| Literature DB >> 19208229 |
Martin Walker1, Andrew Hall, Roy M Anderson, María-Gloria Basáñez.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ascaris lumbricoides exhibits density-dependent egg production, a process which has a marked impact on both the transmission dynamics and the stability of the parasite population. Evidence suggests that the egg production of female Ascaris is also associated with the size of the worm. If worm size is mediated by density-dependent processes then the size of female worms may have a causal impact upon patterns of Ascaris egg production.Entities:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19208229 PMCID: PMC2672930 DOI: 10.1186/1756-3305-2-11
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Summary of data used in analyses
| Population | Hosts sampled | Hosts lost to follow-up | Hosts with a positive female worm count | Hosts with a positive female worm count and from whom egg output was estimated | ||||
| age ≤ 12 | age > 12 | age ≤ 12 | age > 12 | age ≤ 12 | age > 12 | age ≤ 12 | age > 12 | |
| Baseline | 990 | 775 | - | - | 834 | 639 | 834 | 639 |
| 1st re-infection | 699 | 558 | 291 | 217 | 555 | 383 | 528 | 364 |
| 2nd re-infection | 592 | 425 | 107 | 133 | 496 | 257 | 463 | 228 |
Definitions of variables and parameters
| Type | Symbol | Definition/description | Units |
| Random variables, observed values | Λ, | Per host net egg output | eggs gram-1 |
| Per host mean weight of female | grams | ||
| Per host female worm burden | worms host-1 | ||
| Host age group ( | |||
| Unobserved random variables | Per host unobserved true mean weight of female | grams | |
| Unobserved values | Expected value of the per host mean weight of female | grams | |
| Expected value of the per host net egg output | eggs gram-1 | ||
| The probability of observing a zero count from the Bernoulli process | - | ||
| Estimated parameters | Describe the form of density-dependence of the expected value | - | |
| Describe the relationship between the variance of the per host | - | ||
| Exponential of the intercept term of statistical models fitting | - | ||
| Describes the effect of host age category on the expected | - | ||
| An inverse measure of the severity of density dependence (0 < | - | ||
| Describe the form of the relationship between the expected value | - | ||
| Describe the age-dependent relationship between the logit of the probability | - | ||
| Inverse measure of the degree of overdispersion in egg output data | - | ||
Figure 1The relationship between the per host net egg output and mean weight of female . The relationship between the per host net egg output and the (centred, see main text) mean weight of female Ascaris in the baseline (A), 1st (B) and 2nd (C) re-infection populations. Triangles represent grouped mean egg outputs stratified by female Ascaris mean weight. Solid lines and circles represent the fitted values of the best fit polynomial functions (as determined by the likelihood-ratio statistic (LRS), see Table 3).
Models describing the egg output of Ascaris lumbricoides as polynomials of the mean weight of female worms
| Population | Model order polynomial | Maximum log-likelihood | LRS | AIC | |
| Baseline | 1st | -10.68 | - | - | 27.37 |
| 2nd | 4.71 | 30.80 | <0.0001 | -1.43 | |
| 3rd† | 11.22 | 13.02 | 0.00031 | -12.45 | |
| 1st re-infection | 1st | -12.98 | - | - | 31.97 |
| 2nd† | 2.96 | 31.88 | <0.0001 | 2.09 | |
| 3rd | 3.88 | 1.84 | 0.17 | 2.25 | |
| 2nd re-infection | 1st | -12.14 | - | - | 30.29 |
| 2nd | 0.0043 | 24.30 | <0.0001 | 7.99 | |
| 3rd† | 3.68 | 7.34 | 0.0067 | 2.65 | |
Comparison of models describing the per host net egg output of Ascaris as polynomial functions of the per host mean weight of female worms. Analyses were performed on grouped mean data (see text) using standard GLM procedures. † denotes the best-fit model in each population.
Equations for Models 1–4 and 1I-4I
| Models | Negative binomial count component | Bernoulli component (zero-inflated "I" models only) |
| 1,1I |
Figure 2The distribution of per host egg output. Histograms depicting the distribution of the per host egg output in the baseline (A), 1st (B) and 2nd (C) re-infection populations. The insets are histograms of the distribution between 0–100 eggs gram-1 highlighting the high proportion of zero counts.
Figure 3Relationship between the proportion of zero egg counts and female worm burden. Top row: a scatter plot of the proportion of zero egg counts per stratum of female Ascaris worm burden in the baseline (A), 1st (B) and 2nd (C) re-infection populations. Bottom row: logit of the proportion of zero egg counts per stratum of the natural logarithm of female worm burden in the baseline (D), 1st (E) and 2nd (F) re-infection populations showing approximately linear relationships.
