| Literature DB >> 23226245 |
Ilona Merikanto1, Jouni Laakso, Veijo Kaitala.
Abstract
Opportunist saprotrophic pathogens differ from obligatory pathogens due to their capability in host-independent growth in environmental reservoirs. Thus, the outside-host environment potentially influences host-pathogen dynamics. Despite the socio-economical importance of these pathogens, theory on their dynamics is practically missing. We analyzed a novel epidemiological model that couples outside-host density-dependent growth to host-pathogen dynamics. Parameterization was based on columnaris disease, a major hazard in fresh water fish farms caused by saprotrophic Flavobacterium columnare. Stability analysis and numerical simulations revealed that the outside-host growth maintains high proportion of infected individuals, and under some conditions can drive host extinct. The model can show stable or cyclic dynamics, and the outside-host growth regulates the frequency and intensity of outbreaks. This result emerges because the density-dependence stabilizes dynamics. Our analysis demonstrates that coupling of outside-host growth and traditional host-pathogen dynamics has profound influence on disease prevalence and dynamics. This also has implications on the control of these diseases.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23226245 PMCID: PMC3511454 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050158
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Reproduction (r) and mortality values due to infection (μ) for saprotrophic pathogens Flavobacterium columnare and Serratia marcescens and some of their hosts based on experimental studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.4–7.2 day−1
| Atlantic salmon, | 0.2–0.3 day−1
| 0.2–1.7 day−1
|
| Rainbow trout, | 0.2–0.4 day−1
| 0.08–0.4 day−1
| ||
| Brown trout, | 0.01–0.05 day−1
| 0.05–0.34 day−1
| ||
| Chinook salmon, | 0.01–0.05 day−1
| 0.2–4.4 day−1
| ||
| Arctic charr, S | 0.2–0.3 day−1
| 0.2–9.1 day−1
| ||
| Channel catfish, | 0.01–1.0 day−1
| 2.3–19.7 day−1
| ||
| Zebra fish, | 0.2–0.4 day−1
| 15–200 day−1
| ||
|
| 2.4–6 day−1
|
| 0.002–1.0 day−1
| 11–41 day−1
|
In the fish host reproduction rates, the number of eggs produced per kg during a year, average weight range of mature fish and survival rate of eggs to fry has been taken into account.
Parameter values that were used in stability analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Susceptible host growth rate | 0.01 | 0.001–0.5 ( |
|
| Pathogen growth rate outside-host | 0.001–0.5 | 0.06 ( |
|
| Mortality of the susceptible and infected hosts due to other reasons than infection | 10−3 | |
|
| Virulence (Mortality of the infected hosts due to infection) | 0.1 | 0.001–0.5 ( |
|
| Pathogen mortality outside-host | 0.1 | 0.1–0.5 ( |
|
| Pathogen transmission rate to susceptible hosts from environment | 10−5 | |
|
| Pathogen release rate from infected hosts when they die | 105 | 5×103–1.5×105 ( |
|
| Negative influence of pathogen population density on its growth | 10−5 | 0–10−6 ( |
Figure 1Stability of the SIP community dynamics in different combinations of outside-host growth rate of pathogen (r) parameter values and parameter values of a) virulence (μ), b) pathogen mortality outside-host (μ), c) release rate (Λ) and d) susceptible host growth rate (r).
Dark blue: Pathogen population outside-host (P) goes to extinction. Light blue: Susceptible host population (S) goes extinct. Yellow: SIP community dynamics are locally stable. Red: SIP community dynamics are locally unstable. Used parameter values are shown in Table 2.
Figure 2Stabilizing effect of pathogen density-dependent growth in the outside-host environment.
Bifurcation diagrammes indicate mean densities and the minimum and maximum values in the population fluctuations of the pathogen and host after the initial transients in the simulations have been removed. a) Increasing the strength of density-dependence stabilizes the population dynamics at f = 4.2×10−5 (r = 0.06). b) For increasing pathogen growth rate population dynamics stabilize at r = 0.096 while host extinction occurs at r = 0.112. Used parameter values are shown in Table 2.