How to Handle People Who Easily Become Defensive

I had a great realization when going through Dr. Julie Helmrich’s Science of Conflict course recently. One idea from that course helped me make sense of an issue that had been popping up now and then in my relationships.

She noted that a key reason that people become defensive during conflict is that their inner critic gets triggered. They’ve already gone through many rounds of internal conversation with this inner critic. So when a problem or issue is raised as if it’s new, it’s really not new. The other person is probably well aware of it. They’ve already beat themselves up for it many times before.

Consequently, when you step into a role that resembles their inner critic, this automatically activates the part of them that must push back against that inner critic. They’re really not in conscious control of this. It just happens. They may even catch themselves doing this, dislike it very much, and still feel powerless to stop it.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve triggered a person’s defensiveness, and then my response is something like this:

One time, can we just skip past this whole defensiveness thing? It’s such a waste of time and energy. Why don’t we save ourselves a few hours and just skip ahead to solving the actual problem here? You’re not being attacked. I’m not blaming you for anything, so please lower your shields because this isn’t an assault. I just want a solution to this problem, and I could really use your help with that.

Does that ever work? Ha… I wish!

And oh is it so annoying when I just want to get a simple problem solved, and the other person is taking it personally and reacting like a 5-year old caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Some of these problems could be solved in 5-10 minutes if just a little rational thought and mutual understanding were applied. But if the person’s shields go up, it will take hours, maybe days, if a solution is created at all.

When the person’s shields go up, internally I’m saying to myself:

This is ridiculous. We could be done in a few minutes if s/he would just chill out for long enough to help me solve this. Is a solution really worth this emotional effort? I might as well drop it and find a way to solve this problem on my own… maybe there’s a way to do that. Or I could just ignore the problem for now and try again later.

The Science of Conflict course led me to a different way of framing these situations. Instead of trying to tiptoe around someone’s defensiveness and being annoyed as hell when they began to defend against an imaginary attack, now my attitude is more like Frank Costanza from Seinfeld yelling back:

Oh you want a piece of me?

Trying to avoid the conflict doesn’t work. Oddly it’s better to embrace it. Know there will be a fight, not with the other person but with their inner critic. In a way, I must play the role of the inner critic, so the person can fight back hard against that part of themselves.

If they’re gonna raise their shields no matter what I do, let’s give them good cause to raise them. They expect an attack? Fine… I’ll give them one.

The fight isn’t actually a problem. Just as I was busy thinking that the other person was raising their shields unnecessarily, so was I. I didn’t want to get into an emotional argument, so I pre-shielded myself against that. Their shields were in part a reaction to my own.

It’s very different when you come in with phasers full charged, expecting and even welcoming a fight. Being prepared for a fight is better than wanting to avoid a fight at all costs.

This reminds me of when I trained in martial arts. Practicing self-defense skills with other people made me feel more physically confident and more internally ready for a fight. I’d be walking down the street, almost wanting someone to try to attack me just so I could fight back. I shared this with the other students, and some of them noticed this shift in themselves as well. They also felt that it was less likely for them to get into a fight because they didn’t exude a victim mindset. People are less likely to attack you when your attitude is “I dare you to attack me.”

That may not be quite the attitude that the original course intended, but I do find this framing helpful. If we’re afraid of a fight and would so love to avoid it, we invite the person’s defensiveness to take control and derail the discussion.

The thing is… the other person’s defensiveness never really scared me. I found that aspect of people more annoying than threatening. I found the emotional arguments boring and time-wasting. I felt impatient for faster solutions.

Which is faster though? To ignore someone who keeps trying to bait you into a fight while you’re trying to focus on solving a problem? Or to give your full attention to that annoyance and beat the crap out of it till it surrenders?

Maybe it seems better to avoid a fight. But you could just fight and get it over with. Fight hard. Fight well. Fight honorably. Fight creatively. Fight playfully. Fight till the fighting part is done. Then go into solution mode.

Fights that don’t finish can go on forever. So be willing to fight till the fighting is finished.

I thought that fighting back would be doing people a disservice, but I’m not fighting against them. I’m fighting for a win-win solution.

The other person would like a solution too, and maybe a good pathway to get there is to help them shut down their inner critic, partly by inviting it to spar a few rounds. Then that critic will naturally recede, and we can solve the actual problem.

Martial arts reminds me that fighting can be a lot of fun if you embrace it. It’s especially fun to spar when both people are in the mood for it. There’s something very cleansing about the experience. It moves energy through the body. But if you resist the experience, that energy gets stuck.

