Time, Tapeworms and the Evolution of the Human Diet

Penn State undergraduate student Samantha Muller interviews PhD student Natalia Grube about her research exploring the potential of the tapeworm as a proxy to more accurately pinpoint humanity's adoption of meat eating and cooking with fire. Their conversation also covers Natalia's passion for youth outreach, the importance of  diverse collaborations, and strategies to improve scientific literacy nationally.

HOST:
Samantha Muller, Penn State Forensic Science undergrad, with a minor in Anthropology; member of the microARCH Lab

GUEST:
Natalia Grube, Penn State graduate student in Biology, member of the Anthropological Lab

Transcript

Mark Shriver: 

From Penn State’s Center for Human Evolution and Diversity, this is Tracking Traits

[MUSICAL THEME]

Mark Shriver: 

Hello and welcome to the fourth episode of the Tracking Traits podcast. I’m Mark Shriver, co-director of CHED – the Center for Human Evolution and Diversity at Penn State University. 

Nina Jablonski:

And I’m Nina Jablonski, the other co-director of CHED. Welcome to the podcast. 

Mark:

For today’s episode, Natalia Grube – a graduate student in Penn State’s Biology program, was interviewed about her research by Sam Muller – a Forensic Science undergrad here at Penn State minoring in Anthropology. 

Nina:

Natalia’s research interests include parasitology and evolution, and she’s a member of the Anthropological Genomics lab. Natalia is using computational approaches to study the evolutionary genomics and population structures of human parasites, and the co-evolutionary relationships between parasites and their hosts.

Mark:

Natalia is particularly interested in tapeworms and is focusing on them in the lab because they have a lot to tell us about the evolution of our diet.

Nina:

That’s right, Natalia is looking at the co-evolution of humans and tapeworms to see what she might be able to learn about the human transition to the consumption of meat. 

Mark:

This is one of those fascinating research projects that really shows us how we humans as a species are so closely intertwined with the other species in the way that we evolve. 

Nina 

Absolutely. 

Mark:

And to share a little bit about our interviewer today - Sam Muller is a member of the paleo-microbiome research  lab here at Penn State, and previously worked in my lab researching contemporary human trait variation. 

Nina:

Sam is interested in the application of ancient DNA and microbiome sequencing techniques to modern forensics. Her future plans include medical school, with the goal of becoming a forensic pathologist. 

Mark:

Very cool. And in Sam’s conversation with Natalia, they talked about not just the science, but also how it’s communicated, perceived and how it fits into the broader society.  And they discuss a good bit about outreach to young people as well. 

Nina:

And they also got into the fun and collaborative aspects of research, as well as the challenges – the blood, sweat and tears and just plain hard work of science. 

Mark:

Yeah, all that and a bag of chips!

Nina:

Exactly! So should we give this conversation a listen?

Mark:

Let’s do it.

Nina:

OK. So, here is Sam Muller interviewing Natalia Grube about “Time, Tapeworms and the Evolution of the Human Diet”

[MUSICAL INTERLUDE]

Samantha Muller:

All right. So thank you so much for coming to talk to me today Natalia. What I'm going to have you do first is we're just going to get to know a little bit about you. Just tell me a little bit about your research. 

Natalia Grube:

Sure. So, hi, hello, my name is Natalia Grube, I am a second year PhD student in the biology department and currently my research has focused on the co-evolutionary relationship between humans and parasitic tapeworms that inhabit the human host environment, potentially using tapeworms as proxies to infer when in time we started important human cultural practices, such as meat eating and cooking with fire.

The current direction of my research right now is assessing the genomes of human-  specific tapeworms in comparison to non-human-specific tapeworms, to assess if there are any potential gene expansions or gene duplications that are reflective of human tapeworm adaptations to the human host environment. 

Samantha Muller:

That's awesome, so we're learning about meat eating and part of our evolution, that's super cool. What kind of implications does that have on what we know about human evolution?

