Officials still hopeful genetic analysis will aid anthrax investigation

AP ^ | Thu Jun 20, 2:50 AM ET | LAURA MECKLER

[Ordinary_American]

WASHINGTON - Investigators into last fall's anthrax attacks say they remain hopeful that sophisticated genetic fingerprinting, which has so far proved fruitless, may help crack the case.

The most promising avenue to date has failed to boost the investigation, law enforcement officials say. But they are hopeful that similar genetic coding still under way will eventually help track down the source of the anthrax.

"There's still potential out there," a senior law enforcement official said Wednesday. "We are not at the point yet of being able to say it's over, done, there's nothing there."

Scientists outside the investigation aren't so sure.

"Seven or eight months out from attacks, with no apparent forward movement in the case, it is quite distressing," said Mark Whellis, a microbiologist at the University of California-Davis who serves on the Federation of American Scientists' Working Group on Biological Weapons. "It makes me pessimistic about ever resolving it."

Eight months after the attacks by mail killed five people, standard investigative techniques have yet to produce a breakthrough in the case. The hope was that genetic matching could help determine which of about a dozen laboratories that have the Ames strain of anthrax, the type used in the attacks, was the source of the deadly microbes.

Conventional genetic fingerprinting, tried early on, didn't work because various samples of the Ames anthrax are virtually identical.

But in January, researchers unraveling the entire genetic code of anthrax found small differences between the anthrax mailed to Florida, where the attacks first surfaced, and anthrax from a lab in England.

These researchers turned their work over to scientists in Arizona who are working for the FBI ( news - web sites), comparing hundreds of samples, from every lab known to house the bacteria, to the attack samples.

The Arizona scientists, though, were unable to find the same differences among samples in hand, officials said.

The problem could be that the anthrax used in the attacks evolved genetically after it was taken from the lab, explaining why it no longer matches the lab samples, said Philip Hanna, an anthrax researcher at the University of Michigan Medical School. Or, he said, it's possible that it came from a lab that has not provided a sample to the government.

As a result, researchers working for the FBI are taking a step back, genetically speaking. They are unraveling the genetic code of the first anthrax sample that was used in laboratory work, which produced all the other samples now scattered around the country, so they can look for other tiny differences that may exist as anthrax changes over time, said the senior law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

It's unclear whether that will be any more successful.

[Ordinary_American]

"Investigators into last fall's anthrax attacks say they remain hopeful that sophisticated genetic fingerprinting, which has so far proved fruitless, may help crack the case."

Genetics will unlikely be conclusive. This requires basic gumshoe work, which is the FBI's forte. Now if they can just shake loose of the lone rogue American scientist theory.

The following 14 June snippet doesn't make me optimistic though:

"A former government microbiologist, who was interviewed in recent days by the FBI, said agents focused their questioning on the logistics of how someone with access to the U.S. Army's biodefense labs at Fort Detrick, Md., might carry out the scheme. The microbiologist, who once worked at Fort Detrick, said the agents did not indicate if they had evidence that such an incident had occurred.

"They asked me, if I wanted to grow something I wasn't supposed to, would there be somebody asking me about it and could I have taken it out of the lab," said the scientist, who did not want to be identified. "I told them no one checked, and it was far easier to get something out of Fort Detrick than into it."

"A second bioterrorism scientist who also has been questioned by the FBI said the agents' "operating theory" appeared to be that the Fort Detrick labs were the source of the anthrax, and that spores were somehow removed covertly."

[Ordinary_American]

"The problem could be that the anthrax used in the attacks evolved genetically after it was taken from the lab, explaining why it no longer matches the lab samples, said Philip Hanna, an anthrax researcher at the University of Michigan Medical School. Or, he said, it's possible that it came from a lab that has not provided a sample to the government."

Perhaps they neglected to request a sample from "abroad".

[meenie]

The carrier in which the spores were mixed could provide a clue. One report was that it matched the particular type of clay found in Iraq. Whether this was true or not, or a propaganda ploy is unknown. The FBI was very quick to identify it as likely the work of a right-wing nut here in the States. It doesn't seem like there is much emphasis in solving the case for some reason.

[JimSEA]

My thought as well. Why wouldn't the reporters latch onto such an obvious conclusion. The article states that it is slow to change and that all the known sources had been sampled without finding a match. Therefore an "unknown source" is indicated and Iraq quickly comes to mind as having had a long history of interest. Russia, China and North Korea would also be of interest although I have read where Russia has cooperated (?).

[John H K]

One report was that it matched the particular type of clay found in Iraq

That was 1) Incorrect, and 2) Bentonite is found all over the world, with MOST of it being from Wyoming.