This course also pointed out how utterly common it is to activate someone’s defensive response. I always saw this type of conflict as something to be avoided, like I should always do my best to avoid making someone feel defensive. But this only limited my ability to solve problems. Going through that conflict phase is necessary and important.

I can think of some big problems in my past that I punted forward for months or years because I was unwilling to deal with emotional conflict with another person. It was amazing how quickly those got resolved when I finally got sucked into the conflict, which wasn’t necessarily by choice. Getting that stuck energy moving again was such a huge relief.

Like many things in life, when you finally surrender to the inevitable and embrace it, it’s much easier to handle. This attitude of accepting conflict makes it less likely to trigger someone’s defensiveness and less likely to have to invest a lot of time dealing with that defensiveness.

Where in your life are you avoiding conflict because you know it will trigger the other person’s defensiveness? How’s that approach working for you?

Why not try doing the opposite? The path to resolution is through the fire of conflict. The potential for conflict isn’t a threat. It’s an invitation for you to grow stronger. Be a person who will fight for solutions and not settle for non-solutions, and you won’t have to live so much of your life in a cage that’s too small for you.

Share Button

One Browser Tab Only

It scares me when people tell me they have 10+ web browser tabs regularly open at the same time. For some it’s well into the dozens. This isn’t intelligent behavior; it will have a negative impact on your mental functioning if you make this a habit.

How is it possible to have 10+ browser tabs open regularly and not have some part of you crying out to learn single-handling?

You probably don’t even see how distracted your mind is while doing this. If you’ve been doing this long enough, it may even seem normal for you. That’s a dreadful situation to find yourself in. I suggest you break the habit.

Each tab is an open loop. Each tab is a distraction from the task you’re focused on – if you can even call a multi-tabbed life focused at all. Each tab weakens your self-discipline.

Look at all those open tabs and say to yourself, “This is NOT intelligent behavior. This is weakness. This is distraction. This is indecision. It’s time to put a STOP to this.”

Here’s a challenge for you. Do a 30-day trial of using only one browser tab. Never open a second tab during that month.

One tab is plenty.

Multiple tabs can be a useful feature in limited situations, but it’s so easy to abuse it. If you regularly have 10+ tabs open – seriously even 3+ tabs – it’s a safe bet that you’re well into abuse territory. Your focus, productivity, and discipline will almost certainly improve during a 30-day one-tab-only challenge.

Yes, you’ll make a few minor sacrifices where having multiple tabs open would be a nice feature to have, but it’s way more important to put a stop to the abusive pattern. You may be surprised to see how little you actually need multiple tabs. This challenge will make you pause and think before you act impulsively and keep opening more and more.

That isn’t to say that you can never use tabs again, but it’s wise to use them judiciously and not just keep adding open loops. Every open loop sucks part of your attention away, and this makes you less attentive to what you’re doing.

If a single tab is too boring, you’ll probably realize that you don’t need to be web browsing at all. Multiple tabs can drown you in false tasks that don’t need to be done at all. A single-tab challenge will get you turning towards more meaningful challenges. While multiple tabs may look like a form of abundance, they create scarcity in your ability to focus.

If you can’t do this challenge, then I assert that you’re addicted to distracting yourself. Lots of people are, so there’s nothing extraordinary about that. It is powerful to recognize (or to at least suspect) that this behavior is degrading your mental functioning, and challenge your brain to break the habit. At least give yourself the gift of self-awareness, so you can see the difference in what it would be like to use only one tab for a month. Then you’ll know what this is costing you.

At first this challenge will make you feel awkward and stunted. It will be tempting to open one more tab. But it’s only for 30 days. Tell yourself that you can open all the tabs you want on Day 31. See it as a new experience to raise your awareness and build more discipline and focus. Accept the awkwardness of it; it will get easier after a few days.

Don’t cheat by opening multiple browsers or by using multiple devices at the same time. Put your focus on one window and one task.

You could also extend this to using one app at a time.

This is meant to be a temporary reset. You can have a productive relationship with multiple browser tabs once again. If you have other tabs open right now that aren’t 100% needed for your current task at hand though, close them.

When I use a web browser, I normally have only one tab open. Occasionally I’ll open multiple tabs to queue up tasks in a linear progression, like multiple course lessons to go through or different articles to read. Then I go through the tabs in linear order, one by one, closing them when I’m done with them.

When I’m not actively using my web browser, I close the browser app, and any open tabs are closed automatically, but usually there’s only one tab anyway. I always open my browser to a blank slate. When I’m not active using my computer, all apps are usually closed.