Natalia Grube:

Meat eating and cooking with fire is thought to have conferred major phenotypic advantages to humans. What we know is pretty scarce or scattered across the evolutionary record, and so the implications for my research would really be to use tapeworms as proxies in order to kind of help contribute or assess and pinpoint a more accurate sort of date to when these cultural behaviors arose within the human evolutionary timescale.

Samantha Muller:

That's awesome. So here at CHED we're really all about diversity, right? So how is your research contributing to a more diverse knowledge of the human population?

Natalia Grube:

 I have the opportunity through my research to really teach and do a lot of science communication and outreach. And one of the first things I did was write a paper communicating my research to a younger audience, which was rather challenging. So for example right now I'm incorporating my research in something called DNA Day, which is an outreach event that we do for students across the Penn State area. I'm working with someone named Marcella and what we're doing is we're using her research, because she works on the microbiome and I work on parasites, but both inhabit the human host. And so we have the opportunity to really kind of translate the concept of human beings and multicellular organisms being environments and just kind of seeding that concept with students. 

So I believe my research, while directly is involved in understanding when in time we started to eat meat, I have these opportunities to do sort of broader impacts and translate my research to help communicate to different types of individuals.

Samantha Muller:

So for science communication, does this mean just publishing papers or doing talks? 

Natalia Grube:

Penn state has allowed me to join a lot of different communities, and through these different communities I have access to resources, and we put together different events depending. Science outreach I think is really critical to help increase science literacy within a community or with a community like Penn State where the university is really the center of the town, these opportunities are kind of collaborative, so I find a lot of opportunities through my peers, people who have similar interests or motivation and are dedicated to, like science policy and science outreach. And through, you know this common interest we create or we look for different things or programs we can do to help engage non-scientists with research. 

Samantha Muller:

So you mentioned how science communication and this scientific literacy is really important to you. Can you talk a little bit more about that and why you think it's really important for our younger generations to be scientifically literate?

Natalia Grube:

think that any type of science education in the form of science literacy, so that's like, grade school throughout, right? Introducing the concepts of science and such, is critically important because if you have a scientifically literate society, it may encourage changes in individual behavior that could potentially benefit the society at large.

So for example with, like the COVID-19 pandemic, or even in our responses to climate change, not to say that we aren't a scientifically literate society, because we are to an extent, but if we really engaged in science rigorously or taught science in a more applicable way, because I feel like, especially within the grade school, we teach it as a set of facts, right? It's something it's like, you learn this, you learn this, it's very removed from your everyday life. You can't really apply it to yourself or see how science fits in to the world.

So yeah, so I think it's really important to kind of introduce and teach concepts in different ways or engage the community in different ways and try to communicate science in different ways, so people can have that opportunity to make informed decisions that can potentially benefit the society at large.

Samantha Muller:

So would you say that introducing applied sciences to younger audiences is kind of the answer to solving what’s lacking in scientific literacy currently?

Natalia Grube:

I wouldn't say that's the only thing, it's a very complex kind of situation, and there are many different ways that we can try to increase science literacy in the public. And I specifically mentioned grade school, because I relate it to myself, I basically moved through grade school, high school not really caring about science or math or anything. But I was also encouraged you know, “Hey, if you don't really know math, that's okay, it's not really something you need to know,” you know? 

So I think if we start there and teach students differently and teach it in a more…a way that's more relatable to themselves and how integral science is to society and everything we do, then that may harness more appreciation towards science, maybe create more scientists within the world itself.

Samantha Muller:

Yeah, for sure!    So you also mentioned collaboration and I think with collaboration comes a lot of interdisciplinary elements. Can you speak on any really impactful collaborations or any really meaningful, interdisciplinary connections that you've made throughout your research journey?

Natalia Grube:

Oh, yeah. So I think collaboration is like on a spectrum. And I think collaboration is great, I mean you as an individual, you're in charge of your project, you're doing the research, but I can be in the lab and I can get input from my lab mates or my PI can walk by and be like, “Hey, I just read this paper,” and you know, really just those little minute conversations or those interactions really help motivate you and spark your interest. 

