| Literature DB >> 30836982 |
Elodie Portanier1,2,3, Mathieu Garel4, Sébastien Devillard5, Daniel Maillard4, Jocelyn Poissant6, Maxime Galan7, Slimania Benabed8, Marie-Thérèse Poirel8, Jeanne Duhayer4, Christian Itty4, Gilles Bourgoin5,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parasite infections can have substantial impacts on population dynamics and are accordingly a key challenge for wild population management. Here we studied genetic mechanisms driving parasite resistance in a large herbivore through a comprehensive approach combining measurements of neutral (16 microsatellites) and adaptive (MHC DRB1 exon 2) genetic diversity and two types of gastrointestinal parasites (nematodes and coccidia).Entities:
Keywords: Coccidia; Gastro-intestinal nematodes; Heterozygosity-fitness correlations; Immunocompetence; MHC
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30836982 PMCID: PMC6402107 DOI: 10.1186/s12898-019-0228-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ecol ISSN: 1472-6785 Impact factor: 2.964
DRB1 alleles, genotypes and number of individuals in each class (n)
| Genotype |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alleles | *0324/*0324 | *0324/*07012 | *0324/*0114 | *07012/*07012 | *07012/*0114 | *0114/*0114 |
|
| 44 | 29 | 31 | 7 | 7 | 2 |
Model selection of mixed-effects models based on corrected Akaike’s Information Criterion (AICc) for testing the effects of sMLH and DRB1 gene on parasite resistance as measured by FOC and FEC
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
| 9 | 379.11 | 0.00 | 0.191 | all |
| 10 | 379.53 | 0.42 | 0.154 | ii | |
| 10 | 380.07 | 0.97 | 0.117 | ii | |
| 10 | 381.08 | 1.97 | 0.071 | i | |
| 10 | 381.27 | 2.16 | 0.065 | all | |
| 10 | 381.48 | 2.38 | 0.058 | ii | |
| 11 | 381.61 | 2.51 | 0.054 | ii | |
| 11 | 381.73 | 2.63 | 0.051 | ii | |
| 11 | 381.85 | 2.74 | 0.048 | ii | |
| 11 | 382.30 | 3.19 | 0.039 | ii | |
| 11 | 382.50 | 3.40 | 0.035 | ii | |
| 11 | 383.26 | 4.16 | 0.024 | i | |
| 11 | 383.67 | 4.57 | 0.019 | ii | |
| 12 | 383.96 | 4.85 | 0.017 | ii | |
| 12 | 384.00 | 4.90 | 0.016 | ii | |
| 12 | 384.06 | 4.96 | 0.016 | ii | |
| 12 | 384.78 | 5.67 | 0.011 | ii | |
| 13 | 386.21 | 7.11 | 0.005 | iii | |
| 13 | 386.38 | 7.27 | 0.005 | ii | |
| 14 | 388.65 | 9.54 | 0.002 | iii | |
|
| |||||
| 8 | 378.34 | 0.00 | 0.298 | i | |
| 8 | 379.61 | 1.28 | 0.158 | ii | |
| 9 | 380.61 | 2.27 | 0.096 | ii | |
| 10 | 381.07 | 2.73 | 0.076 | ii | |
| 7 | 381.52 | 3.18 | 0.061 | ii | |
| 6 | 381.61 | 3.28 | 0.058 | ii | |
| 9 | 381.65 | 3.31 | 0.057 | ii | |
| 6 | 382.33 | 3.99 | 0.041 | i | |
| 8 | 382.44 | 4.11 | 0.038 | ii | |
| 7 | 382.90 | 4.56 | 0.030 | all | |
| 11 | 383.27 | 4.93 | 0.025 | iii | |
| 7 | 383.85 | 5.51 | 0.019 | ii | |
| 9 | 384.73 | 6.40 | 0.012 | iii | |
| 8 | 384.87 | 6.54 | 0.011 | ii | |
| 8 | 385.19 | 6.85 | 0.010 | ii | |
| 9 | 387.04 | 8.70 | 0.004 | ii | |
|