As I’m writing this blog post, I have only one tab open. That’s normally the case when writing. Why would I want my visual cortex processing anything in my visual field that could distract me from writing? That would only slow me down.

If I wanted to regularly keep 10+ tabs open, I’d have to be drunk in order to silence the part of my mind that would be screaming about the damage I’d be doing to my long-term ability to focus. I think it’s healthy to develop this part of your brain – the part that will staunchly defend your focus from incursions.

There are some decent use cases for having multiple tabs open, and a few of them may apply when you’re doing certain tasks. But that isn’t a justification for abusing the tabs feature to the point of scrambling your focus every day. Look at your current open browser tabs, and name the use case that makes this intelligent behavior. Or just shake your head in disgust and admit that it’s really not intelligent to live like this. It’s not a cute habit. It’s not funny. You really are hurting yourself.

Thirty days from now, you could emerge with more self-control and self-awareness. You could know what it’s like to step back from a habit that isn’t serving you. You could free up more mental and emotional capacity. You could refactor the way you use an important tool that you’ll be using for many more years. You have little to lose and a lot to gain.

Will you do the challenge?

Share Button

Covid: US approves Moderna as second vaccine

The Food and Drug Administration gives the green light for releasing millions of doses.

Share Button

Covid: Boris Johnson ‘hoping to avoid’ national lockdown

No 10 sources said the PM chaired meetings on Friday amid “growing concerns” about Covid infection rates.

Share Button

Stroke and altered mental state increase risk of death for COVID-19 patients

People hospitalized with COVID-19 and neurological problems including stroke and confusion, have a higher risk of dying than other COVID-19 patients, according to a study published online today by researchers at Montefiore Health System and Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the journal Neurology®, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology. These findings have the potential to identify and focus treatment efforts on individuals most at risk and could decrease COVID-19 deaths.

The study looked at data from 4,711 COVID-19 patients who were admitted to Montefiore during the six-week period between March 1, 2020 and April 16, 2020. Of those patients, 581 (12%) had neurological problems serious enough to warrant brain imaging. These individuals were compared with 1,743 non-neurological COVID-19 patients of similar age and disease severity who were admitted during the same period.

“This study is the first to show that the presence of neurological symptoms, particularly stroke and confused or altered thinking, may indicate a more serious course of illness, even when pulmonary problems aren’t severe,” said David Altschul, M.D., chief of the division of neurovascular surgery at Einstein and Montefiore and associate professor in the Leo M. Davidoff Department of Neurological Surgery and of radiology at Einstein. “Hospitals can use this knowledge to prioritize treatment and, hopefully, save more lives during this pandemic.”

Among people who underwent brain imaging, 55 were diagnosed with stroke and 258 people exhibited confusion or altered thinking ability. Individuals with stroke were twice as likely to die (49% mortality) compared with their matched controls (24% mortality) — a statistically significant difference. People with confusion had a 40% mortality rate compared with 33% for their matched controls — also statistically significant.

More than half the stroke patients in the study did not have hypertension or other underlying risk factors for stroke. “This highly unusual finding agrees with other studies of people with COVID-19 in suggesting that infection with the novel coronavirus is itself a risk factor for stroke,” said Dr. Altschul, who is also surgical director of the Montefiore Comprehensive Center for Stroke Care, and the study co- author, along with Emad Eskandar, M.D., M.B.A., chair of neurological surgery at Einstein and Montefiore, professor in the Leo M. Davidoff Department of Neurological Surgery, the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, in the Dominick P. Purpura Department of Neuroscience at Einstein. Dr. Eskandar also holds the Jeffrey P. Bergstein Chair and the David B. Keidan Chair in Neurological Surgery.

The paper is titled, “Neurologic Syndromes Predict Higher In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19.” The senior author was Mark Mehler, M.D., professor and chair of the Saul R. Korey Department of Neurology at Einstein and Montefiore, professor of neuroscience and of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, director of the Institute for Brain Disorders and Neural Regeneration, and the Alpern Family Foundation Chair in Cerebral Palsy Research.

Charles Esenwa, M.D., assistant professor of neurology, and Daniel Labovitz, M.D., associate professor of neurology and of medicine, played a major role in selecting participants for the study.

