4.5 Article

Epidemiological and evolutionary consequences of life-history trade-offs in pathogens

期刊

PLANT PATHOLOGY
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 96-105

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ppa.12129

关键词

aggressiveness; cost of virulence; fitness; gene-for-gene; infectivity; plant-pathogen interactions

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [250444, 136393]
  2. European Research Council (PATHEVOL) [281517]
  3. Academy of Finland (AKA) [136393, 136393] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)
  4. European Research Council (ERC) [281517] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trade-offs in life-history traits are a central tenet in evolutionary biology, yet their ubiquity and relevance to realized fitness of populations remains questioned. Trade-offs in pathogens are of particular interest because they may constrain the evolution and epidemiology of diseases. Here, studies that have measured life-history trade-offs in pathogens (fungi, oomycetes and viruses) of agricultural crops, as well as pathogens attacking wild host plants, are reviewed. The majority of studies report a penalty associated with high virulence as is evidenced by lower performance during subsequent life-history stages. However, costs are not pervasive, and the strength and even shape of life-history correlations can vary according to host genotype, and abiotic environment. Importantly, life-history trade-offs are shown to have profound epidemiological implications ranging from lower disease prevalence of strains harbouring unnecessary virulence, to increased extinction risk at the metapopulation level. From an evolutionary perspective, costs of virulence are shown to constrain the range of R genes, and hence host genotypes, a given strain can adapt to. Moreover, costs of virulence play an important role in limiting the host range of pathogens. Hence, analysis of pathogen life history plays a key role in identifying means of battling disease, from breeding durable resistance to epidemiological intervention strategies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据