Parasites that use mind control
- Thread starter Dr Lou Natic
- Start date
IMO there's signs of confusion here. For example -" If a fluke can figure out a way to control the actions of another being, then it is either: changing the concious decision making process of the host, or it is somehow interfering with instincts. I would think that the second would be much more difficult."
It is not known whether flukes do anything at all 'on purpose' or 'cleverly' as some posts seem to suggest. They just do what they do. Of course we only get to see the ones whose 'doings' result in their long term survival as a species. In fact it would be odd if these kinds of strange life-cycles and reproductive mechanisms did not emerge from evolutionary processes.
If YOU got eaten by a lion the effect might well be that the lion would lie down for a rest. This does not mean that you controlled its mind.
Anyone read 'The Mind Parasites' by Colin Wilson, an intelligent tale (ca. 1965) of humans minds (and thus behaviour) being controlled by parasites, (sort of space-flukes), the dawning realisation of the truth of it, and the struggle to do something about it.
Is it possible that a parasite could infect the genes of a species and thus alter the course of its evolution? Or is this a commonplace event?
PS - I don't mean to say that parasites do not do things on purpose (who knows) - just that no such assumption is necesary for these processes to occur.
It is not known whether flukes do anything at all 'on purpose' or 'cleverly' as some posts seem to suggest. They just do what they do. Of course we only get to see the ones whose 'doings' result in their long term survival as a species. In fact it would be odd if these kinds of strange life-cycles and reproductive mechanisms did not emerge from evolutionary processes.
If YOU got eaten by a lion the effect might well be that the lion would lie down for a rest. This does not mean that you controlled its mind.
Anyone read 'The Mind Parasites' by Colin Wilson, an intelligent tale (ca. 1965) of humans minds (and thus behaviour) being controlled by parasites, (sort of space-flukes), the dawning realisation of the truth of it, and the struggle to do something about it.
Is it possible that a parasite could infect the genes of a species and thus alter the course of its evolution? Or is this a commonplace event?
PS - I don't mean to say that parasites do not do things on purpose (who knows) - just that no such assumption is necesary for these processes to occur.
infectious genes
In other words, this is how all orgranisms on earth became what they are today, and this mechanisms will likely continue to drive evolution.
They're called viruses (and transposons). They insert their genomes into the genomes of their hosts' (from bacteria to humans). Needless to say, this changes the sequence on a primary level, but can also cause rearrangements, deletions, interuptions in gene/operon sequences etc etc.
In other words, this is how all orgranisms on earth became what they are today, and this mechanisms will likely continue to drive evolution.
genetics
Canute, I cannot answer that question. I am sure there is someone out there who can but it's not me.
A lot of genetic evolution also has to do with genes duplicating and changing. As I'm not a human geneticist I don't know.
This is why viral vectors are being researched so extensively for their ability to act as carriers of genes. If you could insert a functional copy of a gene into the genome of someone with a mutation, you could cure a lot of diseases. Some work has already been done with this, the main problem is targeting. Some viruses always insert in the same spot, some are more random. Unless you can control the point of insertion, you run the risk of interrupting essential genes, or putting a gene into a portion of a chromosome that will not permit its expression or may affect surrounding gene expression. It's all very complicated, but also very cool.
Canute, I cannot answer that question. I am sure there is someone out there who can but it's not me.
A lot of genetic evolution also has to do with genes duplicating and changing. As I'm not a human geneticist I don't know.
This is why viral vectors are being researched so extensively for their ability to act as carriers of genes. If you could insert a functional copy of a gene into the genome of someone with a mutation, you could cure a lot of diseases. Some work has already been done with this, the main problem is targeting. Some viruses always insert in the same spot, some are more random. Unless you can control the point of insertion, you run the risk of interrupting essential genes, or putting a gene into a portion of a chromosome that will not permit its expression or may affect surrounding gene expression. It's all very complicated, but also very cool.
At least 10-15% of our genome is transponding elements, to put in compression only 2% of are genome is actually functioning genes 
! Most our chromosomal material is “junk” some of it can be traced as once being genes but most of it has degraded to only have a structural role.
