations would make it harder to use chimps in research.
“What we did was establish a set of rigorous criteria that set the bar quite high for use of chimpanzees in biomedical or behavioral research,” he said. He also said that, in effect, the writing was on the wall: “One of the important themes in the committee report is that there is a trajectory toward decreasing necessity for the use of chimps in biomedical and behavioral research.”
Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, which is strongly opposed to any experimentation on chimpanzees, said, “We’re tremendously encouraged.” He said the report’s “overarching conclusion was that chimps are largely unnecessary” for research, and that the report and N.I.H. action could influence two other continuing efforts to stop research on chimps.
One is the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011, now before both houses of Congress. Another is a petition before the federal Fish and Wildlife Service to declare captive chimpanzees endangered, as wild chimpanzees are. The exemption has allowed research to continue and permits the use of chimpanzees in entertainment and as pets.
“ ‘Endangered’ stops all those uses,” Mr. Pacelle said, and the report’s skeptical assessment of the value of chimps in research would provide support for the Fish and Wildlife Service to categorize all chimps as endangered.
At the same time, people involved in chimp research said they, too, were happy.
Dr. Thomas Rowell, director of the New Iberia Research Center in New Iberia, La., which houses 471 chimpanzees, more than any other center in the country, also said he was “quite pleased” with the report. “It just confirms what we’ve been saying all along in regard to the chimpanzee model for advancing public health research,” he said, referring to the necessity of the chimpanzee for some research on public health.
Dr. Collins said the N.I.H. would set up a working group to decide how to carry out the recommendations. Until the group finishes its deliberations, no new grants would be awarded and all N.I.H. chimpanzees that are not already enrolled in experiments would not be involved in any further research projects. Dr. Collins did not offer a timeline or say how many chimpanzees were currently involved in research.
Use of chimpanzees has already been waning, partly because it is expensive. The report covers only chimps owned or supported by the government, 612 of a total of 937 chimps available for research in the United States. Only a few are in experiments at any one time.
The committee identified two areas where it said the use of chimpanzees could be necessary. One is research on a preventive vaccine for hepatitis C. The committee could not agree on whether this research fit the criteria and so left that decision open.   
In the second area, research on immunology involving monoclonal antibodies, the committee concluded that experimenting on chimps was not necessary because of new technology, but because the new technology was not widespread, projects now under way should be allowed to reach completion. 
The report offered two sets of criteria, one for biomedical experiments, which it said could be considered necessary when there was no other way to do the research — with other animals, lab techniques or human subjects — and if not doing the research would “significantly slow or prevent important advancements to prevent, control and/or treat life-threatening or debilitating conditions.”
For behavioral and genomic experiments, the report recommended that the research should be done on chimps only if the animals are cooperative, and in a way that minimizes pain and distress. It also said that the studies should “provide otherwise unattainable insight into comparative genomics, normal and abnormal behavior, mental health, emotion or cognition.”
The report also recommended that chimpanzees be housed in conditions that are behaviorally, socially and physically appropriate. All United States primate research centers are already accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, and Dr. Kahn said that this accreditation meets the committee’s recommendation.
That was one area where the Humane Society disagreed with the report. “That language,” said Mr. Pacelle, referring to the requirements for adequate cages and enclosures, “was disappointing to us,” because it could mean that chimps that were not in experiments would stay at research centers.
“I’m arguing for the movement of all of them to the sanctuaries,” he said, where large open enclosures are much more common.
The N.I.H. commissioned the report after an outcry over its plan in 2010 to move a colony of chimpanzees it owned out of semiretirement in Alamogordo, N.M., and back into medical research at a primate center in Texas.
The N.I.H. responded in January 2011, by announcing it would leave the chimps in New Mexico for the time being, and by commissioning the Institute of Medicine to do the study released on Thursday. Dr. Collins confirmed that for now, the Alamogordo chimps would stay where they were
.

Friday 22 July 2011

Mandrill monkey makes 'pedicuring' tool

Mandrill monkey makes 'pedicuring' tool

This crude pedicure is an example of deliberate tool manufacture and use

Related Stories

A crude "pedicure" carried out by a mandrill at Chester Zoo suggests the monkeys are capable of more advanced tool use than previously thought.