Figure 4Relationship between the proportion of zero egg counts and the mean weight of female . Top row: a scatter plot of the proportion of zero egg counts per stratum of female Ascaris mean weight in the baseline (A), 1st (B) and 2nd (C) re-infection populations. Bottom row: logit of the proportion of zero egg counts per stratum of the natural logarithm of female mean weight baseline (D), 1st (E) and 2nd (F) re-infection populations showing approximately linear relationships.
Parameter values estimated from the logistic model describing the probability of a zero egg count
| Population | ||||
| Baseline | 0.49* | -0.23 | -1.77*** | -1.01*** |
| 1st re-infection | 0.91* | 0.51 | -2.63*** | -2.00*** |
| 2nd re-infection | 0.63 | 1.07** | -2.56*** | -1.62*** |
Parameter values were estimated by fitting equation (9) to the egg count data encoded in a binary fashion (positive or zero) using standard GLM procedures. Parameters refer to the following covariates: δ1: host age, δ2: the natural logarithm of female worm burden and δ3: the natural logarithm of female mean weight. Parameters significantly different from 0: * p-value < 0.05, ** p-value < 0.01, ***p-value < 0.001.
Comparison of models describing density dependence in the mean weight of female Ascaris lumbricoides
| Population | Model | Model equation | Model description | Test | LRS | AIC | |
| Baseline | A | no density dependence | - | - | - | 4671.33 | |
| B | limitation | A vs. B | 43.36 | <0.0001 | 4631.97 | ||
| C† | facilitation preceding limitation | B vs. C | 38.05 | <0.0001 | 4597.91 | ||
| 1st re-infection | A | no density dependence | - | - | - | 2314.29 | |
| B | limitation | A vs. B | 18.98 | <0.0001 | 2299.31 | ||
| C† | facilitation preceding limitation | B vs. C | 17.99 | <0.0001 | 2285.32 | ||
| 2nd re-infection | A | no density dependence | - | - | - | 1976.29 | |
| B | limitation | A vs. B | 12.36 | 0.0021 | 1967.93 | ||
| C† | facilitation preceding limitation | B vs. C | 6.18 | 0.046 | 1965.75 | ||
Comparison of the goodness-of-fit of special cases of the generalised equation [equation (2)] describing the relationship between the expected value of the per host mean weight of female Ascaris, μ, and the per host female worm burden, n, using a likelihood ratio test and AIC; p-values were calculated assuming that the LRS follows, under the null hypothesis, a chi-square distribution with 1 d.f. † denotes the best-fit of each model type in each population.
Figure 5The best-fit relationship between the per host mean weight of female . The best-fit functional relationships (as determined by the LRS, Table 6) between the per host mean weight of female Ascaris and the female worm burden in the baseline (A), 1st (B), and 2nd (C) re-infection populations. The solid red line is the best-fit to children (age ≤ 12 years) and the broken blue line to teenagers and adults (age > 12 years). The best-fit function is given by equation (2) and represents a pattern of initial facilitation followed by limitation. Circular and square data points are grouped means for children and teenagers and adults respectively. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
Comparison of models describing the per host net egg output
| Population | Model type | Model | Test | LRS | d.f. | AIC | |
| Baseline | Negative binomial | 1 | - | - | - | - | 24679.09 |
| 2 | 1 vs. 2 | 50.87 | 1 | <0.0001 | 24630.21 | ||
| 3† | 2 vs. 3 | 8.35 | 1 | 0.0039 | 24623.86 | ||
| 4 | 3 vs. 4 | 0.02 | 1 | 0.89 | 24625.84 | ||
| Zero-inflated negative binomial | 1I | - | - | - | - | 23990.51 | |
| 2I | 1 vs. 2 | 26.89 | 1 | <0.0001 | 23965.62 | ||
| 3I | 2 vs. 3 | 0.41 | 1 | 0.52 | 23967.20 | ||
| 4I† | 3 vs. 4 | 6.04 | 1 | 0.014 | 23963.17 | ||
| 2 vs. 4 | 6.45 | 2 | 0.049 | ||||
| 1st re-infection | Negative binomial | 1 | - | - | - | - | 14404.20 |
| 2 | 1 vs. 2 | 44.42 | 1 | <0.0001 | 14361.78 | ||
| 3 | 2 vs. 3 | 4.06 | 1 | 0.044 | 14359.72 | ||
| 4† | 3 vs. 4 | 4.50 | 1 | 0.025 | 14356.72 | ||
| Zero-inflated negative binomial | 1I | - | - | - | - | 14043.52 | |
| 2I† | 1 vs. 2 | 24.52 | 1 | <0.0001 | 14020.97 | ||
| 3I | 2 vs. 3 | 0.25 | 1 | 0.62 | 14022.73 | ||
| 4I | 3 vs. 4 | 0.68 | 1 | 0.41 | 14024.04 | ||
| 2nd re-infection | Negative binomial | 1 | - | - | - | - | 11050.10 |
| 2 | 1 vs. 2 | 24.11 | 1 | <0.0001 | 11027.99 | ||
| 3† | 2 vs. 3 | 5.93 | 1 | 0.015 | 11024.06 | ||
| 4 | 3 vs. 4 | 1.72 | 1 | 0.19 | 11024.33 | ||
| Zero-inflated negative binomial | 1I | - | - | - | - | 10715.26 | |
| 2I† | 1 vs. 2 | 7.24 | 1 | 0.0071 | 10710.02 | ||
| 3I | 2 vs. 3 | 0.22 | 1 | 0.65 | 10711.81 | ||
| 4I | 3 vs. 4 | 0.56 | 1 | 0.46 | 10713.26 | ||
The goodness-of-fit of all NB and ZINB models fitted to the data assessed by the LRS and AIC. † denotes the best-fit of each model type in each population. Model equations are given in Table 4.