In terms of large scale collaborations, definitely important, specifically if you don't have an expertise in a certain field, right? So for my current project, I am collaborating with individuals in Peru who had expertise in tapeworm biology. I'm also collaborating with a bioinformatician who's from India but resides in the UK right now. And his expertise has been immensely helpful for my genomic analysis. 

So definitely seeking, asking questions and looking for those types of collaborations, really help I think create a strong project. And I think they're necessary. I think those communications are necessary, whether it be a large-scale collaboration where you're collaborating with another group, you know across, overseas or not, or whether it's those small communications you have with your PI or your colleagues during the day, I think those are critical.

Samantha Muller:

What has been your favorite part of going into the research process? What do you think has been the most exciting for you, and something that you want to kind of share with the audience?

Natalia Grube:

I would say the most exciting part is definitely the discovery, and the thought process, and again, it's doing this with you know your team, your collaborators, the individuals in your lab.  I think that's the most exciting part for me. I learn almost every day, whether it's bioinformatics or parasitology. But it's when I'm  putting in the time, putting in that hard work and I get the results and then I have to kind of dissect and infer and have discussions about what this means and what are the next steps, those are the most exciting I think parts for me, in terms of the scientific process. 

And developing good methods, I've been having a lot of fun with my bioinformatician developing really good methods and kind of renewing things that I wasn't so well-informed of before. 

Samantha Muller:

So conversely, what has been kind of a challenge that you've found in your research, maybe one that you didn't anticipate going into it or something that you've had to work a little bit harder to overcome?

Natalia Grube:

I'm going to speak maybe more in regard to like science outreach here. So one of the most difficult things I found was really translating and communicating. So I would say language. How do I communicate my research in a way that is effective and that captures an audience that isn't an expert in tapeworm biology or human evolution? 

That sort of translation, you know when I was writing the paper for the younger audience, or even now developing this workshop with DNA Day, it's really challenging still to try to develop like concepts and exercises and be like, “Is this really going to capture the audience?” I'm learning a lot definitely on how to do that better, but I would say that's definitely one of the challenges.

And in regard to my research, I would say currently it is the computational side of things, and it's not so much performing the analysis, but it's getting things to work like programs and downloading things, and that is incredibly tedious and can drive you crazy, um…

Samantha Muller:

Technology is great when it works, isn’t it?

Natalia Grube:

(laughs)  Yeah, yeah.

Samantha Muller:

In terms of interacting with a younger audience, have you found any tools on that have been super useful for you? I know that looking at the papers that you've put out so far, you have really great usage of imagery, and I think that that really helps with that communication. So is that something that you worked collaboratively with or something that you just kind of naturally fell into?

Natalia Grube:

Images are incredibly important for communicating a concept effectively. I had a lot of help regarding that, I know within my lab we do have an artist who helps draw figures, someone who isn't entirely immersed scientifically and biologically, but they, you know like a social scientist. They're able to help kind of draw these figures and give suggestions as to what is more effective in communicating what the image is trying to say. I hope that makes sense.

So we had a lot of guidance regarding what really would make sense, what would capture an audience and what is readable. We also had feedback from the students themselves or the reviewers who were like 13 and 14. And so we had some really great feedback from them. And so some of my strategies you know when I'm really, like setting up these outreach things is to try and communicate these things to my mom or my partner or something like that. And even to my lab, you know? And getting that kind of feedback to really get an idea of what's working and what isn't. 

[MUSICAL INTERLUDE]  

Samantha Muller:

So to kind of walk backwards a little bit, you mentioned that you weren't always interested in science, can you tell me a little bit about your background and kind of  how you found your way into the scientific field?

Natalia Grube:

Oh, sure. So I would say I pretty much moved through grade school and high school, just not really engaging. It wasn't until I went to Hunter College and I took a class called Introductory Course to Human Evolution, with Dr. Jessica Rothman. And I think at first I always knew that I wanted to kind of get myself involved in a field that was dedicated to understanding the human experience, what we are, how we got here. So I thought initially it would be history or philosophy, and I took a lot of courses in those fields and I really didn't enjoy them as much as I thought I would, the professors weren't entirely engaging. And it was also... It just didn't seem as inclusive or that ah, yeah. 