Scientists from Durham University, UK, filmed the mandrill stripping a twig and using the resulting tool to clean under its toenails.

They published the findings in the journal Behavioural Processes.

Mandrills are the fifth species of Old World monkey seen deliberately modifying tools.

Non-human apes, including chimpanzees and orangutans, can adapt basic tools for specific jobs.

One well-known example of this behaviour is termite fishing in chimpanzees, where the animals strip down grasses to make fishing rods that they then poke into termite mounds to snag the nutritious insects.

Start Quote

Mandrill at Chester Zoo (Image: Riccardo Pansini)

The gap between monkeys and great apes is not as large as we thought it was”

End Quote Riccardo Pansini Durham University

"It is an ability that, up until a few years ago, was thought to be unique to humans," said Dr Riccardo Pansini, who led the research.

The new findings, he said, indicate that monkeys' intelligence may too have been underestimated.

"The gap between monkeys and great apes is not as large as we thought it was in terms of tool use and modification," he told BBC Nature.

Dr Pansini captured the footage while studying stress-related behaviour in the zoo's mandrills.

His research during that time helped inform the design of a specially landscaped enclosure, which contained shrubs to give the animals hiding places. The design won an animal welfare award in 2007.

In the footage that Dr Pansini captured, a large male mandrill strips down a twig, apparently to make it narrower. The animal then uses the modified stick to scrape dirt from underneath its toenails.

Though the scientist was excited to witness this deliberate tool modification, he said it was not entirely surprising.

"Mandrills have been seen to clean their ears with modified tools in the wild," he told BBC Nature. "This was thought to help prevent ear infections and therefore might be an important behaviour in terms of hygiene."

He thinks the captive setting may have helped bring out this behaviour.

"Animals have more time in captivity to carry out tasks that are not focused on looking for food or mating," he said. "So in zoos, you can occasionally pick up behaviours that are a little bit strange.

Mandrill at Chester Zoo (Image: Riccardo Pansini) Mandrills are the fifth species of Old World monkey seen to modify tools

"In the wild this 'pedicuring' would be considered trivial," he explained. "But cleaning their ears with the same modified tool probably gave the animals some relief from the pain in their ears.

"So we're witnessing the same behaviour that's used in quite important tasks being adapted for a less important task," Dr Pansini said.

Dr Amanda Seed, an expert in primate tool-use from the University of St Andrews, UK, praised the researchers for capturing such interesting footage.

She added, though, that it was not entirely clear that the mandrill was deliberately modifying the stick for the specific goal of producing a "sharpened toenail-cleaning tool".

She told BBC Nature: "For me, the behaviour is closer to what we already know from other species, using a stick for self-cleaning purposes, than the tool modification of say chimpanzees - which rake their stick tools through their teeth to produce a brush for gathering termites.

"But these definitions are always tricky. You could say that as soon as an animal pulls a branch from a tree, they're modifying that branch."

Dr Sonya Hill a research officer at Chester Zoo, added that research findings from zoos could have a "direct impact on evidence-based conservation and husbandry practices".

"They can also contribute to a wider body of scientific knowledge, as this mandrill study has shown."

Mandrills at Chester Zoo (Image: Sonya Hill/ Chester Zoo) The enclosure the researchers helped design earned the zoo an award

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Monday 11 July 2011

Orangutan genome 'evolved slowly'

Orangutan genome 'evolved slowly'

Orangutan Evolution of the orangutan genome has proceeded more slowly than in other great apes

Related Stories

Scientists have released a draft sequence of the orangutan genome, revealing intriguing clues to the evolution of great apes and humans.

The work suggests orangutans may be genetically closer to the proposed ancestral great ape than are chimps, gorillas and humans.

Details of the research are outlined in the journal Nature.

Two modern species of orang-utan live on the islands of Borneo and Sumatra respectively; both are under threat.

Of the great apes, the orangutan is the most genetically distant from humans.

Fossil finds show that it once had a wider range across South-East Asia; modern populations are threatened by the destruction of their forest habitat and other human activities such as trapping and selling the juvenile apes as pets.

