| Literature DB >> 25102068 |
Francois Rebaudo1, Jane Costa2, Carlos E Almeida3, Jean-Francois Silvain1, Myriam Harry4, Olivier Dangles5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the mechanisms that influence the population dynamics and spatial genetic structure of the vectors of pathogens infecting humans is a central issue in tropical epidemiology. In view of the rapid changes in the features of landscape pathogen vectors live in, this issue requires new methods that consider both natural and human systems and their interactions. In this context, individual-based model (IBM) simulations represent powerful yet poorly developed approaches to explore the response of pathogen vectors in heterogeneous social-ecological systems, especially when field experiments cannot be performed. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25102068 PMCID: PMC4125301 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003068
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Figure 1Study landscape (A) and matrix representation of the landscape in simAdapt (B).
The different habitat types, roads and lakes are represented by different colors. The black triangles represent the location of sample points from the field data in the Caicó municipality in Northeastern Brazil.
Initialization of state variables in the SimAdapt model.
| Description | Value | Justification/References |
|
| ||
| Growth rate of the logistic model | 0.3 |
|
| * Migration rate ( | [0.1:1.0] |
|
| * Maximum dispersal distance ( | [1:5] |
|
| * Attraction by domestic habitat ( | [1:10] |
|
|
| ||
| Number of microsatellites loci | 7 |
|
| Heterozygosity at initialization ( | 0.5±0.2 | To fit the field sample |
| Mutation rate for microsatellites | 10e-4 | Default value |
| Number of loci under selection per habitat type | 1 | Default value |
| Coefficients of selection ( | s = 0.2h = 0.5 | Assumption for codominance and strong selection (prospective scenarios only) |
|
| ||
| Carrying capacity matrix for the logistic growth model (adults) | 50 | Based on field sample |
| Resistance matrix for emigration | Heterogeneous | To fit the landscape |
| Habitat type matrix for natural selection | [1:3] | To fit the landscape |
| Location and number of individuals at initialization | everywhere(50 adult individuals) | To fit the field sample |
| Scenario of landscape change | Deforestation and urbanization |
|
|
| ||
| Virtual sampling | Population sampled without replacement | According to field sampling design |
| Number of individuals sampled per sampling point | 25 | According to field sampling design |
| Number of points sampled | 5 | According to field sampling design |
|
| ||
| Number of repetitions per simulation | 30 | To account for stochasticity |
| Number of generations per simulation | 100 | Time to stabilize |
| Output files format | ARLEQUIN (Arlecore) | To fit the field sample analyzes |
The three variables studied in this paper are highlighted with an asterisk at the beginning of the first column.
Pairwise fixation index (FST) between sampling points A, B, C, D and E (in bold italic when the associated p-value was below 0.05), for the observed dataset in the Caicó municipality in Northeastern Brazil.
| A | B | C | D | E | |
| A | 0 | ||||
| B |
| 0 | |||
| C |
|
| 0 | ||
| D | 0.00635 | 0.00852 |
| 0 | |
| E | 0.00000 |
|
|
| 0 |
Figure 2Validation of the model initialization using the response of FST to migration rate.
FSTs between sampling points (from left to right for each migration rate: AB, AC, AD, AE, BC, BD, BE, CD, CE, DE), are represented as a function of migration rate from 0.1 to 1. Simulated results are represented using boxplots of 30 repetitions, for all values of dispersal distance (d ranging from 1 to 5 by 1), i.e. 150 pairwise FST values per boxplot. The theoretical expectation is represented by a solid grey line (FST ≈ 1/(4Nm+1) with N = 50 and m ranging continuously from 0 to 1).
Figure 3Goodness of fit between observed and simulated FST for T. brasiliensis in Northeastern Brazil.
