Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
17 February 2025 | Story Andre Damons | Photo Supplied
Prof Carolina Pohl-Albertyn
Prof Carlien Pohl-Albertyn is the NRF SARChI Research Chair in Pathogenic Yeasts at the UFS.

A new study by researchers from the University of the Free State (UFS), the National Health Laboratory Service, and the University of Venda has confirmed for the first time that common brown locusts are carriers of pathogenic yeasts that can cause severe infections in humans – especially in people with compromised immune systems or who are seriously ill.

The study, ‘South African brown locusts, Locustana pardalina, hosts fluconazole resistant, Candidozyma (Candida) auris (Clade III)’, highlights for the first time the presence of the pathogenic (disease-producing) fungal yeast C. auris in the digestive tract of the locusts, and shows their potential in disseminating this emerging pathogen. The research started in April 2022, when 20 gregarious (swarming) adult locusts were collected during a large locust outbreak which occurred from September 2021 to May 2022 in the semi-arid Eastern Karoo region in the Eastern Cape. The study is still under peer review.

According to Prof Carlien Pohl-Albertyn, National Research Foundation (NRF) SARChI Research Chair in Pathogenic Yeasts, three C. auris strains were isolated from three different adult locusts, two of which also harboured strains of another potentially pathogenic yeast, Candida orthopsilosis. “The fact that we were able to isolate C. auris from 15% of the sampled locusts, using non-selective media and a non-restrictive temperature of 30°C, may indicate that C. auris is abundant in the locusts and that specific selective isolation is not mandatory,” Prof Pohl-Albertyn said.

“Interestingly, C. auris was isolated from the fore- and hindgut of the locusts. Isolation from the foregut, which is dedicated to food intake and storage, filtering and partial digestion, indicates that C. auris was probably obtained by the locusts via feeding activities. Isolation from the hindgut confirms that C. auris can survive the digestive processes in the midgut and is likely to be released back into the environment via faeces.”

Healthy humans are not at great risk

One of the C. auris strains was studied in more detail. This strain was not resistant to disinfectants but showed decreased susceptibility to the common antifungal drug fluconazole. This is a characteristic of this yeast species and thus not surprising. Most of the emerging pathogenic yeasts show this intrinsic resistance. This highlights the urgent need to discover and develop new antifungal drugs.

Prof Pohl-Albertyn, also a Professor of Microbiology in the UFS Department of Microbiology and Biochemistry, says, “Healthy humans are not at great risk for infection by this yeast and there is currently no proof that ingestion may be harmful to them. This is unfortunately not the case for people with compromised immune systems or who are seriously ill. However, few susceptible people come into direct contact with the locusts in South Africa.”

She added that there are treatment options available, using other antifungal drugs, but C. auris can become resistant to all the currently available antifungal drugs.

Importance of the study

“The fact that locusts are a food source for other animals, such as birds, could lead to eventual distribution of the yeast to people. In other countries, wild locusts are a food source for humans and there more direct transmission may be possible,” Prof Pohl-Albertyn said.

She explained that this study tries to answer questions regarding the natural hosts of this emerging pathogen and how it may facilitate the spread of the pathogen to the rest of the environment. The study is one part of the puzzle regarding how new pathogens may emerge from the environment and spread to people.

“One of the questions in the field of pathogenic yeasts is how C. auris was able to emerge as a pathogen in several different countries in a relatively short period. It is well known as a hospital-acquired pathogen, but it is not known where in the environment it occurs naturally, and which environmental factors may have shaped its evolution and ability to cause human infections. This has implications for the prevention of the spread of this specific yeast species, as well as our preparedness for new pathogenic yeasts that may be emerging from the environment.”

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept