Plasmodium knowlesi poses a health threat throughout Southeast Asian communities and currently causes most cases of malaria in Malaysia. This zoonotic parasite species has been studied in Macaca mulatta (rhesus monkeys) as a model for severe malarial infections, chronicity, and antigenic variation. The phenomenon of Plasmodium antigenic variation was first recognized during rhesus monkey infections. Plasmodium-encoded variant proteins were first discovered in this species and found to be expressed at the surface of infected erythrocytes, and then named the Schizont-Infected Cell Agglutination (SICA) antigens. SICA expression was shown to be spleen dependent, as SICA expression is lost after P. knowlesi is passaged in splenectomized rhesus. Here we present data from longitudinal P. knowlesi infections in rhesus with the most comprehensive analysis to date of clinical parameters and infected red blood cell sequestration in the vasculature of tissues from 22 organs. Based on the histopathological analysis of 22 tissue types from 11 rhesus monkeys, we show a comparative distribution of parasitized erythrocytes and the degree of margination of the infected erythrocytes with the endothelium. Interestingly, there was a significantly higher burden of parasites in the gastrointestinal tissues, and extensive margination of the parasites along the endothelium, which may help explain gastrointestinal symptoms frequently reported by patients with P. knowlesi malarial infections. Moreover, this margination was not observed in splenectomized rhesus that were infected with parasites not expressing the SICA proteins. This work provides data that directly supports the view that a subpopulation of P. knowlesi parasites cytoadheres and sequesters, likely via SICA variant antigens acting as ligands. This process is akin to the cytoadhesive function of the related variant antigen proteins, namely Erythrocyte Membrane Protein-1, expressed by Plasmodium falciparum.
In this review, we describe some of the central philosophical issues facing origins-of-life research and provide a targeted history of the developments that have led to the multidisciplinary field of origins-of-life studies. We outline these issues and developments to guide researchers and students from all fields. With respect to philosophy, we provide brief summaries of debates with respect to (1) definitions (or theories) of life, what life is and how research should be conducted in the absence of an accepted theory of life, (2) the distinctions between synthetic, historical, and universal projects in origins-of-life studies, issues with strategies for inferring the origins of life, such as (3) the nature of the first living entities (the "bottom up" approach) and (4) how to infer the nature of the last universal common ancestor (the "top down" approach), and (5) the status of origins of life as a science. Each of these debates influences the others. Although there are clusters of researchers that agree on some answers to these issues, each of these debates is still open. With respect to history, we outline several independent paths that have led to some of the approaches now prevalent in origins-of-life studies. These include one path from early views of life through the scientific revolutions brought about by Linnaeus (von Linn.), Wöhler, Miller, and others. In this approach, new theories, tools, and evidence guide new thoughts about the nature of life and its origin. We also describe another family of paths motivated by a" circularity" approach to life, which is guided by such thinkers as Maturana & Varela, Gánti, Rosen, and others. These views echo ideas developed by Kant and Aristotle, though they do so using modern science in ways that produce exciting avenues of investigation. By exploring the history of these ideas, we can see how many of the issues that currently interest us have been guided by the contexts in which the ideas were developed. The disciplinary backgrounds of each of these scholars has influenced the questions they sought to answer, the experiments they envisioned, and the kinds of data they collected. We conclude by encouraging scientists and scholars in the humanities and social sciences to explore ways in which they can interact to provide a deeper understanding of the conceptual assumptions, structure, and history of origins-of-life research. This may be useful to help frame future research agendas and bring awareness to the multifaceted issues facing this challenging scientific question.