Cicada STDs, Suicidal Crickets, and the Truth About Flamingos

IMG_0345

In the summer of 2016, billions of periodical cicadas of the Magicicada genus appeared in the northeastern United States, erupting from the land after nearly two decades of maturing underground. As usual, they would proceed to spend the subsequent five to six weeks of their remaining lives foraging for food and having sex, calling out to mates by flicking their wings, generating distinct mating songs. Nature was taking its course—including the butt-eating, sexually-transmissible fungal pathogen, Massospora cicadina.

Periodical cicadas are first infected by Massospora as nymphs—the “adolescent” stage of insects that undergo metamorphosis—where the spores germinate and remain dormant until their cicada hosts emerge from the soil in the summer (Duke, Steinkraus, English, & Smith, 2002). Once above ground, the spores undergo massive growth within their hosts’ abdomens, consuming their organs in the process. As the fungus grows to capacity and its host is drawing closer to its unfortunate end, the hard exoskeletal panels encasing the abdomen is shed, revealing a white plug-like structure underneath—a giant mass of Massospora spores (Kasson et al., 2018). This “plug” allows the infected host to rain down Massospora over the soil as it flies through the air, sowing the seeds of death (well, spores of death) for the next generation of cicadas that will emerge after 13-17 years underground.

And if this phenomenon wasn’t strange enough by itself, these “flying saltshakers of death” are also hopped up on quite a variety of drugs, specifically amphetamines and psychoactive hallucinogenics produced by the fungus to control the host’s behavior (Kasson et al., 2018). While the drugs potentially explain why the cicadas seem to be totally fine despite having an entire third of their bodies consumed by a pathogenic fungus, they seem to also have another unexpected side effect: hypersexuality in males (Kasson et al., 2018). Horny and pumped with behavior-altering drugs, infected males go out into the world trying to mate with anything they can find, even other males, attracting them by mimicking female mating signals. These cicadas cannot truly mate—their genitals have either been consumed by Massospora or sloughed off with the rest of their bodies—but the physical contact during the act allow the spores to potentially find new hosts.

Pretty terrible end of the stick for the cicada, but c’est la vie.

Now, in case you’re sitting there wondering why I’m rambling about cicada STDs, here’s the point: “mind-controlling”—or, more accurately, behavior-altering—parasites are a fascinating, terrifying, and often morbidly entertaining existence in nature that is unapologetically absurd and brutal in how it sustains itself. Massospora cicadina is only one of the countless number of obligate parasites—parasites that depend on a host to complete its lifecycle—that upon infection can chemically manipulate a host organism to do its bidding. Unable to reach maturity or reproduce on its own, they evolved the ability to transmit themselves into host organisms, a crucial development for the survival and reproductive success of the humble parasite. As a result, they have developed intricate and shockingly complex evolutionary strategies in order to end up in the perfect host.

At the most fundamental level, the goal of a parasite is to get from Point A to Point B. Some species—such as our dear friend, Massospora cicadina, or the infamous zombie ant fungus, Ophiocordyceps unilateralis—are perfectly happy spending the rest of their days feeding off and reproducing within a single organism, releasing their spores out into the world once they’re done with it.

Other parasites are not so easily satisfied; rather than simply moving from A to B, their journey involves jumping from A to B to C, to perhaps even a D, going from host to host until they reach their desired environment or “final host”.

A fascinating example of this is a class of parasitic tapeworms known as Cestoda that frequently infect Artemia parthenogenetica, or brine shrimp (you might recognize them as thoses painfully underwhelming sea monkeys that were all the rage in the 50s). Brine shrimp contain a specific type of organic pigment called a carotenoid, which they get from consuming a type of algae that naturally produce carotenoids. Carotenoids are responsible for the orange and red coloration of fruits and vegetables such as carrots, pumpkins, strawberries, etc. When infected with cestodes, the brine shrimp begin to swim closer to the surface and to each other, increasing their exposure to ultraviolet light; this activates the “photoreceptive functions” of the carotenoids within the brine shrimp, causing them to exhibit red pigmentation (Sánchez, Georgiev, & Greene, 2007).