[Ordinary_American]

Betonite is indeed quite common e.g. as a constituent of fertilizer. However, "meenie" raises an intertesting point, that the "additives" of the anthrax mailings have not been publicly released. The presence or absence of such additives might be suggestive of a source.

[Mitchell]

the "additives" of the anthrax mailings have not been publicly released. The presence or absence of such additives might be suggestive of a source.

It has been stated that one of the mailed anthrax samples contained a chemical which scientists found "surprising". But the chemical has not been publicly identified, nor have I seen any hints as to what was surprising about it.

[Nogbad]

Any comment?

[Mitchell]

The problem could be that the anthrax used in the attacks evolved genetically after it was taken from the lab, explaining why it no longer matches the lab samples

This has been the clear implication for a while, but I'm not sure I've seen anybody say this publicly before. Minor genetic differences suggest that large batches of anthrax were cultured (abroad, presumably), accounting for small genetic changes appearing over time.

This does not support the idea that a small amount was stolen from a lab and then simply mailed.

[Nogbad]

As usual, the article is clear as mud.
Can they not find one reporter
who has a knowledge of basic science
and knows how to think and write logically?

(I guess not,
such a person would be able to find productive work
and would not be a reporter.)

[Mitchell]

The article implies (correctly) that the anthrax mailed to AMI in Florida was sequenced and then compared with the sequenced Porton Down anthrax; they were different. It goes on to say that samples from other labs are being analyzed (presumably that means sequenced) to try to find one identical to the Florida anthrax, or, failing that, to find which one is closest.

There's one glaring thing missing here. Where are the reports of labs sequencing the anthrax mailed to NY or DC? Wouldn't that be the next thing you would do? They can't ignore the other mailings forever.

[Nogbad]

It goes on to say that samples from other labs are being analyzed
(presumably that means sequenced)
to try to find one identical to the Florida anthrax,
or, failing that,
to find which one is closest.

Oh, is that what it says? I missed that.

[Mitchell]

I said: [The article] goes on to say that samples from other labs are being analyzed (presumably that means sequenced) to try to find one identical to the Florida anthrax, or, failing that, to find which one is closest.

You replied: Oh, is that what it says? I missed that.

Well, like you said, this article is clear as mud. But the reporter did say this:

But in January, researchers unraveling the entire genetic code of anthrax found small differences between the anthrax mailed to Florida, where the attacks first surfaced, and anthrax from a lab in England.

These researchers turned their work over to scientists in Arizona who are working for the FBI ( news - web sites), comparing hundreds of samples, from every lab known to house the bacteria, to the attack samples.

[Nogbad]

The problem is that, as usual,
the author himself does not understand
the facts he is reporting.

This is what I think he has been told:
1.A difference has been found
that excludes Porton Down as the source.

2.They have been unable to distinguish
with sufficient exactitude
within the American samples
to determine whether the Florida anthrax
is or is not a match to any of them.

But, of course, I could be completely wrong.

[Mitchell]

The article also says that hundreds of samples from various labs are being compared. We know that results have only been published for a few lab samples.

I wonder if it's true, though, that the scientists are working "for the FBI." Is that really an accurate description of their status?

[Nogbad]

The Arizona scientists, though,
were unable to find the same differences
among samples in hand, officials said.

The problem could be
that the anthrax used in the attacks evolved genetically
after it was taken from the lab,
explaining why it no longer matches the lab samples,
said Philip Hanna, an anthrax researcher
at the University of Michigan Medical School.
Or, he said, it's possible that it came
from a lab that has not provided a sample to the government.

Here again is an analysis of the words above.
If the author means what he says.
(Which may not be the case)

1. Florida Sample is different from Porton Down Sample.
2. The USA lab samples do not show the same difference
amongst themselves as the difference in (1).
3. However FS is different from all the USA samples anyway.
4. Conclusion:
FS is different from all samples (Porton Down and USA)
PERIOD.

(So why didn't he say this in the first place??)

[Nogbad]

ping

[Thud]

Don't call the FBI theory a "rogue" scientist. Call it the "mad" scientist theory. That does a better job of ridiculing it.

[okie01]

"The problem is that, as usual, the author himself does not understand the facts he is reporting."

Point well taken.

Every piece in the mainstream media about the forensic investigation has been murky. The reporters seem to have no understanding whatsoever of the subject they're writing about. As a consequence, the articles are uninformative, confusing, misleading and, often, downright wrong.

They still have science writers, don't they? Why don't they use them on something important? That is, if they're not too busy covering the "global warming" story...

[Betty Jo]

Is there anyone on FR that thinks the ME terrorists didnt cause the anthrax to be released?

What difference does it make ?

When the designer DNA virus is relased,we will all die.

I am only sad that I wont be able to post on FR what complete @#%&&*&%$$%$ this government is!