! Most our chromosomal material is “junk” some of it can be traced as once being genes but most of it has degraded to only have a structural role.genomic junk
The classic undergraduate genetics course explination for why the human genome is so large.
The genetic "junk" you speak of has gotten a bad rap. And as far as structural roles for degraded genes go, a lot of that is bunk.
The junk is more likely regulatory elements and non-coding RNAs that act through epigenetic phenomenon.
As we contested in a different thread, it is not energetically favorable for an organism to maintain a large genome for the mere purpose of "structure." I would contest that the 98% of our genomes that you assert is non-functional probably comprises a lot of promoters, repressors, miRNAs and other control mechanisms that we have yet to understand fully.
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
At least 10-15% of our genome is transponding elements, to put in compression only 2% of are genome is actually functioning genes
The classic undergraduate genetics course explination for why the human genome is so large.
The genetic "junk" you speak of has gotten a bad rap. And as far as structural roles for degraded genes go, a lot of that is bunk.
The junk is more likely regulatory elements and non-coding RNAs that act through epigenetic phenomenon.
As we contested in a different thread, it is not energetically favorable for an organism to maintain a large genome for the mere purpose of "structure." I would contest that the 98% of our genomes that you assert is non-functional probably comprises a lot of promoters, repressors, miRNAs and other control mechanisms that we have yet to understand fully.
There’s a nice article at http://www.nature.com/nsu/030203/030203-10.html
DNA: Beyond the double helix. I guess like most codes, they read many different ways, where words are structure and function in one.
sorry if yous have seen the artical before.
DNA: Beyond the double helix. I guess like most codes, they read many different ways, where words are structure and function in one.
sorry if yous have seen the artical before.
hmm
I think the main problem would come with cloning genes into this sort of system and isolating functional mitochondria, and then getting them into the egg. I have never read of anyone using mitochondrial DNA for cloning, but in theory I would think it might work. A great deal of the evolutionary comparisons that have been done have used mitochondrial DNA to understand how the species have diverged. This system could prove useful, but I'm unsure of its practicality.
Well, that is an interesting idea. The mitochondrial genome is relatively small, and maternally inherited. I don't know enough about mitochondrial gene replication and expression to decide if this possibility is probable.Originally posted by weebee
(to say nothing of our little mitochondria
I think the main problem would come with cloning genes into this sort of system and isolating functional mitochondria, and then getting them into the egg. I have never read of anyone using mitochondrial DNA for cloning, but in theory I would think it might work. A great deal of the evolutionary comparisons that have been done have used mitochondrial DNA to understand how the species have diverged. This system could prove useful, but I'm unsure of its practicality.
Originally posted by weebee
There’s a nice article at http://www.nature.com/nsu/030203/030203-10.html
DNA: Beyond the double helix. I guess like most codes, they read many different ways, where words are structure and function in one.
sorry if yous have seen the artical before.
Thanks for posting that. Intriguing article, cool stuff. Makes me remember why I decided to become a geneticist. Good ideas for a post-doc
Re: genomic junk
wrmgrl,
Its not actually “junk” per-say but has a very vital structural purpose in maintaining the proper shape and size of the chromosomes. If even small section of “junk” DNA are remove the organism is no long fertile in that it cannot reproduce because the chromosomes no long match up properly when crossing-over during mitosis. As for the nature of promoters, repressors and any other function upstream of an operon, those still represent a very small amount of that percentage. What is evolutionarily favorable is to have ones genome compatible with other members of one’s species, this is why all this left over or structural DNA is tolerated and in fact vital.
weebee,
As for storing genes as a separate plasmid in the mitochondria, that is in fact a technique under research. As a plasmid the gene will be replicated without harming the function of other genes in the mitochondria or the nucleus, but controlling mtRNA production rates and getting the proteins out of the mitochondria and into the cytoplasm or organelles are serious problems with this approach.