Parameter estimates from the null and best-fit statistical models describing per host net egg output
| Negative binomial count component parameters | Bernoulli component parameters | |||||||||||
| Population | Model | ln( | ||||||||||
| Baseline | 1 (null) | 5.98*** | -0.14* | 0.79*** | - | - | - | 0.61 | - | - | - | - |
| 3 (best-fit) | 6.18*** | -0.29*** | 00.74*** | 0.20*** | -0.046** | - | 0.63 | - | - | - | - | |
| 1I (null) | 6.25*** | -0.20*** | 0.70*** | - | - | - | 1.08 | 0.49* | -0.23 | -1.02*** | -1.78*** | |
| 4I (best-fit) | 6.26*** | -0.28*** | 0.70*** | 0.18*** | -0.00062 | -0.015* | 1.10 | 0.49* | -0.23 | -1.01*** | -1.78*** | |
| 1st re-infection | 1 (null) | 5.08*** | 0.023 | 1.12*** | - | - | - | 0.82 | - | - | - | - |
| 4 (best-fit) | 5.17*** | -0.051 | 1.11*** | 0.19** | -0.082** | 0.039* | 0.86 | - | - | - | - | |
| 1I (null) | 5.31*** | 0.024 | 1.02*** | - | - | - | 1.28 | 0.91* | 0.52 | -2.00*** | -2.65*** | |
| 2I (best-fit) | 5.28*** | -0.027 | 1.04*** | 0.18*** | - | - | 1.31 | 0.91* | 0.51 | -2.00*** | -2.64*** | |
| 2nd re-infection | 1 (null) | 5.71*** | -0.17 | 0.81*** | - | - | - | 0.71 | - | - | - | - |
| 3 (best-fit) | 5.77*** | -0.23* | 0.82*** | 0.27*** | -0.078* | - | 0.74 | - | - | - | - | |
| 1I (null) | 5.95*** | -0.14 | 0.71*** | - | - | - | 1.23 | 0.63 | 1.07** | -1.62*** | -2.56*** | |
| 2I (best-fit) | 5.92*** | -0.19* | 0.72*** | 0.11** | - | - | 1.24 | 0.63 | 1.07** | -1.63*** | -2.56*** | |
Estimated parameter values from the best-fit NB and ZINB models in each population. Parameters significantly different from 0: * p-value < 0.05, ** p-value < 0.01, ***p-value < 0.001. Model equations are given in Table 4.
Observed and predicted percentage of zero counts from the NB and ZINB models
| Population | Observed percentage zero counts | Predicted percentage zero counts | ||
| NB Model | ZINB Model | |||
| Count component | Bernoulli component | |||
| Baseline | 7.12% | 0.80% | 0.039% | 7.16% |
| 1st re-infection | 5.49% | 0.36% | 0.033% | 5.47% |
| 2nd re-infection | 6.66% | 0.58% | 0.030% | 6.64% |
Figure 6Comparison of the fit of a log-normal and zero-truncated negative binomial model. A: The estimated variance-to-mean relationship from the zero-truncated negative binomial model (black thick line) and the log-normal model (black thin line). B: The fitted zero-truncated (thick lines) and log-normal (thin lines) models to data from children (red solid line) and teenagers and adults (blue broken line) in the baseline population. In both figures red circles represent grouped mean data from children and blue squares from teenagers and adults (as defined in Figure 5). Details of the variance-to-mean relationship for the log-normal and zero-truncated negative binomial models are given in additional file 1.