So why go through all this trouble to expose their hosts to predators? The answer is flamingos. Cestodes alter the pigmentation and behavior of their brine shrimp hosts to make them more vulnerable to predation by flamingos, opening up a direct pipeline to their desired destination: their guts. For these cestodes, the flamingo gut is the ideal environment for sexual reproduction, and the eventual final host.

But what if there is no final host? What if the parasite is only fixing to get from one place to another? Paragordius tricuspidatus, or the horsehair worm is one such parasite. Rather than using its host organism as a baby-making factory or an all-you-can-eat buffet, it uses its host as a means of transportation, “controlling” its mind to seek out water. When Paragoridius infects its insect host, the cricket Nemobius sylvestris—dubbed the “kamikaze cricket” for reasons you will see in a bit—it sets off a series of biochemical changes in the cricket’s brain to alter its behavior, leading it to commit “suicide” by jumping into bodies of water such as swimming pools or streams (Thomas et al., 2003). Once in the water, the worms—who have been steadily growing within the cricket’s body up until this point—exit the insect’s carcass and immediately begin mating. From then on, the worms are free-living in the water and no longer require a throwaway host to meet an untimely end.

From mind-altering cicada STDs to suicidal cricket worms, parasitism is a vicious cycle of consumption, behavioral manipulation, and truly miserable deaths. On the surface it seems like such an ugly thing—inherently predatory, macabre, and completely unforgiving—but the truth is, they only take as much as they give. Do you recall the suicidal crickets from before? The discarded cricket carcasses eventually end up as food for fish and other aquatic animals living in the bodies of water they drowned in (Sato et al., 2011). Parasites do give back—perhaps not to their hosts, but certainly back to their ecosystems.

Parasites are a living, breathing testament to the tenacity and adaptivity of nature. These organisms cannot think; their cognitive capabilities are primitive at best, and some don’t even possess brains or nervous systems. There is no “master plan,” no strategical meeting; it’s all the result of over millions of  years of evolution, millions of years of living and mating and dying, all of this culminating in the hope that perhaps, perhaps this species might carry on. The sheer complexity of a process that too many perceive as random trial and error (it’s not; evolution is directional and by no means random or left to chance) can regulate an entire sector of life that we as humans fail to even notice until it’s gone. It’s frightening and awe-inspiring, oft overlooked and completely humbling; this is the magic—or, the science—behind crazy, stranger-than-fiction behavior of parasites.


Resources:

Boyce, G., Gluck-Thaler, E., Slot, J. C., Stajich, J. E., Davis, W. J., James, T. Y., . . . Kasson, M. T. (2018). Discovery of psychoactive plant and mushroom alkaloids in ancient fungal cicada pathogens. bioRxiv. doi:10.1101/375105

Duke, L., Steinkraus, D. C., English, J. E., & Smith, K. G. (2002). Infectivity of resting spores of Massospora cicadina (Entomophthorales: Entomophthoraceae), an entomopathogenic fungus of periodical cicadas (Magicicada spp.) (Homoptera: Cicadidae). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 80(1), 1-6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2011(02)00040-X

Libersat, F., Kaiser, M., & Emanuel, S. (2018). Mind Control: How Parasites Manipulate Cognitive Functions in Their Insect Hosts. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(572). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00572

Sánchez, M. I., Georgiev, B. B., & Green, A. J. (2007). Avian cestodes affect the behaviour of their intermediate host Artemia parthenogenetica: An experimental study. Behavioural Processes, 74(3), 293-299. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2006.11.002

Sato, T., Watanabe, K., Kanaiwa, M., Niizuma, Y., Harada, Y., & Lafferty, K. D. (2011). Nematomorph parasites drive energy flow through a riparian ecosystem. Ecology, 92(1), 201-207.

Thomas, F., Ulitsky, P., Augier, R., Dusticier, N., Samuel, D., Strambi, C., . . . Cayre, M. (2003). Biochemical and histological changes in the brain of the cricket Nemobius sylvestris infected by the manipulative parasite Paragordius tricuspidatus (Nematomorpha). International Journal for Parasitology, 33(4), 435-443. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7519(03)00014-6

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.