Justin Zaluk
Professor Vejdemo-Johansson
HON 223
18 October 2021
“This Parasite Turns Plants Into Zombies”
The article “This Parasite Turns Plants Into Zombies”, produced by Veronique Greenwood and published by the New York Times, caught my interest after searching the internet for a scientific news item based on a published research paper. This intriguing article begins by briefly explaining the transformations brought upon an adolescent mustard plant, affected by what is known as Aster Yellows phytoplasma, a type of parasite. Greenwood continues by providing details regarding the effects of such a parasite on plants it brings under its control. In this case, the mustard plant was placed into an eternal state of youth, with long, “witches’ broom” shaped stems protruding from it. In an effort to better understand and uncover the source of such a unique phenomenon, scientists from the John Innes Centre in England performed a study honing on the phytoplasma’s tactics. The news publication states how the team revealed that a protein known as “SAP05”is the main culprit in the long-lasting youth of these plants. By binding on to plant proteins, it is possibly also protected due to a longer life span and increased resilience to “stress of an infection”. When wrapping up, the article also details how such a finding from these researchers may help in the protection of crops, as these types of parasites can cause widespread destruction, resulting in many other financial and health related issues.
Linked to the previously described New York Times article was the scientific research paper that was formulated and published by the John Innes Centre scientists. It was published on September 17, 2021, on Cell, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and is titled “Parasitic modulation of host development by ubiquitin-independent protein degradation”. Throughout the introduction of this paper, background information regarding other prominent parasites is conveyed, addressing the idea that the causes of “host modifications” need more information to be fully understood. The first part of this study involved applying SAP05 to a plant named “RPN10”, and observing its effects. It was noted that fertility was “compromised”, and the plant grew oddly shaped flowers and stems. Additionally, the study goes on to describe attempts made to manually give plants resistance to the SAP05 protein. The team successfully altered nucleotides within the genes of plant RPN10, thus achieving resistance to SAP05. However, the research paper illustrates how this is not necessarily beneficial, with better reactions to infection coming from fauna affected by the parasite. The paper wraps up by describing the limitations of this study, which included limited “gene targeting tools”, as well as an assortment of other symptoms that has to be noted for each plant subject. Furthermore, the results displayed that 26 of the 32 tested plants developed typical SAP05 effects, affirming the scientists hypotheses that this protein is responsible for the creation of these “zombie” plants.
Both the New York Times Article and published research paper shared numerous similarities and discrepancies that differentiate them from each other. First, when compared strictly to the abstract of the paper, their content agreed. The main points that paralleled between both included the effects of SAP05, ability to engineer plants to resist them, and background of plant parasites. They each served as a general overview that provides the reader with a basic yet coherent understanding of the study at hand. The paper’s abstract did use some more scientific classifications when compared to the abstract, but this difference was minor. Most discrepancies, while still few, were present when the article was analyzed with the paper itself. As an example, in the results section of the research, the scientists detailed how SAP05 led to certain degradation in “the 26S proteasome”, and gave a more in depth look at the reduction of plant development issues. These were not mentioned in the article, making it a notable difference. Furthermore, the limitations of the study, as well as numerous visual charts, were available within the paper, but not Greenwood’s article. When searching for comparisons, I noticed that the potential uses of this discovery were found in both, which included “Phytoplasma SAP05 effectors may enable a more direct TPD technology”. Clearly, this news item explains an important revelation in the scientific community. The article seeks to provide a quick understanding of the topic, while the research paper can be used to analyze data on a deeper level.
Works Cited
Greenwood, Veronique. “This Parasite Turns Plants into Zombies.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Oct. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/science/zombie-plants-parasites.html.
Huang, Weijie, et al. “Parasitic Modulation of Host Development by Ubiquitin-Independent Protein Degradation.” Cell, vol. 184, no. 20, 17 Sept. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.029.