The red from blue color gradient represents an Akima interpolation of the least-square optimization between observed and simulated FST for different values of vector migration rate, dispersal distance and domestic habitat attraction. FST were computed using Arlequin over the 10 couples of sampled points. Sets of simulations were repeated 30 times for each value of migration rate (m index ranging from 0.1 to 1 by 0.1), dispersal distance (d ranging from 2 to 10 km by 2 km) and domestic habitat attraction (l index ranging from 0 to 10 by 2). The plot is represented using mean values with a gradient from blue (high value, i.e., poor fit), to red (low value, i.e., good fit).
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the effect of migration rate, dispersal distance, and domestic habitat attraction on FST.
| Df | Sum Sq | Mean Sq | F value | p-value | |
| migration rate (m) | 1 | 22.725 | 22.725 | 67252 | <0.05 |
| dispersal distance (d) | 1 | 0.097 | 0.097 | 288 | <0.05 |
| domestic habitat attraction (l) | 1 | 2.960 | 2.960 | 8759 | <0.05 |
| interaction m:d | 1 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 35 | <0.05 |
| interaction m:l | 1 | 0.053 | 0.053 | 157 | <0.05 |
| Residuals | 89982 | 30.406 | 0.0003 |
FST were computed between the 10 couples of locations for the 300 parameters combinations, with 30 repetitions per combination.
Comparison of FST values between simulated and observed data using One-sample Student tests.
| Couples of sampled locations |
|
|
|
| Tmean |
|
|
| [0.1:1] | [1:5] | [0:10] | 0.113 (29%) | 5.67 | 29 |
| 0.6 | 3 | 2 | 0.867 | −0.17 | 29 | |
|
| [0.1:1] | [1:5] | [0:10] | 0.077 (20%) | 4.50 | 29 |
| 0.6 | 3 | 2 | 0.06 | −1.96 | 29 | |
| AD | [0.1:1] | [1:5] | [0:10] | <0.01 (0%) | 14.18 | 29 |
| 0.6 | 3 | 2 | <0.01 | 13.03 | 29 | |
| AE | [0.1:1] | [1:5] | [0:10] | <0.01 (0%) | 25.14 | 29 |
| 0.6 | 3 | 2 | <0.01 | 23.06 | 29 | |
|
| [0.1:1] | [1:5] | [0:10] | 0.097 (28%) | 5.38 | 29 |
| 0.6 | 3 | 2 | 0.325 | −1.00 | 29 | |
| BD | [0.1:1] | [1:5] | [0:10] | <0.01 (0%) | 14.98 | 29 |
| 0.6 | 3 | 2 | <0.01 | 12.66 | 29 | |
|
| [0.1:1] | [1:5] | [0:10] | 0.030 (9%) | 8.12 | 29 |
| 0.6 | 3 | 2 | 0.624 | 0.49 | 29 | |
| CD | [0.1:1] | [1:5] | [0:10] | 0.038 (10%) | −4.26 | 29 |
| 0.6 | 3 | 2 | <0.01 | −12.03 | 29 | |
|
| [0.1:1] | [1:5] | [0:10] | 0.020 (5%) | 9.00 | 29 |
| 0.6 | 3 | 2 | 0.864 | 0.17 | 29 | |
| DE | [0.1:1] | [1:5] | [0:10] | 0.008 (3%) | 16.37 | 29 |
| 0.6 | 3 | 2 | <0.01 | 10.08 | 29 |
For each couple of sampled locations, the first line represents average values for all combinations of parameters (m, d and l) with the percentage of significant combinations between brackets, and the second line for m = 0.6, d = 3 and l = 2. Couples of sampled locations significantly explained by this parameterization are shown in bold with an asterisk.
Figure 4Evolution of FST through time between two sampled locations.
Each point represents the mean of 30 repetitions. Curves were fitted to the general form of a sigmoid function using nls function in R. The different colors corresponds to scenarios with selection and with land-use change (in black); with selection and without land-use change (in red); without selection and without land-use change (in blue); and without selection and with land-use change (in grey).