An international team led by Devin Locke, from the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, US, sequenced the full genome of a female Sumatran orangutan named Susie.

With Susie's data as a reference, the researchers took advantage of next-generation sequencing technology to obtain lower resolution data on the genomes of 10 additional orangutans - five from Sumatra and five from Borneo.

The team's analysis reveals that the orangutan genome has experienced a slower rate of evolution than those of other great apes, with fewer rearrangements, duplications and repeats in the sequence.

This suggests their genomes are closer to that of the putative ancestral great ape, researchers say.

The researchers also compared 14,000 human genes with their equivalents in the orangutan, chimpanzee, macaque and dog.

The results suggest that genes involved in visual perception and the metabolism of molecules known as glycolipids have been particularly exposed to natural selection in primates.

Species split

"Changes in lipid metabolism may have played a big part in neurological evolution in primates, as well as being involved in the diversity of diets and life history strategies," said co-author Dr Carolin Kosiol, from the University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna.

"Apes, especially orangutans, have slower rates of reproduction and much lower energy usage than other mammals. It would be very valuable to sequence more primate genomes to enable more comparative analysis of this kind and thus help us understand the evolution of primates and our own species."

The results also provide an estimate of when the Sumatran species split from the Bornean species: 400,000 years ago. This is more recent than other studies have suggested.

The data show that the Sumatran orangutan is more genetically diverse than the Bornean species, despite the fact that the Sumatran apes are now fewer in number than their Bornean cousins.

Genetic diversity could be important for conservation efforts, because it can be related to the ability of those populations to stay healthy and adapt to changes in their environment.

There are thought to be some 40,000-50,000 Bornean orangutans left in the wild; the Sumatran orangutan is believed to number only 7,000-7,500 individuals.

Paul.Rincon-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Friday 8 April 2011

Monkeys 'harbour malaria threat'

Monkeys 'harbour malaria threat'

Monkeys A type of malaria could move from monkeys to humans, say scientists

Related Stories

Scientists are warning that a species of malaria could switch from targeting monkeys to humans.

Macaques in south east Asia are a vast source of Plasmodium knowlesi which can spread to people, they write in PLoS Pathogens.

They believe that growing human populations and increased deforestation in the region could lead to the parasite switching host.

But those changes could also reduce the spread of the disease.

Around one million people die each year as a result of malaria.

It is caused by parasites and is spread by mosquitoes when they drink blood.

'Huge reservoir'

P. knowlesi is known as the fifth malarial parasite in humans.

It mostly exists in monkeys, however, there have been human cases and it has been shown in the laboratory to be able to spread from human to human.

Start Quote

With increasing human populations and deforestion we may get a shift to humans”

End Quote Professor Balbir Singh University Malaysia Sarawak

In south east Asia, the macaques are the second most common primate after humans.

Blood tests on 108 wild macaques showed that more than three quarters were infected with the malaria parasite.

Professor Balbir Singh, from the Malaria Research Centre at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, told the BBC: "they are a huge reservoir of Plasmodium knowlesi."

Genetic analysis showed that P. knowlesi had existed in monkeys since before humans settled in south east Asia. The researchers said humans were being infected from the 'reservoir', rather than the disease spreading between humans.

Prof Singh raised concerns about what could happen in the future: "We don't know how mosquito behaviour will change.

"With increasing human populations and deforestation we may get a shift to humans. The number of malaria cases is coming down so there is also decreased immunity. Or would deforestation reduce numbers? It could go either way."

Dr Hilary Ranson, from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, said: "It seems a very reasonable thing to speculate.

"Deforestation or any perturbation of the ecosystem frequently leads to humans being exposed to an expanded range of biting insects and the pathogens they transmit, yellow fever is a good example of this."

She said if humans catch the parastite more often then P knowlesi may evolve to target humans.

"To me the important message is that disruption of the environment exposes people to a range of known and potentially unknown pathogens transmitted by blood feeding insects that do not typically feed on humans" she added.

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Featured post

More patients in Scotland given antidepressants

More patients in Scotland given antidepressants 13 October 2015   From the section Scotland Image copyright Thinkstock Image ca...