Additional Einstein-Montefiore authors are: Rafael de La Garza Ramos, M.D., Phillip Cezayirli, M.D., Santiago R Unda, M.D., Joshua Benton, B.A., Joseph Dardick, B.A., Aureliana Toma, M.D., Nikunj Patel, B.A., Avinash Malaviya, B.A., M.S., David Flomenbaum, B.S., Jenelys Fernandez-Torres, B.A., Jenny Lu, B.A., Ryan Holland, M.D., Elisabetta Burchi, M.D., Richard Zampolin, M.D., Kevin Hsu, M.D., Andrew McClelland, M.D., Judah Burns, M.D., Amichai Erdfarb, M.D., Rishi Malhotra, M.D., Michelle Gong, M.D., Peter Semczuk, D.D.S., M.P.H., Victor Ferastraoaru, M.D., Jillian Rosengard, M.D., Daniel Antoniello, M.D., Mark Milstein, M.D., and Alexis Boro, M.D

Share Button

King of the Cave: New centipede on top of the food chain in the sulphurous-soaked Movile

Deemed to never see the light of the day, a new species of endemic, troglobiont centipede was discovered by an international team of scientists in the Romanian cave Movile: a unique underground ecosystem, where the oxygen in the air might be half of the amount of what we’re used to, yet the sulphurous abounds; and where the animal life only exists because of chemosynthetic bacteria feeding on carbon dioxide and methane.

This hellish ecosystem — where breathing alone could be lethal for most of us — seems to have finally crowned its king. At a size of between 46 and 52 mm in length, the centipede Cryptops speleorex is the largest of the cave’s inhabitants known to date. The new species is described in the open-access, peer-reviewed journal ZooKeys.

Already isolated from the outside world several millions years ago during the Neogene, the Movile cave has been drawing the attention of scientists ever since its unexpected discovery in 1986 by Romanian workers, searching for locations suitable for building a power plant in the southeastern parts of the country.

Surprisingly enough, despite its harsh living conditions, the Movile ecosystem was soon found to harbor a diverse and unique fauna, characterised by exceptional species endemism and specific trophic links. So far, the cave has been known to give home to the troglobiont water scorpion, liocranid and nesticid spiders, cave leeches and certainly many more yet to be discovered.

In fact, it was long thought that this unique underground ecosystem was also inhabited by surface-dwelling species widespread in Europe. Convinced that this scenario is highly unlikely, scientists Dr Varpu Vahtera (University of Turku, Finland), Prof Pavel Stoev (National Museum of Natural History, Bulgaria) and Dr Nesrine Akkari (Museum of Natural History Vienna, Austria) decided to examine a curious centipede, collected by speleologists Serban Sarbu and Alexandra Maria Hillebrand, during their recent expedition to Movile.

“Our results confirmed our doubts and revealed that the Movile centipede is morphologically and genetically different, suggesting that it has been evolving from its closest surface-dwelling relative over the course of millions of years into an entirely new taxon that is better adapted to life in the never-ending darkness,” explain the researchers.

“The centipede we described is a venomous predator, by far the largest of the previously described animals from this cave. Thinking of its top rank in this subterranean system, we decided to name the species Cryptops speleorex, which can be translated to the “King of the cave,” they add.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Pensoft Publishers. The original story is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Share Button

More than half of Hudson River tidal marshes were created accidentally by humans

In a new study of tidal marsh resilience to sea level rise, geologist and first author Brian Yellen at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and colleagues observed that Hudson River Estuary marshes are growing upward at a rate two to three times faster than sea level rise, “suggesting that they should be resilient to accelerated sea level rise in the future,” he says.

Writing in Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Yellen and colleagues documented that more than half of Hudson River tidal marshes formed since 1850. That year, the channel was straightened and a riverside railroad, berms, jetties and human-made islands of dredged soil were built. This all trapped sediment and created backwaters that often — but not always — turned into marshes, an “unintended result of early industrial development,” they state.

“In one case, historical aerial photos document this transition occurring in less than 18 years, offering a timeframe for marsh development,” they point out. Yellen’s co-authors are colleagues Jonathan Woodruff, Caroline Ladlow and undergraduate Waverly Lau at UMass Amherst, plus Sarah Fernald at New York’s department of environmental conservation and David K. Ralston of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Yellen notes that for this “very collaborative” study, the researchers took advantage of “an experiment that has already happened over decades or centuries. Many of these accidental tidal marshes worked; they protect the shoreline and provide one of the richest ecosystems in terms of direct ecological and human benefits.”

Further, marshes are “really useful,” he adds — as a first line of defense against coastal flooding, essential habitat for juvenile commercial fish species, they store huge amounts of carbon that mitigates climate change, they provide habitat for migratory birds, filter nutrients coming off the land “and they’re beautiful.”

