| Literature DB >> 23071552 |
Brendan D Cowled1, Michael P Ward, Shawn W Laffan, Francesca Galea, M Graeme Garner, Anna J MacDonald, Ian Marsh, Petra Muellner, Katherine Negus, Sumaiya Quasim, Andrew P Woolnough, Stephen D Sarre.
Abstract
Infectious wildlife diseases have enormous global impacts, leading to human pandemics, global biodiversity declines and socio-economic hardship. Understanding how infection persists and is transmitted in wildlife is critical for managing diseases, but our understanding is limited. Our study aim was to better understand how infectious disease persists in wildlife populations by integrating genetics, ecology and epidemiology approaches. Specifically, we aimed to determine whether environmental or host factors were stronger drivers of Salmonella persistence or transmission within a remote and isolated wild pig (Sus scrofa) population. We determined the Salmonella infection status of wild pigs. Salmonella isolates were genotyped and a range of data was collected on putative risk factors for Salmonella transmission. We a priori identified several plausible biological hypotheses for Salmonella prevalence (cross sectional study design) versus transmission (molecular case series study design) and fit the data to these models. There were 543 wild pig Salmonella observations, sampled at 93 unique locations. Salmonella prevalence was 41% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 37-45%). The median Salmonella DICE coefficient (or Salmonella genetic similarity) was 52% (interquartile range [IQR]: 42-62%). Using the traditional cross sectional prevalence study design, the only supported model was based on the hypothesis that abundance of available ecological resources determines Salmonella prevalence in wild pigs. In the molecular study design, spatial proximity and herd membership as well as some individual risk factors (sex, condition score and relative density) determined transmission between pigs. Traditional cross sectional surveys and molecular epidemiological approaches are complementary and together can enhance understanding of disease ecology: abundance of ecological resources critical for wildlife influences Salmonella prevalence, whereas Salmonella transmission is driven by local spatial, social, density and individual factors, rather than resources. This enhanced understanding has implications for the control of diseases in wildlife populations. Attempts to manage wildlife disease using simplistic density approaches do not acknowledge the complexity of disease ecology.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23071552 PMCID: PMC3465323 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046310
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1The study area.
The inset shows the study area in the context of the Australian continent. The solid and dashed lines represent major and minor drainage lines respectively. The dots represent sampling locations.
Data description and hypotheses for Salmonella persistence and transmission in wild pigs (Sus scrofa) modelled using both the cross sectional prevalence study design and molecular case series study design.
| Hypothesis | Rationale |
| Density of hosts | Numerous authors have presented transmission models |
| Environmental contamination |
|
| Host immunity | There are many reasons to assume that individual animal factors such as sex, age and dominance can affect prevalence of infection |
| Resources | Under the hot semi arid conditions of the study area, critical resources for wild pigs are water |
| Social interaction | We assumed that pigs that were more related would have greater physical contact and hence transmit |
Akaike information criterion (AIC) values and other model selection metrics for cross sectional prevalence logistic regression models using information theoretic approaches [29].
| Model | Parameters (K) | Bias corrected AIC (AICc) | AICc differences (Δ) | Relative likelihood (evidence ratio) | Probability (Akaike weight) |
| Resource driven contact | 10 | 699.8 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.994 |
| Environmental contamination | 8 | 710.9 | 11.1 | 251.7 | 0.004 |
| Density dependant | 6 | 712.1 | 12.2 | 455.6 | 0.002 |
| Host immunity | 6 | 713.6 | 13.7 | 964.5 | 0.001 |
The probability of the resource transmission model is very high (>0.99) and clearly the data support this model. Models are listed in AIC ranked order for each study design.
Akaike information criterion (AIC) values and other model selection metrics for molecular case series linear models using information theoretic approaches [29].
| Model | Parameters (K) | Bias corrected AIC (AICc) | AICc differences (Δ) | Relative likelihood (evidence ratio) | Probability (Akaike weight) |
| Host immunity | 6 | 339132.1 | 0.0 | 0.98 | 0.580 |
| Resource driven contact | 11 | 339132.7 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.420 |
| Environmental contamination | 8 | 339218.0 | 85.9 | 4.4×1018 | 0.000 |
| Genetic relatedness model | 5 | 339284.7 | 152.6 | 1.4×1033 | 0.000 |
| Density dependant | 7 | 339735.4 | 603.3 | 1.0×10131 | 0.000 |
The probability of both the resources and host immunity models is high rather than the other hypothesised mechanisms of transmission. Models are listed in AIC ranked order for each study design.
Resource hypothesis model formulation and coefficient estimates for cross sectional prevalence study design.
| Model | Parameter | Coefficient estimate | Standard error | Z value | P value | Odds ratio |
| log [π÷(1−π)] = β1+β2CS+β3DS+β4 |ΔEVI|+β5HS+β6NWB+β7DW+β8DP+β9X+β10Y+r.eff.(location) Calibration: le Cessie-van Houwelingen goodness of fit test (Z = 0.2, P = 0.8) Validation: AUC 0.7 Pseudo r2 = 14% | (Intercept) | 12.04 | 143.76 | 0.08 | 0.93 | … |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Herd size (HS) | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.61 | 0.54 | 1.01 | |
| No. water bodies (NWB) | 0.06 | 0.05 | 1.26 | 0.21 | 1.06 | |
| Wallaby herd density (DW) | 0.38 | 0.38 | 1.00 | 0.32 | 1.46 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| X coordinate (X) | −0.34 | 0.90 | −0.38 | 0.71 | 0.71 | |
| Y coordinate (Y) | −1.60 | 2.29 | −0.70 | 0.49 | 0.20 |
Random effects terms for herd, and fixed effect covariates for latitude and longitude were included to control clustering of data and spatial trends or autocorrelation.
These covariates were transformed (normalised z = (x−μ)÷σ) to yield more interpretable odds ratios.
Resource hypothesis model formulation and coefficient estimates for molecular case series study design.
| Model | Parameter | Coefficient estimate | Standard error | Z value | P value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |Dist. to streams| (|DS|) | −0.22 | 0.16 | −1.33 | 0.098 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |EVI decline| (|ΔEVI|) | 0.00 | 0.00 | −0.46 | 0.303 | |
| |Herd Size| (|HS|) | −0.02 | 0.01 | −1.31 | 0.107 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |water bodies| (|WB|) | 0.07 | 0.06 | 1.29 | 0.088 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A fixed effect (indicator) covariate for herd and the distance between two pigs were included to control clustering and spatial autocorrelation.
Host immunity hypothesis model formulation and coefficient estimates for molecular case series study designs.
| Model | Parameter | Coefficient estimate | Standard error | Z value | P value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A fixed effect (indicator) covariate for herd and the distance between two pigs were included to control clustering and spatial autocorrelation.