It might be better to find a marker in the chromosomes that we can safely attach a gene to, at present though such approaches have only be effective in prokaryotes do to them having already known insertion sites.
wrmgrl,
Its not actually “junk” per-say but has a very vital structural purpose in maintaining the proper shape and size of the chromosomes. If even small section of “junk” DNA are remove the organism is no long fertile in that it cannot reproduce because the chromosomes no long match up properly when crossing-over during mitosis. As for the nature of promoters, repressors and any other function upstream of an operon, those still represent a very small amount of that percentage. What is evolutionarily favorable is to have ones genome compatible with other members of one’s species, this is why all this left over or structural DNA is tolerated and in fact vital.
weebee,
As for storing genes as a separate plasmid in the mitochondria, that is in fact a technique under research. As a plasmid the gene will be replicated without harming the function of other genes in the mitochondria or the nucleus, but controlling mtRNA production rates and getting the proteins out of the mitochondria and into the cytoplasm or organelles are serious problems with this approach.
It might be better to find a marker in the chromosomes that we can safely attach a gene to, at present though such approaches have only be effective in prokaryotes do to them having already known insertion sites.
Re: Re: genomic junk
All I am telling you is that far more than 2% of the genome performs more than a structural role. A canonical open reading frame (ORF) is not neccessary for RNA production. In addition, regulatory elements and transposable elements there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that "structural" DNA does much more than previously thought.
All I am telling you is that far more than 2% of the genome performs more than a structural role. A canonical open reading frame (ORF) is not neccessary for RNA production. In addition, regulatory elements and transposable elements there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that "structural" DNA does much more than previously thought.
such as?
I think mind control parasites just use chemicals. Imagine if a STD evolved a protein chain that produced a chemical to a biological equilivent of Ecstacy, and made people so mad with desire they all went round having sex and the STD spread. Mabye it could do mimicry of certain hormones aswell. I seem to remember plants sometimes mimic animal hormones to get them to fertilise.
I guess its possible for a large enough parasite, once inside can grow a growth of neurons that manage to travel to the brain without being destroyed. It would then be literally possible to control the host. I've never heard about that happening though.
I guess its possible for a large enough parasite, once inside can grow a growth of neurons that manage to travel to the brain without being destroyed. It would then be literally possible to control the host. I've never heard about that happening though.
This is all amazing!
But I don't believe that it would really be mind control.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hormones are resposible for a lot of our behaviour right? Well, if this were the case, then couldn't it be possible that the parasite creates hormones that may change the way a snail may be inclined to act? (just realised that this is what rayzinnz said.)
Or maybe its just that the snail becomes sick. When we get sick, we don't act like we normaly would. We tend to be less active and lie around a lot. I'm sure that a snail would be less than happy about having their tentacles bloat up. Perhaps its something simpler like that?
But I don't believe that it would really be mind control.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hormones are resposible for a lot of our behaviour right? Well, if this were the case, then couldn't it be possible that the parasite creates hormones that may change the way a snail may be inclined to act? (just realised that this is what rayzinnz said.)
Or maybe its just that the snail becomes sick. When we get sick, we don't act like we normaly would. We tend to be less active and lie around a lot. I'm sure that a snail would be less than happy about having their tentacles bloat up. Perhaps its something simpler like that?
Did I not mention examples like those my self? I would like to hear a good theory other then structural on what purpose the 60-70% of our genome (the non-coding part of course) consisting mostly of small repeating nucleotide segments that are highly mutatable.
(Oh yes I have heard some good theories already)
rayzinnz & Dudeyhed
I guess it depends on your definition of mind control, I'm sure many cases are more literally hormonal control, but lets look back at rabies for example: Rabies controls it host by destroying specific sections of the brain to induce rabid behavior (so the host will bite other potential hosts and speared the disease). I guess the perfect example of a mind-controlling parasite would have to be a parasite that connects directly to the CNS and controls by making new neural pathways… I have only heard of such a creature in horror scifi movies, does someone have an example of a real life version?
