Emergence of epidemic diseases: zoonoses and other origins.

Infectious diseases emerge via many routes and may need to overcome stepwise bottlenecks to burgeon into epidemics and pandemics. About 60% of human infections have animal origins, whereas 40% either co-evolved with humans or emerged from non-zoonotic environmental sources. Although the dynamic interaction between wildlife, domestic animals, and humans is important for the surveillance of zoonotic potential, exotic origins tend to be overemphasized since many zoonoses come from anthropophilic wild species (for example, rats and bats). We examine the equivocal evidence of whether the appearance of novel infections is accelerating and relate technological developments to the risk of novel disease outbreaks. Then we briefly compare selected epidemics, ancient and modern, from the Plague of Athens to COVID-19.

DNA translated: Friedrich Miescher's discovery of nuclein in its original context.

In 1871, the Swiss physiological chemist Friedrich Miescher published the results of a detailed chemical analysis of pus cells, in which he showed that the nuclei of these cells contained a hitherto unknown phosphorus-rich chemical which he named 'nuclein' for its specific localisation. Published in German, 'Ueber Die Chemische Zusammensetzung Der Eiterzellen', [On the Chemical Composition of Pus Cells] Medicinisch-Chemische Untersuchungen (1871) 4: 441-60, was the first publication to describe DNA, and yet remains relatively obscure. We therefore undertook a translation of the paper into English, which, together with the original article, can be accessed via the following link https://doi.org/10.1017/S000708742000062X. In this paper, we offer some intellectual context for its publication and immediate reception.

How Seeing Became Knowing: The Role of the Electron Microscope in Shaping the Modern Definition of Viruses.

This paper examines the vital role played by electron microscopy toward the modern definition of viruses, as formulated in the late 1950s. Before the 1930s viruses could neither be visualized by available technologies nor grown in artificial media. As such they were usually identified by their ability to cause diseases in their hosts and defined in such negative terms as "ultramicroscopic" or invisible infectious agents that could not be cultivated outside living cells. The invention of the electron microscope, with magnification and resolution powers several orders of magnitude better than that of optical instruments, opened up possibilities for biological applications. The hitherto invisible viruses lent themselves especially well to investigation with this new instrument. We first offer a historical consideration of the development of the instrument and, more significantly, advances in techniques for preparing and observing specimens that turned the electron microscope into a routine biological tool. We then describe the ways in which the electron microscopic images, or micrographs, functioned as forms of new knowledge about viruses and resulted in a paradigm shift in the very definition of these entities. Micrographs were not mere illustrations since they did the work for the electron microscopists. Drawing extensively on primary publications, we adduce the role of the new instrument in understanding the so-called eclipse phase in virus multiplication and the unexpected spinoffs of data from electron microscopy in naming and classifying viruses. Thus, we show that electron microscopy functioned not only to provide evidence, but also arguments in facilitating a reordering of the world that it brought into the visual realm.

On the historical significance of Beijerinck and his contagium vivum fluidum for modern virology.

This paper considers the foundational role of the contagium vivum fluidum-first proposed by the Dutch microbiologist Martinus Beijerinck in 1898-in the history of virology, particularly in shaping the modern virus concept, defined in the 1950s. Investigating the cause of mosaic disease of tobacco, previously shown to be an invisible and filterable entity, Beijerinck concluded that it was neither particulate like the bacteria implicated in certain infectious diseases, nor soluble like the toxins and enzymes responsible for symptoms in others. He offered a completely new explanation, proposing that the agent was a "living infectious fluid" whose reproduction was intimately linked to that of its host cell. Difficult to test at the time, the contagium vivum fluidum languished in obscurity for more than three decades. Subsequent advances in technologies prompted virus researchers of the 1930s and 1940s-the first to separate themselves from bacteriologists-to revive the idea. They found in it both the seeds for their emerging virus concept and a way to bring hitherto opposing thought styles about the nature of viruses and life together in consensus. Thus, they resurrected Beijerinck as the founding father, and contagium vivum fluidum as the core concept of their discipline.

The RNA World at Thirty: A Look Back with its Author.

Thirty years ago, molecular biologist Walter Gilbert published his RNA world hypothesis, which posited that early in evolution living systems were composed entirely of RNA. Proposed in the immediate wake of the discovery that certain RNA molecules were capable of catalyzing biological reactions, the hypothesis ascribed both of life's essential functions, namely carrying information and catalysis-respectively, performed by DNA and proteins in most modern life systems-to RNA, which were labeled as ribozymes. In the years since its inception, the RNA world has been greeted with equal parts enthusiasm and opposition from the origins of life research community, of which Gilbert neither was, nor really became, a part. For this special historical issue of the Journal of Molecular Evolution, Gilbert agreed to revisit his hypothesis and share his memories about the theory's origins and his insights into its fate in the years since he first published his idea.

ANDREWES'S CHRISTMAS FAIRY TALE: ATYPICAL THINKING ABOUT CANCER AETIOLOGY IN 1935.

This paper uses a short 'Christmas fairy-story for oncologists' sent by Christopher Andrewes with a 1935 letter to Peyton Rous as the centrepiece of a reflection on the state of knowledge and speculation about the viral aetiology of cancer in the 1930s. Although explicitly not intended for public circulation at the time, the fairy-story merits publication for its significance in the history of ideas about viruses, which are taken for granted today. Andrewes and Rous were prominent members of the international medical research community and yet faced strong resistance to their theory that viruses could cause such tumours as chicken sarcomas and rabbit papillomas. By looking at exchanges between these men among themselves and other proponents of their theories and with their oncologist detractors, we highlight an episode in the behind-the-scenes workings of medical science and show how informal correspondence helped keep alive a vital but then heterodox idea about the role of viruses in causing cancer.

