CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS New research shows that the explorer and his men may well have brought syphilis back to Europe with them.
Image:
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Apparently, the New World isn't all that intrepid explorer Christopher Columbus discovered; seems we may also have him to thank for spreading the pathogen that causes syphilis—along with news of the Americas—to Europe.
A new study provides what scientists say is the most convincing evidence to date that the Italian adventurer and some of his crew contracted the disease during their voyage to the New World—and unwittingly introduced it to the old one circa 1493.
The research culminates centuries of debate over whether the disease stemmed from bacteria that originated in the Old or New worlds.
Researchers from Emory University in Atlanta report in the online journal PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases that they used phylogenetics—the study of the evolutionary link between organisms—to study 26 geographically scattered strains of a family of bacteria known as Treponemes, which are behind the sexually transmitted disease syphilis as well as related nonvenereal infections such as yaws. They found that the venereal syphilis-causing strains arose relatively recently in humans and are closely related to an ancient infection isolated in South America that gives rise to yaws.
"That supports the hypothesis that syphilis—or some progenitor—came from the New World," said lead study author Kristin Harper, an Emory molecular genetics researcher.
According to the researchers, the origin of syphilis has been hotly debated since the first recorded epidemic of the disease in Europe in 1495. Most of the scientific evidence in recent years had been gleaned from the bones of members of past civilizations in both the Old and New worlds; bones were considered credible markers since chronic syphilis causes skeletal lesions. But skeletal analysis was hobbled by an inability to accurately determine bone age and a lack of supporting epidemiological evidence.
Another potential hitch is that Treponema bacteria cause disorders that share similar symptoms but are transmitted differently. Syphilis is sexually transmitted, for instance, whereas yaws and endemic syphilis are tropical conditions that are spread by skin-to-skin or oral contact. One hypothesis is that Treponema subspecies from the tropical Americas morphed into the more virulent venereal, syphilis-causing strains to survive in the cooler European climes.
Scientists say the study is significant because of the large number of strains analyzed, including two species of yaws found in isolated inhabitants of Guyana in South America.
"Syphilis was a major killer in Europe during the Renaissance," said co-author George Armelagos, a skeletal biologist at Emory who has been studying syphilis for three decades. "Understanding its evolution is important not just for biology, but for understanding social and political history. It could be argued that syphilis is one of the most important early examples of globalization and disease, and globalization remains an important factor in emerging diseases."
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentThe hypothesis that syphilisor some progenitorcame from the New World is one thing. To say that Columbus and his men were the responsible parties is a shameless headline grab akin to tabloid journalism. I'm disgusted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEuropean brought diseases killed almost 70% of the native mesoamerican population withn the first 10 years of colonialization. Also played a key role in the conquer of Tenochtitlan (capital of the aztec empire) as such diseases didn't exist in America and people was not immunizated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this70% of the population, millions...
Does syphilis look important?
Interesting comment AnnyeD, conclusive evidence of tertiary syphillus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the more important question is, is did YOU bring it home last night?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI heard or read somewhere that syphilis originated as a hybrid of two relatively-benign precursors, one brought over by Columbus' men and the other extant in the new world. Has this idea been found to have any validity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnnyeD,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCretin, learn how to spell. Those predictions expired 2008-33+4-30 years ago; the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem was even also later than GIiberish said. The profesy is dead.
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+fast-food
I agree
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuys if you do any sort of research on renaissance medicine and the origins of syphilis you will find that historians have believed for decades that syphilis was brought by Columbus. This isn't just an attention grabbing headline
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat relevance does this comment have to the article? The Bible states much that is worth throwing into the mental garbage can. Shall we murder our children for disobedience for instance?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo present scientific evidence can hardly be called "tabloid journalism" and to present a theological scenario can hardly be called relevant. A lot of good science has gone into the efforts to determine the origins of syphilis, and the conclusion are pretty clear: it came from the New World to the Old. It is ironic that Charles Mann's "1493" which examines the Columbian Exchange points out the decimation of Amerindians from Old World diseases, but you will not find syphilis in the index. Apparently, the exchange was a one-way thing. Bringing theology or misplaced hero worship is not a valid contribution to discussions in a scientific journal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't help but wonder if Columbus would've been black, whether Emory University (a predominately black university) would have felt the need to drum up the dirt on one of our most famous Americans!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen all else fails, throw in the race card! Columbus was not an American; he was Italian. As for dirt, one needs only to read about his bringing Taino people back to Spain as slaves, something which distressed Queen Isabella no end. To which, you can add that the "Emperor of the Ocean's" activities brought death and destruction to the people of Hispaniola. Columbus can be praised for his nautical skills but hardly as a humanitarian. And please don't give me any nonsense about autre temps, autre moeurs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this