Badass Biology: Toxoplasma gondii

Toxopic

Look, we humans are awesome. We own this planet. If we really wanted to, we could spill every barrel of oil we have into the ocean, light it all into one gigantic fiery blaze, get on fire-proof boats in robot suits, somehow put on war paint inside the robot suits, build obnoxiously large metallic middle fingers, and shout to the heavens “TRY TO IGNORE THIS, MOTHER EARTH!!” Then, if we try really really really hard, we could clean it all up again, because some of us are actually sorry and some of us like to keep our marine food webs and all.

Why orchestrate such a display of power? Because we are the all-powerful movers of earth, the masters of fire and brimstone, and the makers of Haribo Gold Bears because holy freaking balls those things are really freaking delicious. We also have days of the year set aside where we butcher and devour different animals in front of children, purely because that’s what we’ve done for centuries. That right there is true power.

Point is, we are masters of everything we see. Remember in the Lion King where Simba is sitting with Darth Vader, who I guess came back to life to inhabit the form of a lion, and Vader is all “everything the light touches is our kingdom”? Yeah, we humans are exactly that. The only difference between humanity and Darth Vader is this: while the lions behave at the whim of the team of animators and writers that brought them to movie stardom, we are being toyed with by a tiny microscopic parasite that enter our guts, hitchhike a one-way ticket to our brains, and deliberately try to kill us by making us do really stupid and risky things.

I bet if you were eating a sandwich right before that last sentence, you probably aren’t anymore. It’s hard to eat something that’s been catapulted by your own shocked reaction, sending sandwich chunks to the opposite wall mid-chew. Even then, the walls may be really dirty, and that’s just not sanitary. I have no idea when I washed my walls last, and I keep my room relatively clean.

Why is this parasite trying to kill us? Simple. They want to get to our cats.

DAMMIT, MR. SCRUFFLES!!!

One of the reasons I wanted to write this article was to make myself look amazing. This isn’t hard, considering my creative wit and depth of scientific knowledge is nearly endless. The main reason I wanted to write this, though, was to talk about some badass ways that parasites can take over the minds of their hosts. It’s actually not uncommon to find mind-controlling parasites in nature. In fact, there is an entire field, called neuroparasitology, focusing on the effects a parasite can exert on host biochemistry, neurophysiology, and ultimately behavior and ecology.

Science jargon aside, there are some pretty badass parasites out there that tend to turn hosts into zombies. For instance, a genus of fungus called Chordyceps  invades the mind of its insect host, forces it to climb to a high place, orders its newly-induced slave to latch on with a deathly grip, and busts out of the host all Alien-styled to shower its lethal spores onto unsuspecting insect hosts below.

Huuuugggghshhh, gross. I’m sorry I did that to you. I even feel a little dirty describing that. So, in an effort to make you and me feel less creeped-out and anxious, I’m going to comfort you by giving you increasingly creepy and troubling examples.

So there’s this non-sarcastically beautiful creature called the jewel wasp that wrestles cockroaches into submission and bites them in the neck to inject a mild dose of venom. This venom paralyzes the roach, and after a short time, causes the roach to move with absolutely no will of its own. The wasp then literally starts a one-float cockroach parade, leading the roach to the wasp’s burrow like a Siren leads a ship’s crew to the abyss to be eaten by mermaids or something. Gotta admit, I don’t fully understand the Sirens’ intentions. The wasp seals the roach inside the burrow with a single egg and a comically large timer counting down the exact moment until the egg hatches. When the timer goes off, the cockroach is devoured to death by the larvae and pupae of the wasp, giving rise to another generation of the most beautiful thing in the universe made entirely of cockroaches. Technically, these kinds of parasites are called parasitoids because they live on or within the organism for a long while, but they ultimately lead to the sterilization or death of their hosts.

The jewel wasp: made from 100% real cockroaches!! Holy balls, I just shuddered. Like, that seriously just happened.

Another badass parasitoid wasp, called Glyptapanteles, lays its eggs in a caterpillar to develop and consume the host. This time, however, the host does not die. IT DOES NOT DIE. No, these tenacious caterpillar hosts, half-devoured and all, cling to life like that chip I just dropped into my bowl of homemade salsa.

I hate when this happens.

However, the wasp is not yet finished with its host. The caterpillar, after having live wasp pupae burst from its insides, spins a web of silk over the developing cocoons, stands upright on its back legs, puts on a lucky Japanese headband, and guards the cocoons with its life. Seriously, I wouldn’t dare screw with a half-eaten caterpillar sentinel, not even if I got a tummy full of wasp bodies as a treat afterwards. Eventually, the caterpillar starves to death, and that sucks, but at least– OK seriously curtains, what the hell are you doing?! Get it together!!!

OK, so I just bought one curtain yesterday, and not only is the color subtly different than the other curtains in my room, but they’re about a foot shorter, too. It keeps moving and I keep staring at it thinking “I can’t wait to give you back to the store”. I have never hated a curtain so much in my entire life. Please, curtain, quit moving and let me write.