When viruses were not in style: parallels in the histories of chicken sarcoma viruses and bacteriophages.

The discovery that cancer may be caused by viruses occurred in the early twentieth century, a time when the very concept of viruses as we understand it today was in a considerable state of flux. Although certain features were agreed upon, viruses, more commonly referred to as 'filterable viruses' were not considered much different from other microbes such as bacteria except for their extremely small size, which rendered them ultramicroscopic and filterable. For a long time, in fact, viruses were defined rather by what they were not and what they could not do, rather than any known properties that set them apart from other microbes. Consequently when Peyton Rous suggested in 1912 that the causative agent of a transmissible sarcoma tumor of chickens was a virus, the medical research community was reluctant to accept his assessment on the grounds that cancer was not infectious and was caused by a physiological change within the cells. This difference in the bacteriological and physiological styles of thinking appears to have been prevalent in the wider research community, for when in 1917 Felix d'Herelle suggested that a transmissible lysis in bacteria, which he called bacteriophagy, was caused by a virus, his ideas were also opposed on similar grounds. It was not until the 1950s when when André Lwoff explained the phenomenon of lysogeny through his prophage hypothesis that the viral identities of the sarcoma-inducing agent and the bacteriophages were accepted. This paper examines the trajectories of the curiously parallel histories of the cancer viruses and highlights the similarities and differences between the ways in which prevailing ideas about the nature of viruses, heredity and infection drove researchers from disparate disciplines and geographic locations to develop their ideas and achieve some consensus about the nature of cancer viruses and bacteriophages.

How the discovery of ribozymes cast RNA in the roles of both chicken and egg in origin-of-life theories.

Scientific theories about the origin-of-life theories have historically been characterized by the chicken-and-egg problem of which essential aspect of life was the first to appear, replication or self-sustenance. By the 1950s the question was cast in molecular terms and DNA and proteins had come to represent the carriers of the two functions. Meanwhile, RNA, the other nucleic acid, had played a capricious role in origin theories. Because it contained building blocks very similar to DNA, biologists recognized early that RNA could store information in its linear sequences. With the discovery in the 1980s that RNA molecules were capable of biological catalysis, a function hitherto ascribed to proteins alone, RNA took on the role of the single entity that could act as both chicken and egg. Within a few years of the discovery of these catalytic RNAs (ribozymes) scientists had formulated an RNA World hypothesis that posited an early phase in the evolution of life where all key functions were performed by RNA molecules. This paper traces the history the role of RNA in origin-of-life theories with a focus on how the discovery of ribozymes influenced the discourse.

The bacteriophage, its role in immunology: how Macfarlane Burnet's phage research shaped his scientific style.

The Australian scientist Frank Macfarlane Burnet-winner of the Nobel Prize in 1960 for his contributions to the understanding of immunological tolerance-is perhaps best recognized as one of the formulators of the clonal selection theory of antibody production, widely regarded as the 'central dogma' of modern immunology. His work in studies in animal virology, particularly the influenza virus, and rickettsial diseases is also well known. Somewhat less known and publicized is Burnet's research on bacteriophages, which he conducted in the first decade of his research career, immediately after completing medical school. For his part, Burnet made valuable contributions to the understanding of the nature of bacteriophages, a matter of considerable debate at the time he began his work. Reciprocally, it was while working on the phages that Burnet developed the scientific styles, the habits of mind and laboratory techniques and practices that characterized him for the rest of his career. Using evidence from Burnet's published work, as well as personal papers from the period he worked on the phages, this paper demonstrates the direct impact that his experiments with phages had on the development of his characteristic scientific style and approaches, which manifested themselves in his later career and theories, and especially in his thinking regarding various immunological problems.

Mutant bacteriophages, Frank Macfarlane Burnet, and the changing nature of "genespeak" in the 1930s.

In 1936, Frank Macfarlane Burnet published a paper entitled "Induced lysogenicity and the mutation of bacteriophage within lysogenic bacteria," in which he demonstrated that the introduction of a specific bacteriophage into a bacterial strain consistently and repeatedly imparted a specific property - namely the resistance to a different phage - to the bacterial strain that was originally susceptible to lysis by that second phage. Burnet's explanation for this change was that the first phage was causing a mutation in the bacterium which rendered it and its successive generations of offspring resistant to lysogenicity. At the time, this idea was a novel one that needed compelling evidence to be accepted. While it is difficult for us today to conceive of mutations and genes outside the context of DNA as the physico-chemical basis of genes, in the mid 1930s, when this paper was published, DNA's role as the carrier of hereditary information had not yet been discovered and genes and mutations were yet to acquire physical and chemical forms. Also, during that time genes were considered to exist only in organisms capable of sexual modes of replication and the status of bacteria and viruses as organisms capable of containing genes and manifesting mutations was still in question. Burnet's paper counts among those pieces of work that helped dispel the notion that genes, inheritance and mutations were tied to an organism's sexual status. In this paper, I analyze the implications of Burnet's paper for the understanding of various concepts - such as "mutation," and "gene," - at the time it was published, and how those understandings shaped the development of the meanings of these terms and our modern conceptions thereof.