So I was fulfilling a science requirement and I was absolutely floored that this field existed, anthropology. And I was like, “Well, this is it, this is more tangible than history and philosophy.” And I remember one of the things Dr. Rothman said in her class or what she would always repeat is just like, “yes I do this, I travel, I study primates, I dedicate my life essentially to understanding primate evolution.” And she was like, "You can do this too." 

And it was kind of the first time a professor ever really encouraged me to pursue something, and I was really enamored that I found the field that I thought was it, could really help me explain things about human evolution and our history, how we got here. So that's kind of where it started and I kind of decided within that class, I was like, “I definitely can dedicate the rest of my life to studying and contributing to this field.” And I was welcomed and encouraged by my professors, so yeah that's how it all started.

Hunter College is also a very diverse, I would say it's almost emblematic of diversity, so I felt very inclusive there, and the Anthropology department was just... It was really a great, even though I'm not a primate nutritional ecologists now, I did end up finding my niche, I did end up working with Dr. Styford who was an anthropological geneticist, and we looked at traits that were specific to the human lineage. And he was like, "You got to take more biology." And I was like, "All right!” and then I did get involved in biology. And this is when I started learning more about Parasitology, the microbiome and microorganisms that inhabit our environment.

This is when I kind of started to get an idea of that, well, we ourselves are our own little universe, inhabited by millions or billions of different other organisms. And then I met Dr. Perry at the AAPA’s in I think 2018. Our interest aligned and it really worked out well .

Samantha Muller:

Have you found that similar level of diversity and acceptance and inclusivity here at Penn state?

Natalia Grube:

I would say that Penn State does have little niches, like lots of small communities within it that are inclusive and diverse. My lab itself I would say I feel very inclusive and comfortable in my lab. It’s one of the things I seek out when I do transfer labs or if I do, you know look for a lab to join. It's the research and it's also the lab environment. How is the lab environment? Are the students happy? You know. But yeah, I would definitely say, though Penn State within itself is not as diverse as New York City or Hunter College, there definitely are niches and I would say that the Anthropology department has some diversity. I feel like it's pretty inclusive and I feel very comfortable and happy where I have ended up for my PhD, even though I am a Bio student.

Samantha Muller:

So Bio Anth is such a big field, and you talk a little bit about how you got into Bio Anth, but tapeworms are such a very kind of small section of that, how did you get interested in investigating the relationship between humans and parasites?

Natalia Grube:

I was intensively, I was working in a parasitology lab and I was taking a lot of immunology and gut microbiome courses, and I came to a very stark realization that “Whoa, you know, all of these micro-organisms that have our environment have probably been evolving alongside us for millions of years. And they have probably been adapting to our environment as we have been evolving and adapting to different environments.”

And so you know, what can these organisms that have adapted to our environments for millions of years, tell us potentially about our own evolution, right? What kind of adaptations can we find within organisms that are specific to humans, that can tell us about anything within our human evolutionary timescale and specifically with tapeworms. It's because human-specific tapeworms, the life cycle is dependent on the socio- ecological behavior between a Carnivore and its prey, right? In terms of humans, it's likely we started scavenging meat, I think it's hypothesized about 3 to 4 million years ago. And it's likely that tapeworms started switching to the human environment from other carnivores to humans as a definitive carnivore. And because they likely inhabited us millions of years ago, they were probably subjected to the evolutionary adaptation or cultural transition to cooking with fire, right?

And so what can we look at within human specific-tapeworms that have been adapting or evolving alongside human beings for millions of years? What can their genomes tell us about when we made that transition to cooking with fire, right? Because we think potentially that these tapeworms might've had to adapt to some sort of heat stress in order to withstand cooking, because they're still able to definitively infect humans today, right? If you under cooked meat or something like that. 

Samantha Muller:

Tapeworms - incredibly interesting - but kids kind of get pretty excited when you talk about gross things, or pretty grossed out when you talk about gross things. And kind of worms in your stomach, I can see being a little bit of either an exciting or a very gross topic to discuss with kids. So how do you overcome that and how do you convey it in a really scientific perspective to get over  that yuck factor?

