The Zika Virus Has Changed Little over 70 Years—So Why Is It a Problem Now?

Scientists have sequenced the genomes of several Zika strains as they look for answers about the virus’s sudden appearance

By Dina Fine Maron

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Zika is more pernicious than public health officials anticipated. At present, it is circulating in more than 50 countries. And as of mid-May, seven countries or territories have reported cases of microcephaly or other serious birth defects linked to the virus, which is transmitted by mosquito bite, blood transfusion or sexual contact with an infected human. It can also be passed from mother to fetus during pregnancy.

Despite Zika’s vast range over almost 70 years, there is little genetic difference among the various strains, according to an analysis by researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. For example, the strain currently in the Americas and another previously detected in French Polynesia are practically indistinguishable from each other (group in white box). If the virus has changed so little over time, why is it rearing its ugly head now? Scientists are not sure yet, but new experimental work in mosquitoes suggests that the virus was capable of causing detrimental health effects and outbreaks all along. Therefore, it is unlikely mutations enabled new abilities. Instead public health officials probably did not understand Zika’s potential because the virus circulated mostly in remote locations until recently.

SOURCES: *ZIKA VIRUS VECTORS AND RESERVOIRS*, BY SCOTT C. WEAVER, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH, FEBRUARY 26, 2016 ; "ZIKA VIRUS OUTSIDE AFRICA," BY EDWARD B. HAYES, IN *EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES*, VOL. 15, NO. 9; SEPTEMBER 2009; CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION. *Graphic by Tiffany Farrant-Gonzalez*

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American