Yellen and colleagues write that these tidal wetlands “currently trap roughly 6% of the Hudson River’s sediment load. Results indicate that when sediment is readily available, freshwater tidal wetlands can develop relatively rapidly in sheltered settings. The study sites serve as useful examples to help guide future tidal marsh creation and restoration efforts.”

Their research involved seven sites spanning more than 100 miles of the Hudson Estuary, “from Wall Street up to Albany,” Yellen says. The bays where tidal marshes developed started out six to seven feet deep and have steadily grown vertically. “One concern for marshes globally is that they will be drowned by rising sea level, but this case study shows how marshes can be created and it gave us some timing benchmarks for what is considered a tricky ecosystem restoration,” he adds.

The researchers used two main methods to investigate the river’s history and resilience in the face of sea level rise — sediment cores that shed light on how fast sediment accumulated and historical maps, charts and aerial photos to determine how the sites have changed over time. Yellen summarizes, “As long as there is space for sediment to accumulate, new marshes can develop. There is a community of land trusts up and down the river who are planning now for future sea level rise and considering where new marshes can form. This research will help them and state agencies guide land acquisition and land conservation strategies adjacent to the river to 2100 and beyond.”

The research, part of the Dams and Sediment in the Hudson (DaSH) project, was supported by a grant to Ralston from NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserve Collaborative, plus the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Interior Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center at UMass Amherst.

Also, Lau received a Polgar Fellowship from the Hudson River Foundation for her senior thesis project. She took the lead on one of the sites and made a short film about tidal marshes around the world and the Hudson River marsh near her home in Queens.

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Massachusetts Amherst. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Share Button

New class of cobalt-free cathodes could enhance energy density of next-gen lithium-ion batteries

Oak Ridge National Laboratory researchers have developed a new family of cathodes with the potential to replace the costly cobalt-based cathodes typically found in today’s lithium-ion batteries that power electric vehicles and consumer electronics.

The new class called NFA, which stands for nickel-, iron- and aluminum-based cathode, is a derivative of lithium nickelate and can be used to make the positive electrode of a lithium-ion battery. These novel cathodes are designed to be fast charging, energy dense, cost effective, and longer lasting.

With the rise in the production of portable electronics and electric vehicles throughout the world, lithium-ion batteries are in high demand. According to Ilias Belharouak, ORNL’s scientist leading the NFA research and development, more than 100 million electric vehicles are anticipated to be on the road by 2030. Cobalt is a metal currently needed for the cathode which makes up the significant portion of a lithium-ion battery’s cost.

Cobalt is rare and largely mined overseas, making it difficult to acquire and produce cathodes. As a result, finding an alternative material to cobalt that can be manufactured cost effectively has become a lithium-ion battery research priority.

ORNL scientists tested the performance of the NFA class of cathodes and determined they are promising substitutes for cobalt-based cathodes, as described in Advanced Materials and the Journal of Power Sources. Researchers used neutron diffraction, Mossbauer spectroscopy and other advanced characterization techniques to investigate NFA’s atomic- and micro-structures as well as electrochemical properties.

“Our investigations into the charging and discharging behavior of NFA showed that these cathodes undergo similar electrochemical reactions as cobalt-based cathodes and deliver high enough specific capacities to meet the battery energy density demands,” said Belharouak.

Although research on the NFA class is in the early stages, Belharouak said that his team’s preliminary results to date indicate that cobalt may not be needed for next-generation lithium-ion batteries.

“We are developing a cathode that has similar or better electrochemical characteristics than cobalt-based cathodes while utilizing lower cost raw materials,” he said.

Belharouak added that not only does NFA perform as well as cobalt-based cathodes, but the process to manufacture the NFA cathodes can be integrated into existing global cathode manufacturing processes.

“Lithium nickelate has long been researched as the material of choice for making cathodes, but it suffers from intrinsic structural and electrochemical instabilities,” he said. “In our research, we replaced some of the nickel with iron and aluminum to enhance the cathode’s stability. Iron and aluminum are cost-effective, sustainable and environmentally friendly materials.”

Future research and development on the NFA class will include testing the materials in large-format cells to validate the lab-scale results and further explore the suitability of these cathodes for use in electric vehicles.

Story Source:

Materials provided by DOE/Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Share Button

Identifying where to reforest after wildfire

In the aftermath of megafires that devastated forests of the western United States, attention turns to whether forests will regenerate on their own or not. Forest managers can now look to a newly enhanced, predictive mapping tool to learn where forests are likely to regenerate on their own and where replanting efforts may be beneficial.