Natalia Grube:

I think because like you said, it can be really exciting and interesting and that kind of concept can really draw students and be like, “Oh my God, like, things live inside me!” But to overcome that factor, I really harness in on this idea of looking at yourself, a human being, as a multicellular organism, and that we ourselves -  the analogy is like, “we're a universe” ­– that sometimes helps deter the yuck factor, ‘ cause then they come in with the understanding that, Hey, there are lots of things that live inside us.

Natalia Grube:

And then when I do communicate that tape worms and the diseases, et cetera, that they can potentially cause, students aren't as much grossed out, but so much more interested into “Whoa, you know these things inhabit and live inside us.” 

 Samantha Muller:

Definitely.  I know you've talked a little bit about the scientific literacy, but I would really like to know where you kind of see that going in the future.

Natalia Grube:

So I think this year, this past year, the COVID-19 pandemic has really opened the floodgates for communication. And that's in terms of social justice issues, racial justice issues, everything that we've kind of experienced together as a nation. And I think that's, that’s great and I feel like that's really going to only continue to open up more dialogue regarding how we conduct research ethically when we go out into the field.

I welcome this open communication and talking about topics that are kind of political, I do welcome that, because I think it really helps and it provides solidarity for students to know that we are scientists but at the same time, we're still human beings. And having this open dialogue regarding these social issues that, you know we face everyday, students face, professors or external people face every day allows us, like I said, to have better conversations regarding research ethics, how we should conduct research, how we should incorporate people into our research, or keep us aware of our implicit bias, et cetera.

I hope that answers your question, but yeah, the floodgates of open communication this past year  I think has really provided us a ripe opportunity to kind of continue that, and with open communication I think comes better collaborations, better work ethics, better work environments. And that can only be beneficial for scientists and the scientific community.

Samantha Muller:

Definitely. So what impact would you like your to have?

Natalia Grube:

So I think that in general, people are generally interested in human evolution, right? We have 23&Me,where  you want to know your ancestry, you even it have for dogs I think, but people are genuinely interested in human evolution. So I hope that my research is able to make meaningful contributions to our understanding of the human evolutionary timeline. And gauging that interest of you know, how we’re so involved with ourselves and our own history, hopefully I can use that to do the things I'm kind of doing now -­ outreach, talk to different communities, engage with different communities, but even by the way of representation.

So I think what was really impactful me when I was an undergrad at Hunter College was seeing people like Dr. Rothman or Jane Raper, seeing these really awesome women doing really awesome things, I think representation is really impactful. So definitely involving myself within the community and continuing to do outreach events, particularly I think with younger audiences, but also just being present, right? Or being a representative for diversity within itself can also inspire other students to see themselves, right? Maybe someone can see themselves in me or something like that. 

Samantha Muller:

What would you say is your advice for the next generation of scientists, it can be aimed at the younger generation, undergraduate students, you can do one for both. Whatever you think, but just give some advice, kind of for those who are up-and-coming scientists.

Natalia Grube:

Work hard, even though it's not going to be great all the time and it's going to suck and you're going to have to put in a lot of long hours. It's really rewarding at the end of it. And just, you know work hard and apply the same work ethic to anything you do, even if it's not in your field of interest, because you end up learning so much and it's really rewarding. 

Samantha Muller:

That's really great and I think that level of determination and just not giving up is some awesome advice. 

Natalia Grube:

Yeah, never give up. Never give up.

[MUSICAL INTERLUDE]

Mark Shriver:

Tracking Traits is a production of Penn State’s Center for Human Evolution and Diversity. Our producer, audio engineer and musical theme composer is Cole Hons, and our logo was designed by Michael Tribone of mtribone design. 

 If you enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe through your favorite app, and help us reach more people by sharing it with others and rating us on Apple podcasts. 

You can also follow us on social media and learn more about CHED and all of our interviewers and guests at our website, ched – that’s C H E D dot L A dot P S U dot E D U.