4.7 Article

Mortality trajectory analysis reveals the drivers of sex-specific epidemiology in natural wildlife - disease interactions

Journal

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2014.0526

Keywords

sex differences; disease; Bayesian; survival analysis; badgers; tuberculosis

Funding

  1. National Environment Research Council
  2. UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [966544, NE/L007770/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. NERC [NE/L007770/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In animal populations, males are commonly more susceptible to disease-induced mortality than females. However, three competing mechanisms can cause this sex bias: weak males may simultaneously be more prone to exposure to infection and mortality; being 'male' may be an imperfect proxy for the underlying driver of disease-induced mortality; or males may experience increased severity of disease-induced effects compared with females. Here, we infer the drivers of sex-specific epidemiology by decomposing fixed mortality rates into mortality trajectories and comparing their parameters. We applied Bayesian survival trajectory analysis to a 22-year longitudinal study of a population of badgers (Meles meles) naturally infected with bovine tuberculosis (bTB). At the point of infection, infected male and female badgers had equal mortality risk, refuting the hypothesis that acquisition of infection occurs in males with coincidentally high mortality. Males and females exhibited similar levels of heterogeneity in mortality risk, refuting the hypothesis that maleness is only a proxy for disease susceptibility. Instead, sex differences were caused by a more rapid increase in male mortality rates following infection. Males are indeed more susceptible to bTB, probably due to immunological differences between the sexes. We recommend this mortality trajectory approach for the study of infection in animal populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available