The tool is described in a study published in the journal Ecological Applications by researchers from the University of California, Davis; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Cal Fire and the U.S. Forest Service.

“Huge fires are converting forested areas to landscapes devoid of living trees,” said lead author Joseph Stewart, a postdoctoral researcher at UC Davis and with USGS. “Managers need timely and accurate information on where reforestation efforts are needed most.”

The tool, also known as the Post-fire Spatial Conifer Regeneration Prediction Tool (POSCRPT), helps forest managers identify within weeks after a fire where sufficient natural tree regeneration is likely and where artificial planting of seedlings may be necessary to restore the most vulnerable areas of the forest.

NOT SO EVERGREEN

Conifers, or plants with cones such as pine trees, dominate many forests in western North America. The study found that conifers are less likely to regenerate after fires when seedlings face drier climate conditions, especially in low-elevation forests that already experience frequent drought stress. Overall, fewer conifers are expected to grow in California’s lower elevations following wildfire due to climate and drought conditions.

“We found that when forest fires are followed by drought, tree seedlings have a harder time, and the forest is less likely to come back,” said Stewart.

A UC Davis team collected post-fire recovery data from more than 1,200 study plots in 19 wildfires that burned between 2004 and 2012, as well as 18 years of forest seed production data. Ecologists at USGS collected and identified over 170,000 seeds from hundreds of seed traps. The scientists combined these data with multispectral satellite imagery, forest structure maps, climate and other environmental data to create spatial models of seed availability and regeneration probability for different groups of conifers, including pines and firs.

Forest managers have used a prototype of the tool in recent years to better understand where to focus regeneration efforts. The new upgrade incorporates information on post-fire climate and seed production and includes an easy-to-use web interface expected to increase the tool’s accuracy and use.

“This work is a great example of how multiple partners can come together to solve major resource management problems that are arising from California’s climate and fire trends,” said co-author Hugh Safford, regional ecologist for the USDA Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest Region and a member of the research faculty at UC Davis.

The study was funded by the USGS’ Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center, Ecosystems Mission Area and Land Change Science Program.

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of California – Davis. Original written by Kat Kerlin. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Share Button

Zika virus affects eye development before but not after birth

While the SARS-CoV-2 virus has dominated the news this past year, researchers continue to study the health effects of the Zika virus, which has been reported in 86 countries globally.

The Zika virus is primarily transmitted by the bite of an infected mosquito from the Aedes genus. However, it can also be passed through sexual contact, blood transfusions, organ transplants, and between mother and baby during pregnancy. The virus has been documented to cause a range of birth defects, including microcephaly and various neurological, musculoskeletal, and eye abnormalities.

A new study from Glenn Yiu, associate professor in the Department of Ophthalmology, and Koen Van Rompay, a core scientist at the California National Primate Research Center, found that Zika infection during the first trimester of pregnancy can impact fetal retinal development and cause congenital ocular anomalies. The virus does not appear to affect ocular growth postnatally, however.

“It has been known that congenital infection with the Zika virus can lead to eye defects, but it was unclear if the virus continues to replicate or affect eye development after birth,” Yiu said. “Our study in rhesus monkeys suggest that the virus primarily affects fetal development during pregnancy, but not the growth of eye after birth.”

In this collaboration between the UC Davis Eye Center and the California National Primate Research Center, two pregnant rhesus monkeys were infected with Zika virus late in the first trimester. The ocular development of the Zika-exposed infants was then studied for two years following their birth.

Ocular birth defects

The Zika-exposed infant monkeys did not display microcephaly or apparent neurological or behavioral deficits. The infants did exhibit several ocular birth defects, however. The defects included large colobomas, a missing gap in the eye due to abnormal development. The Zika-exposed infant monkeys also exhibited a loss of photoreceptors — the light-sensing cells of the retina — and retinal ganglion neuron, which helps transmit visual information to the brain.

Despite congenital ocular malformations at birth, their eyes appeared to follow normal development during their first two years.

The findings suggest that ocular defects due to Zika infection primarily occur in utero and likely do not have a continued impact on ocular development after birth.

Rhesus macaques are natural hosts of the virus and share similar immune and ocular characteristics to humans, including blood-retinal barrier characteristics and the unique presence of a macula, making them superior animal models of the infection than typical laboratory animals like mice and rats. The findings were published in JCI Insight, an open-access peer-reviewed journal dedicated to biomedical research.

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of California – Davis. Original written by Lisa Howard. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Share Button