Watching flies: Sex may influence house fly transmission of pathogens

Salmonella Typhimurium is a pathogen that causes gastroenteritis in humans and can be harbored by house flies. Factors influencing excretion of S.Typhimurium from infected flies have not been elucidated but are essential for assessing transmission potential.

We determined the persistence and excretion of a green fluorescent protein (GFP) expressing strain of S. Typhimurium from house flies. Individual male and female flies were fed either sterile Luria-Bertani (LB) broth (controls) or cultures of “high” (~105colony forming units [CFU]) or “low” (~104 CFU) doses of bacteria (treatments). Bacterial persistence was determined over 16 h by culturing whole-fly homogenate. Both sex and dose affected persistence between 6 and 12 h post-ingestion.

In a separate experiment, fly excretion events were monitored during this time interval and excreta droplets were individually cultured for bacteria. Female flies had more excretion events than males across treatments. We observed interactions of fly sex and bacterial abundance (dose), both on the proportion of Salmonella-positive droplets and the CFU shed per droplet (CFU/droplet). In the low-dose treatment, males excreted a greater proportion of positive droplets than females. In the high-dose treatment, males excreted more CFU/droplet than females. High-dose male flies excreted more CFU/droplet than low-dose males, but low-dose females excreted more CFU/droplet than high-dose females. Irrespective of sex, low-dose flies excreted a greater dose-adjusted CFU (CFU droplet/CFU fed) than high-dose flies.

This study demonstrates that both bacterial abundance and fly sex may influence excretion of bacteria from flies, and should be considered when assessing the risk of house fly transmission of pathogens.

Effects of bacterial dose and fly sex on persistence and excretion of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium from adult house flies

11 April 2018

Journal of Medial Entomology

Dana Nayduch Klara Zurek Jessica L Thomson Kathleen M Yeater

https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjy055

https://academic.oup.com/jme/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jme/tjy055/4967820

I don’t see gender: ‘Sitting on the fence: Biology, feminism and gender-bending environments’

Somehow, I was quoted in a Jan. 2000 publication of the Women s Studies International Forum, and received notification today.

“The story of endocrine disrupters is no different. Yet science has long been a slippery ally for environmental campaigners: on the one hand, it is the products of science and technology that seem to present problems through pollution, while on the other, campaigners must turn to science in order to demonstrate the problems (Powell and Leiss, 1997; Yearley, 1991).”

I didn’t write that, Leiss did, although I probably edited the sentence to make it coherent.

And some folks wonder why I didn’t want anything to do with a second edition.

At the time, this is what I sent Bill (without the pretty pic, upper right).

 

Toilet psychology: why do men wash their hands less than women?

By hiding in toilet cubicles for a new study, psychologists observed how long people spend using the loo, and how long they wash their hands for afterwards. That men usually wash their hands less conscientiously than women is a well-established finding. Thomas Berry and his colleagues wanted to find out more about the reasons for this gender difference.

toilet.hideFor one day, between 10am and 4pm, a male researcher secreted himself inside one of three cubicles in a gents toilet facility at a U.S. University. For optimal observational purposes he chose the cubicle adjacent to a row of three urinals. Nearby, in a similarly designed female toilet facility, a single female researcher positioned herself in one of the three cubicles available. Don’t worry, both researchers were provided with a “customised wooden bench” for comfort.

They were also equipped with stopwatches. The researchers used an “unobtrusive sight procedure” – that is, they spied on other visitors to the lavatories using the gaps beneath and by the side of the cubicle doors (for some reason, US toilet cubicles always have a gap of about a centimetre either side of the door). The researchers also used an “acoustic procedure”. That is, they listened to the visitors’ actions. The study authors explained:

“… research assistants recorded the facility [urinal or cubicle], and then started a stopwatch when the patron’s feet stood relatively still. For the men, the research assistants also recorded the orientation of the feet to gauge the patron’s use of the commode (i.e. as a commode or a urinal). When research assistants heard the flushing of the patron’s commode or urinal the stopwatch was turned off … and the duration of the restroom event was recorded.”

Similar procedures were followed for recording each visitor’s “hand washing event” if there was one. A clever twist was that for part of the study, the researchers put “out-of-order” signs over the men’s urinals. This was to see how much they’d hand wash if they were forced to urinate in a cubicle, rather than at a urinal.

The psychologists managed to observe the toilet behaviour of 34 women using cubicles; 32 men who used a cubicle to defecate; 40 men who had no choice but to use the cubicles for urinating (because of the out-of-order signs); and 64 men who used a urinal. The bare statistics show that the hand-washing rates for these four groups were 91 per cent, 87.5 per cent, 75 per cent and 59.4 per cent, respectively.

The difference in hand washing rates between women using a cubicle and men using a cubicle (for defecating) was not statistically significant. In contrast, both women using a cubicle, and men using a cubicle (for defecating), showed significantly higher hand-washing rates than men who used a urinal.

The data are somewhat compromised because, as the researchers delicately put it – the women’s “facility use is a constant (i.e., commode) and their behaviour (urination, defecation, or menstrual care) is confounded within the one environment.” However, taken together, the results suggest that the reason men wash their hands less than women overall, is not because of gender norms (i.e. men are less bothered about being clean), but because of the differences in the toilet environment and toilet behaviour for men and women. In fact, after using a toilet cubicle to defecate, men tended to wash their hands for longer than women (but remember we don’t know what the women had been doing).