| 5 | 387.61 | 9.27 | 0.003 | all |
| 6 | 389.07 | 10.73 | 0.001 | ii | |
| 6 | 389.63 | 11.30 | 0.001 | ii | |
| 7 | 391.33 | 12.99 | 0.000 | ii | |
Three sets of genetic models have been tested on FOC and FEC including either (i) the effects of sMLH and DRB1 heterozygosity status (HDRB), (ii) the effects of sMLH and the presence of specific DRB1 alleles or (iii) the effects of sMLH and DRB1genotypes (G_DRB1). d.f. are the degree of freedom, weight is the Akaike weight. NG stands for the non-genetic variables retained from the first step of the modeling approach (see Additional file 1). R1, R2 and R3 stand for DRB1 *0324, DRB1*07012 * and DRB1*0114 alleles, respectively
Fig. 1Predicted GINs burdens (FEC) values as a function of scaled sMLH from each best genetic model in each model set: (i) sMLH + DRB1 heterozygosity status, (ii) sMLH + presence of DRB1*0114 allele and (iii) sMLH + DRB1genotypes. Black lines represent predicted values and grey bands represent the 95% confidence interval. Upper and lower ticks represent the number of positive and negative residuals, respectively
Model estimates and goodness of fit (R2c and R2m) of the best genetic model for model sets (i) testing the effects of sMLH and DRB1 heterozygosity status (HDRB), (ii) testing the effects of sMLH and the presence of specific DRB1 alleles and (iii) testing the effects of MLH and DRB1genotypes (G_DRB1) on FEC
| β ± SE |
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.44 | 0.27 | |||
| Intercept | 6.10 ± 0.17 | ||||
| Body condition | − 0.48 ± 0.11 | − 4.24 | *** | ||
| sMLH | − 1.01 ± 1.23 | − 0.82 | |||
| sMLH2 | 3.36 ± 1.19 | 2.80 | ** | ||
| HDRB | − 0.61 ± 0.24 | − 2.60 | * | ||
|
| 0.45 | 0.28 | |||
| Intercept | 5.95 ± 0.14 | ||||
| Body condition | − 0.51 ± 0.11 | − 4.49 | *** | ||
| sMLH | − 0.67 ± 1.26 | − 0.54 | |||
| sMLH2 | 3.07 ± 1.23 | 2.50 | * | ||
| DRB1*0114 | − 0.63 ± 0.27 | − 2.33 | * | ||
|
| 0.46 | 0.28 | |||
| Intercept | 6.08 ± 0.19 | ||||
| Body condition | − 0.49 ± 0.12 | − 4.28 | *** | ||
| sMLH | − 0.77 ± 1.26 | − 0.61 | |||
| sMLH2 | 3.10 ± 1.30 | 2.39 | * | ||
| G_DRB1 B | − 0.41 ± 0.30 | − 1.38 | |||
| G_DRB1 C | − 0.87 ± 0.31 | − 2.77 | ** | ||
| G_DRB1 D | 0.14 ± 0.53 | 0.27 | |||
| G_DRB1 E | − 0.39 ± 0.51 | − 0.76 |
sMLH is the standardized multilocus heterozygosity. Non-genetic terms were retained in the first step of the modeling approach (see main text). P-values are coded by asterisks: “***” for p < 0.001, “**” for p < 0.01, “*” for p < 0.05
Fig. 2Predicted GINs burden (FEC) values obtained from best genetic models for (a) DRB1 heterozygous and homozygous individuals, (b) for individuals carrying or not carrying the DRB1*0114 allele or (c) individuals carrying one of the DRB1 genotype. Black lines represent predicted values and grey bands represent the 95% confidence interval. Upper and lower ticks represent the number of positive and negative residuals, respectively