Anyway, the point is that there are some pretty bitchin’ parasites and parasitoids that turn their hosts into zombies. You’ll notice though that all of the host examples I’ve used so far are from insects. Insects are little and dumb, and their tiny dumb stupid heads are really easy to invade. I mean, we’ve got huge brains! HUUUGGEEE!!! And they’re so complex, too! I mean damn, your visual cortex is so complicated that if you took every grain of sand on a 50-meter stretch of beach beach and lined them end to end, I’d be really disappointed because you decided to do that instead of listen to me talk about the visual cortex.

No, we are not immune. You read the first couple of paragraphs, so I assume you knew that already. So let’s just jump right into things and talk about Toxoplasma. This little protozoan is microscopic, but somehow it’s able to hijack the most complex brain on the planet like it ain’t no thang.

Braaaaainnnssss. Rat Amygdalaaaaaaaasssss.

Much like a forgotten old woman with nothing to live for, Toxoplasma loves cats. I’m not sure why Toxo loves cats so much, but in reality this is not very strange. See, parasites often have to infect several hosts in order to reach the one it’s really out to infect, called a primary host. All the hosts it infects in order to reach the primary hosts are called secondary hosts, or intermediate hosts. Secondary hosts often don’t feel the full effects of infection because the parasite isn’t reproducing inside of them, but occasionally a secondary host can have its behavior manipulated in order to reach the primary host. This is what Toxoplasma does. In fact, Toxo does this very very well.

The most clear-cut example of Toxo behavioral hijacking comes from the changes it can make to the brains of rats. Since Toxo is out to infect cats, it often causes the prey of cats to become more apparent in hopes that its current host will end up in the cat’s belly, the perfect place to make little Toxo babies. How does it cause rats to become more apparent? It forms cysts in the rat’s brain. In particular, Toxo cysts form near a region called the amygdala, a tiny region that controls fear and aggression. These inhibit the function of the amygdala, and basically cause rats to get sexually turned on by cat odors and actively seek cats by tracking their urine. Seriously not kidding.

Toxo gets really really interesting when we start talking about humans. The tiny protozoan can cause the formation of brain cysts just as it does in rats, though the damage is very subtle at first. These cysts aren’t as selective in their real estate options, so they just kinda form wherever. They release enzymes that convert a dopamine precursor into dopamine itself, triggering the action of receptors of a group of neurotransmitters called catecholamines (which include dopamine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine). Ultimately, this causes people to do some wonky things.

What kind of wonky things? Well, for one, do you remember the Beatles?  Well, John Lennon once saw a newspaper article about a car crash and wrote a song about it, which isn’t really relevant but does serve as a good segue into talking about how Toxo can make you crash your car. Just as in rats, Toxo can induce reckless behavior. So basically…man, I gave it away. Gimme a second to recover.

Ah, screw it. Here’s an article on how car accidents are caused mostly by Toxo victims.

What else can Toxo do, you ask?? Well, it’ll deform your babies, of course!! Apparently Toxo can cause some pretty terrible damage to babies while they’re in the womb, causing deformities that I cannot describe to you. Let’s just say that I googled “Toxoplamodium babies” and it’s not likely that I’ll sleep tonight because of that decision. You’re going to google it anyway, aren’t you?? You heartless bastard.

See? It’s a real problem because this floating baby head appears on a banner with the name of the disease. That means it’s dangerous.

These things all seem pretty obvious. Sure, Toxo can cause people to be reckless, and babies are easy to injure as it (Anderson and May, 1967) is so the damage from Toxo seems a bit expected. What else can Toxo do that’s more unexpected? To find out, let’s take a quiz.

Question: Which of the following facts about Toxo is true?

A)     Toxo can cause adult humans to become incredibly attached to their cats

B)      Toxo can spread through dog semen, and can help upregulate testosterone to increase the odds of infecting a female

C)      You’ll have no symptoms of Toxo in the later stages of infection

D)     Toxo is associated with causing schizophrenia.

Answer: all of the above.

I find it absolutely mind-blowing that a tiny protozoan can increase a human host’s risk of schizophrenia. This isn’t some brain augmentation to an ancient area like the amygdala. Inducing hallucinations is not simple to do. On top of that, Toxo can cause humans to acquire ADD, OCD, and can even increase suicide risk. Just read this link. Your mind will be blown too.

Nature is truly out to kill us. How do I know? I am never wrong.

Dat p-value.
Dat p-value.

How else do I know? Toxo exists. We think we’re so high and mighty, immune from crazy zombie-inducing parasites.We are clearly not. Here’s where I make a point that we are not so different from components of the greater aggregate of beings we call “nature”, and that we ourselves are indeed a part of that. Then, here’s where I get really preachy, talking about how things we do affect the natural world, and here I mention the circle of life and make a funny quip about the Lion King and the irony therein that my argument of the circle of life has referenced an earlier part of this article.

Want to hear me talk about an animal, plant, bacterium, or whatever the hell else that you think is awesome? Leave me a message in the comments! I’ll probably ignore it, unless it’s actually really good. It’s worth a shot to try though.

Come on. Comment. Go for it.

 

To view the really interesting article most of this information came from, click this link!

Photo credits:

-http://listvisit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/grey-american-shorthair-cat-3.jpg

-http://pcdn.500px.net/7757320/7090f93b289604fab91e62214d1243b8f13ae184/4.jpg

-http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfp2sreXdv1qc9f5v.gif

-http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections/parasitic/headers_92320/P_infectionB_toxoplas_1.jpg

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.