A review of the Institute of Medicine's analysis of using chimpanzees in biomedical research

Comparative physiological anthropogeny: exploring molecular underpinnings of distinctly human phenotypes

Anthropogeny is a classic term encompassing transdisciplinary investigations of the origins of the human species. Comparative anthropogeny is a systematic comparison of humans and other living nonhuman hominids (so-called "great apes"), aiming to identify distinctly human features in health and disease, with the overall goal of explaining human origins. We begin with a historical perspective, briefly describing how the field progressed from the earliest evolutionary insights to the current emphasis on in-depth molecular and genomic investigations of "human-specific" biology and an increased appreciation for cultural impacts on human biology. While many such genetic differences between humans and other hominids have been revealed over the last two decades, this information remains insufficient to explain the most distinctive phenotypic traits distinguishing humans from other living hominids. Here we undertake a complementary approach of "comparative physiological anthropogeny," along the lines of the preclinical medical curriculum, i.e., beginning with anatomy and considering each physiological system and in each case considering genetic and molecular components that are relevant. What is ultimately needed is a systematic comparative approach at all levels from molecular to physiological to sociocultural, building networks of related information, drawing inferences, and generating testable hypotheses. The concluding section will touch on distinctive considerations in the study of human evolution, including the importance of gene-culture interactions.

Should biomedical research with great apes be restricted? A systematic review of reasons

Background

The use of great apes (GA) in invasive biomedical research is one of the most debated topics in animal ethics. GA are, thus far, the only animal group that has frequently been banned from invasive research; yet some believe that these bans could inaugurate a broader trend towards greater restrictions on the use of primates and other animals in research. Despite ongoing academic and policy debate on this issue, there is no comprehensive overview of the reasons advanced for or against restricting invasive research with GA. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of the reasons reported in the academic literature on this topic.

Methods

Seven databases were searched for articles published in English. Two authors screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of all articles. Two journals specialized in animal ethics, and the reference lists of included articles were subsequently also reviewed.

Results

We included 60 articles, most of which were published between 2006 and 2016. Twenty-five articles argued for a total ban of GA research, 21 articles defended partial restrictions, and 14 articles argued against restrictions. Overall, we identified 110 reason types, 74 for, and 36 against, restricting GA research. Reasons were grouped into nine domains: moral standing, science, welfare, public and expert attitudes, retirement and conservation, respect and rights, financial costs, law and legal status, and longer-term consequences.

Conclusion

Our review generated five main findings. First, there is a trend in the academic debate in favor of restricting GA research that parallels worldwide policy changes in the same direction. Second, in several domains (e.g., moral standing, and respect and rights), the reasons were rather one-sided in favor of restrictions. Third, some prominent domains (e.g., science and welfare) featured considerable engagement between opposing positions. Fourth, there is low diversity and independence among authors, including frequent potential conflicts of interests in articles defending a strong position (i.e., favoring a total ban or arguing against restrictions). Fifth, scholarly discussion was not the norm, as reflected in a high proportion of non-peer-reviewed articles and authors affiliated to non-academic institutions.

Ethical and Scientific Pitfalls Concerning Laboratory Research with Non-Human Primates, and Possible Solutions

Basic and applied laboratory research, whenever intrusive or invasive, presents substantial ethical challenges for ethical committees, be it with human beings or with non-human animals. In this paper we discuss the use of non-human primates (NHPs), mostly as animal models, in laboratory based research. We examine the two ethical frameworks that support current legislation and guidelines: deontology and utilitarianism. While human based research is regulated under deontological principles, guidelines for laboratory animal research rely on utilitarianism. We argue that the utilitarian framework is inadequate for this purpose: on the one hand, it is almost impossible to accurately predict the benefits of a study for all potential stakeholders; and on the other hand, harm inflicted on NHPs (and other animals) used in laboratory research is extensive despite the increasing efforts of ethics committees and the research community to address this. Although deontology and utilitarianism are both valid ethical frameworks, we advocate that a deontological approach is more suitable, since we arguably have moral duties to NHPs. We provide suggestions on how to ensure that research currently conducted in laboratory settings shifts towards approaches that abide by deontological principles. We assert that this would not impede reasonable scientific research.

Arteriviruses, Pegiviruses, and Lentiviruses Are Common among Wild African Monkeys

Nonhuman primates (NHPs) are a historically important source of zoonotic viruses and are a gold-standard model for research on many human pathogens. However, with the exception of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) (family Retroviridae), the blood-borne viruses harbored by these animals in the wild remain incompletely characterized. Here, we report the discovery and characterization of two novel simian pegiviruses (family Flaviviridae) and two novel simian arteriviruses (family Arteriviridae) in wild African green monkeys from Zambia (malbroucks [Chlorocebus cynosuros]) and South Africa (vervet monkeys [Chlorocebus pygerythrus]). We examine several aspects of infection, including viral load, genetic diversity, evolution, and geographic distribution, as well as host factors such as age, sex, and plasma cytokines. In combination with previous efforts to characterize blood-borne RNA viruses in wild primates across sub-Saharan Africa, these discoveries demonstrate that in addition to SIV, simian pegiviruses and simian arteriviruses are widespread and prevalent among many African cercopithecoid (i.e., Old World) monkeys.

IMPORTANCE

Primates are an important source of viruses that infect humans and serve as an important laboratory model of human virus infection. Here, we discover two new viruses in African green monkeys from Zambia and South Africa. In combination with previous virus discovery efforts, this finding suggests that these virus types are widespread among African monkeys. Our analysis suggests that one of these virus types, the simian arteriviruses, may have the potential to jump between different primate species and cause disease. In contrast, the other virus type, the pegiviruses, are thought to reduce the disease caused by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in humans. However, we did not observe a similar protective effect in SIV-infected African monkeys coinfected with pegiviruses, possibly because SIV causes little to no disease in these hosts.

Durable sequence stability and bone marrow tropism in a macaque model of human pegivirus infection

Human pegivirus (HPgV)-formerly known as GB virus C and hepatitis G virus-is a poorly characterized RNA virus that infects about one-sixth of the global human population and is transmitted frequently in the blood supply. We create an animal model of HPgV infection by infecting macaque monkeys with a new simian pegivirus (SPgV) discovered in wild baboons. Using this model, we provide a high-resolution, longitudinal picture of SPgV viremia where the dose, route, and timing of infection are known. We detail the highly variable acute phase of SPgV infection, showing that the viral load trajectory early in infection is dependent on the infecting dose, whereas the chronic-phase viremic set point is not. We also show that SPgV has an extremely low propensity for accumulating sequence variation, with no consensus-level variants detected during the acute phase of infection and an average of only 1.5 variants generated per 100 infection-days. Finally, we show that SPgV RNA is highly concentrated in only two tissues: spleen and bone marrow, with bone marrow likely producing most of the virus detected in plasma. Together, these results reconcile several paradoxical observations from cross-sectional analyses of HPgV in humans and provide an animal model for studying pegivirus biology.