| Literature DB >> 27683363 |
Stephen J Price1, Trenton W J Garner2, Andrew A Cunningham2, Tom E S Langton3, Richard A Nichols4.
Abstract
There have been few reconstructions of wildlife disease emergences, despite their extensive impact on biodiversity and human health. This is in large part attributable to the lack of structured and robust spatio-temporal datasets. We overcame logistical problems of obtaining suitable information by using data from a citizen science project and formulating spatio-temporal models of the spread of a wildlife pathogen (genus Ranavirus, infecting amphibians). We evaluated three main hypotheses for the rapid increase in disease reports in the UK: that outbreaks were being reported more frequently, that climate change had altered the interaction between hosts and a previously widespread pathogen, and that disease was emerging due to spatial spread of a novel pathogen. Our analysis characterized localized spread from nearby ponds, consistent with amphibian dispersal, but also revealed a highly significant trend for elevated rates of additional outbreaks in localities with higher human population density-pointing to human activities in also spreading the virus. Phylogenetic analyses of pathogen genomes support the inference of at least two independent introductions into the UK. Together these results point strongly to humans repeatedly translocating ranaviruses into the UK from other countries and between UK ponds, and therefore suggest potential control measures.Entities:
Keywords: anthropogenic drivers; citizen science; pathogen pollution; ranavirus; spatio-temporal models; wildlife disease
Year: 2016 PMID: 27683363 PMCID: PMC5046891 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2016.0952
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Biol Sci ISSN: 0962-8452 Impact factor: 5.349
Figure 1.Visualization of UK ranavirus-consistent mortality events in time (1992–2010) and space (a–d) and non-consistent frog mortality reports for the same period (e–h). (Online version in colour.)
Figure 5.UK Ranavirus diversity in a global context. Monophyly of UK ranaviruses requires inclusion of Chinese and North American viruses. The tree was constructed from seven concatenated multiple sequence alignments [8]. Node support values are annotated on the Bayesian tree and calculated using maximum likelihood (bootstraps, bottom) and Bayesian inference (posterior probabilities, top) under a GTR model of molecular evolution. Scale of branch lengths is in nucleotide substitutions/site. UK viruses are labelled in blue and labels start ‘RUK’ or ‘BUK’. Additional sequences included are Frog virus 3 (FV3, AY548484), Tiger frog virus (TFV, AF389451), Ambystoma tigrinum virus (ATV, AY150217), Epizootic hematopoietic necrosis virus (EHNV, FJ433873), Soft-shelled turtle iridovirus (STIV, NC012637), Rana grylio virus (RGV, JQ654586), European sheatfish virus (ESV, JQ724856), Chinese giant salamander virus (ADRV, KC865735), Common midwife toad virus (CMTV, JQ231222), Bosca's newt virus (accession numbers for individual loci as [8]). (Online version in colour.)
Figure 2.Regional variation in main covariates averaged across study period, 1991–2010 (a) human population density (people per square kilometre) and (b) mean maximum daily temperature (°C).
Spatio-temporal model summaries (two-component models with power-law spatial interaction function or endemic component only) for each of the endemic covariates. All models include the number of ‘negative’ records (see text) as an offset to control for reporting effort and represent the ‘population at risk’.
| model class | log-likelihood | AIC | endemic covariate | coefficient | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| population density | −16 529 | 33 072 | pop. density | <2 × 10−16 | 4.89 × 10−4 |
| temperature | −16 633 | 33 279 | av. max. temp | 0.97 | 4.17 × 10−3 |
| population density + temperature | −16 526 | 33 068 | pop. density | <2 × 10−16 | 4.47 × 10−4 |
| population density in both components | −16 529 | 33 074 | endemic pop. density | <2 × 10−16 | 4.95 × 10−4 |
| population density × free school meals | −16 452 | 32 922 | pop. density | <2 × 10−16 | 1.74 × 10−3 |
| population density | −18 952 | 37 910 | pop. density | <2 × 10−16 | 4.58 × 10−4 |
| temperature | −19 138 | 38 283 | av. max. temp | <2 × 10−16 | 9.92 × 10−1 |
| population density + temperature | −18 766 | 37 540 | pop. density | <2 × 10−16 | 3.70 × 10−4 |
| population density × free school meals | −18 689 | 37 388 | pop. density | <2 × 10−16 | 1.31 × 10−3 |
Figure 3.Comparison of model performance assessed by Akaike information criterion (AIC). Models featuring main covariates—population density (vertical line marked ‘popden’) and mean maximum daily temperature (vertical line marked ‘climate’)—are compared with the extension of the population density model including the interaction with the proportion of school students receiving free school meals (vertical line marked ‘popden*fsm’). All models are compared to 500 iterations of the population density model where each iteration used a unique randomization of region to the population density data as input (bars of histogram). (Online version in colour.)
Figure 4.Comparison of spatial point pattern for real versus simulated data for 100 simulations from the fitted population density model with no data provided as pre-history. Intensity of shading represents the number of observations of ranavirus outbreaks in the region. Triangles indicate regions where simulations overestimated (red triangle points up) or underestimated (blue triangle points down) the real data. Regions where the real data fall inside 95% range of 100 realizations of the simulated model have no triangle. (Online version in colour.)