Last edited:
I'm not sure exactly what causes the "mind control", no one is. And that really wasn't the original point of the thread(a good thing to think about though).
You could be right, it might not technically be "mind control" but I think it is just as interesting regardless of the mechanics.
I am most interested in the great lengths these flukes go to in order to breed. The fact that they have developed a way to alter another creatures behaviours to make it more likely to be eaten is amazing.
The ant infected by the rabbit fluke that hangs on the grass waiting to be eaten will eventually let go and go back to doing its normal everyday business, only to cling on to another blade of grass the next morning. The fluke somehow switches its effects on and off, making sure they are on when rabbits are feeding most.
I don't think we have the technology to affect an ant like that. We can change their path but we certainly can't make them do something completely outside of their normal behaviours. Its like training one to tap dance.
I found this information humbling when I learned about it, we forget some of the really amazing things that are happening on this rock because we are to busy learning who J-lo is banging.
This is one of the hundreds of TRILLIONS of remarkable things that will go down each day on this planet unnoticed.
You could be right, it might not technically be "mind control" but I think it is just as interesting regardless of the mechanics.
I am most interested in the great lengths these flukes go to in order to breed. The fact that they have developed a way to alter another creatures behaviours to make it more likely to be eaten is amazing.
The ant infected by the rabbit fluke that hangs on the grass waiting to be eaten will eventually let go and go back to doing its normal everyday business, only to cling on to another blade of grass the next morning. The fluke somehow switches its effects on and off, making sure they are on when rabbits are feeding most.
I don't think we have the technology to affect an ant like that. We can change their path but we certainly can't make them do something completely outside of their normal behaviours. Its like training one to tap dance.
I found this information humbling when I learned about it, we forget some of the really amazing things that are happening on this rock because we are to busy learning who J-lo is banging.
This is one of the hundreds of TRILLIONS of remarkable things that will go down each day on this planet unnoticed.
Cheers wellcookedfetus for the answer about mitochondria.
I would have to agree that the metaphor ‘junk’ is not very useful in descriptions of DNA. But I do question this ‘If even small section of “junk” DNA are remove the organism is no long fertile in that it cannot reproduce because the chromosomes no long match up properly when crossing-over during mitosis.’ Is this not how we ended up with having the XX, XY?
As for the discussion about parasites and mind control, it strikes me that some of the language used is very deterministic. ‘Rabies controls it host by destroying specific sections of the brain to induce rabid behavior (so the host will bite other potential hosts and speared the disease).’ I would suggest that ‘effects’ would be a better concept, leaving a wider idea of the self awareness of the rabies virus.
I’d also note that sleeping clamped onto the top of stems is an ancestral behavior pattern in some other Hymenoptera (http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~queller/Bios334/lectures/19_Virulence.html)
. . .so it’s not making a new behavior as such, but reactivating an old one…which would maybe influence some views of ‘junk’ DNA being that its termed ‘junk’ because it does not seem to be transcribed into genes? . . .stimulates seems a good metaphor rather than control . . . .
I would have to agree that the metaphor ‘junk’ is not very useful in descriptions of DNA. But I do question this ‘If even small section of “junk” DNA are remove the organism is no long fertile in that it cannot reproduce because the chromosomes no long match up properly when crossing-over during mitosis.’ Is this not how we ended up with having the XX, XY?
As for the discussion about parasites and mind control, it strikes me that some of the language used is very deterministic. ‘Rabies controls it host by destroying specific sections of the brain to induce rabid behavior (so the host will bite other potential hosts and speared the disease).’ I would suggest that ‘effects’ would be a better concept, leaving a wider idea of the self awareness of the rabies virus.
I’d also note that sleeping clamped onto the top of stems is an ancestral behavior pattern in some other Hymenoptera (http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~queller/Bios334/lectures/19_Virulence.html)
. . .so it’s not making a new behavior as such, but reactivating an old one…which would maybe influence some views of ‘junk’ DNA being that its termed ‘junk’ because it does not seem to be transcribed into genes? . . .stimulates seems a good metaphor rather than control . . . .