| Literature DB >> 26286391 |
Carmit Cohen1, Monica Einav2, Hadas Hawlena3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The parasite composition of wild host individuals often impacts their behavior and physiology, and the transmission dynamics of pathogenic species thereby determines disease risk in natural communities. Yet, the determinants of parasite composition in natural communities are still obscure. In particular, three fundamental questions remain open: (1) what are the relative roles of host and environmental characteristics compared with direct interactions between parasites in determining the community composition of parasites? (2) do these determinants affect parasites belonging to the same guild and those belonging to different guilds in similar manners? and (3) can cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses work interchangeably in detecting community determinants? Our study was designed to answer these three questions in a natural community of rodents and their fleas, ticks, and two vector-borne bacteria.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26286391 PMCID: PMC4545369 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-015-1029-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Comparison of models from stage 1
| Response variables included in the model | Dataset and target parasite | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Variable | Cross-sectional | Longitudinal | ||||||
| M | B | S | H | M | B | S | H | ||
| Environment | aTemperature | 0 | 0 | 0.02 | 0 | n/a | n/a | 0 | 0 |
| Host | bAge |
|
|
| 0.2 | n/a |
|
|
|
| bBody condition | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/a | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| bReproductive status |
|
| 0 |
| n/a |
|
|
| |
| Sex |
|
| 0 | 0 | n/a |
|
|
| |
| Vector | bFlea burden | 0 | 0 | n/a | 0 | n/a | 0 | n/a | 0 |
| bTick burden | 0 | 0 | 0 | n/a | n/a | 0 | 0 | n/a | |
| Bacteria |
b
| n/a |
| n/a | n/a | n/a |
| n/a | n/a |
|
b
|
| n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | |
The models explain occurrence/abundance or temporal reduction for each of the four parasitic species in the cross-sectional and longitudinal datasets, respectively. Values are weights (w ) in percentages of Akaike information criterion corrected for sample size—the relative likelihood of the current model, given the data and the set of models. Weights are normalized across the set of candidate models to summate to one, and are interpreted as probabilities. M = Mycoplasma haemomuris-like bacterium, B = Bartonella sp., S = Synosternus cleopatrae fleas, H = Hyalomma impeltatum ticks, n/a = not applicable. The best models (w > 10) are marked in bold and were used for stage 2 (Additional file 1: Table S1, Figure S1)
aFor the longitudinal analyses, we used the between-period temperature differences
bFor both datasets, we used the relevant factor measured in the first period
Fig. 1The best path analysis model for predicting the community composition of parasites as determined by the cross-sectional dataset (model 12 in Additional file 1: Table S1). Arrows represent direct and indirect influences. Numbers on the arrows are standardized path coefficients, representing the relative strength of the given effect (β/SE), which is also reflected by the arrow width. a–d illustrate the directions of the most influential (|β/SE| > 1) direct effects. The dashed arrow represents a relationship that is included in the second best model in addition to the relationships included in model 12 (model 14 in Additional file 1: Table S1)
Fig. 2The best path analysis model for predicting the temporal changes in the community composition of parasites as determined by the longitudinal dataset (model 48 in Additional file 1: Table S1). Arrows represent direct and indirect influences. Numbers on the arrows are standardized path coefficients, representing the relative strength of the given effect (β/SE), which is also reflected by the arrow width. a–e illustrate the directions of the most influential (|β/SE| > 1) direct effects. The dashed arrows represent additional relationships that are included only in the second and third best models (models 49 and 46, respectively, in Additional file 1: Table S1). Asterisks denote relationships that were not included in the second and third best models
Summary of field sampling
| Host characteristics | Total rodents | Infection status | Samples for DNA extraction | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dataset | Age | Sex | Reproductive status | S intensity (prevalence) | H intensity (prevalence) | M Prevalence | aB Prevalence | Blood samples | Flea samples | Tick samples | |
| Cross-sectional | Juveniles | Male | NR | 64 | 8 (98) | 6 (50) | 36 | 95 | 41 | 14 | 5 |
| Female | NR | 67 | 7 (100) | 9 (57) | 24 | 100 | 37 | 16 | 10 | ||
| Adults | Male | NR | 84 | 13(97) | 8 (42) | 77 | 97 | 40 | 16 | 7 | |
| Female | NR | 59 | 16(100) | 7 (54) | 65 | 92 | 37 | 16 | 11 | ||
| Female | R | 65 | 11 (97) | 9 (17) | 95 | 87 | 40 | 0 | 4 | ||
| Longitudinal | Juveniles | Male | NR | 9 | 15(100) | 5(55) | 57 | 86 | 14 | 30 | 2 |
| Female | NR | 13 | 10(100) | 6(58) | 33 | 88 | 18 | 32 | 3 | ||
| Adults | Male | NR | 28 | 15(100) | 7(45) | 87 | 75 | 16 | 32 | 5 | |
| Female | NR | 19 | 15(100) | 5(50) | 44 | 78 | 18 | 32 | 3 | ||
| R | 9 | 15(100) | 7(28) | 87 | 62 | 16 | 0 | 0 | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
Details on the trapped G. andersoni rodents, on the prevalence (percentage of infected/infested hosts) and intensity (mean abundance of ectoparasites per infested host) of their Mycoplasma (M), Bartonella (B), S. cleopatrae (S), and H. impeltatum (H) parasites, and on the samples included in the cross-sectional and the longitudinal datasets
a99% of the hosts were infected by Bartonella; thus we exploited the variability in the intensities of positive PCR bands to distinguish between samples with low (<500 copies per 1 μl of DNA) and high (>500 copies per 1 μl of DNA) Bartonella sp. cell density. This distinction served for the prevalence calculation that in the case of Bartonella, corresponded to the percentage of highly infected hosts
bWe had in total 339 G. andersoni captured in the first period, but 78 of them are relevant to both datasets
cWe had in total only 236 blood samples, but 41 of them are relevant to both datasets
dWe had in total 126 flea samples, but 62 of them are relevant to both datasets
eWe had in total 42 tick samples, but 8 of them are relevant to both datasets