This story is incredible, I’m fascinated by every aspect of it:
- What decision-making process led to the idea of injecting human urine into a frog in the first place?
- How did the frogs escape? What kind of living and handling conditions are we talking about here?
- Did the bacteria that the government was concerned about make the frogs more susceptible to cold, thus the coincidental die-off at the same time as eradication was to begin?
- Will Welsh clawed frogs be the next species that we thought were gone but had just become better hidden?
> What decision-making process led to the idea of injecting human urine into a frog in the first place?
In the 1930s, two South African researchers, Hillel Shapiro and Harry Zwarenstein,[26] students of Lancelot Hogben at the University of Cape Town, discovered that the urine from pregnant women would induce oocyte production in X. laevis within 8–12 hours of injection.
The reaction is to Human chorionic gonadotropi - basically it's a marker which tells a human's body "You are pregnant, proceed accordingly". If you've got a womb and are in a reasonable age range this almost certainly means you're pregnant, if not it's a sign something went badly wrong. So, testing whether this marker is present means you know months earlier than you might otherwise.
Presumably the frog "Make eggs now" marker is different, but not different enough to ensure this effect doesn't happen, after all ordinarily frogs wouldn't be exposed to the urine of pregnant humans.
> Will Welsh clawed frogs be the next species that we thought were gone but had just become better hidden?
This isn't a rare species. It just wasn't in Wales and now it once again isn't in Wales. So that's like how Wales also does not have kangaroos. No danger the kangaroo goes extinct, there are lots and they're pretty competitive. But there aren't any in Wales (outside maybe a Zoo?) and so the ecosystem there does not have a kangaroo shaped niche.
Speaking of the frog test, there is apparently an old expression "the rabbit died" in English to refer to someone being pregnant. The original test involved injecting urine into a rabbit, killing it after a few days, and examining it's ovaries
I was watching M* A* S* H* with residents in a nursing home last week and Hot Lips thought she might be pregnant. The Colonel was concerned because they only had one rabbit and it was Radar's pet.
In case anyone is worried about the rabbit :-), they ended up using Radar's pet rabbit for the pregnancy test, but removed the ovaries surgically for examination rather than killing the rabbit.
Those weren't his words, and his actual words (which he quoted above, acknowledging their ambiguity) could be (mis)read as meaning that injecting the urine killed the rabbit a few days later, especially since he also wrote "apparently [frogs] could survive the urine injection".
I assumed that the line "can't catch me 'cause the rabbit done died" was referring to a failure to perform the rabbit test -- the rabbit they were using for the test died before the ovaries would have a chance to enlarge, therefore it was inconclusive, therefore it couldn't be proved the singer of the song got the woman in question pregnant.
> What decision-making process led to the idea of injecting human urine into a frog in the first place?
Hormones are basically messages sent through an animal's body to signal some change should take place. It was discovered that there was a hormone called hCG produced by the human placenta that triggers "you're pregnant" changes in the body. hCG is also present in the urine.
So if you want to detect a hormone, the idea is you inject it into an animal and see if it triggers the relevant changes (since the changes are usually internal, you generally need to kill the animal to check). So you would look for an animal that responds somehow to the hCG hormone, inject urine into it, and check for the response. Mice and rabbits were first used, but it was eventually discovered that certain species of frog that are highly sensitive to hormonal changes made for much simpler and faster testing.
IANAMD/B/? I interpret this as: hCG looks like "stop ovulation" for humans(mammals?) and "star ovulation" for frogs. Is this interpretation correct? Why the opposite direction?
Urine has long been used in medical testing and treatment. The term diabetes mellitus comes from the sweet taste of patients’ urine, for instance.
Estrogen extracted from pregnant women’s urine used to be used as a supplement for menopausal women. I read recently that some doctors would overprescribe urine tests during pregnancy, bill the patient and sell the excess urine.
Later as an estrogen supplement came Premarin, which is made from pregnant mares’ urine.
I can do you perhaps as well as a one-hour documentary. The science podcast Let's Learn Everything [https://www.letslearneverything.com] had an episode on the history of the use of animals in pregnancy tests. It's fascinating. See Episode 5.
Statistics tells us that probably means it's the only frog of this species in the area. In fact we use a related approach to estimate true populations.
But as they admit, that's only one possible reason.
Came here to say this!
So many ways to parse it. But the key issue was not knowing that “pregnancy-test frogs” was the central concept. Without that, the headline is so confusing… at some point I had to consider whether “frogs” was being used as a verb
Fun fact: The frogs also can change color from black to green and back (perhaps dark green to light green).
They have some cells in the skin with black blobs full of melanin, and they can move them. Usually they are disperse and the color is dark, but with some hormone the blobs are transported to the nuclei of the cell and the color is light.
We used cells of this frog in a undergaduate lab for physics. The main task was to fine tune a microscope to track the blobs. So we cultivate the cells for a week (from a cell line, the original frog was gone long ago), we put the cells under the microscope and add an hormone to force the change of color in a minute or so. (I think in the wild the change of color is very slow.)
Right. Ian Malcolm's one miss here is that Mother Nature is so cold that she's also OK with life uh, not finding a way at all. The warm damp rock does not care that there's stuff growing on it.
That was my intention too. The rock doesn't care that there's any stuff living on it. Frogs. Cats. Humans. Algae. Things running entirely on chemosynthesis in the deep ocean. The warm damp rock will still be warm and damp if they all die, in a broader sense nothing changes.
But why? Secret from who? Is there some ring of frog thieves at work? Are frogs considered a national security issue? What I'm questioning is this posture of secrecy as a default without any apparent reason for it.
Today, I'd blame influencers that would like to go there to take a photo or piss on the frogs and upload the videos to social media. (And a few persons that want a exotig pet frog too.)
- What decision-making process led to the idea of injecting human urine into a frog in the first place?
- How did the frogs escape? What kind of living and handling conditions are we talking about here?
- Did the bacteria that the government was concerned about make the frogs more susceptible to cold, thus the coincidental die-off at the same time as eradication was to begin?
- Will Welsh clawed frogs be the next species that we thought were gone but had just become better hidden?
I crave a one-hour documentary about this.
reply